Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray

Ours is an age in which style and symbolism have replaced substance. Kindly gestures are given when kindly deeds are demanded. The Bible speaks of this empty husk philosophy in these words, “If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?” (Jas. 2:15, 16) “Let us love not in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth” (1 Jn. 3:18).

The physical example is readily recognized, but the Holy Spirit used it to illustrate spiritual truth regarding the nature of faith (Jas. 2). This lesson and its application are needed in the church today. There are those who whine and whimper, “There’s not enough love shown in the Church of Christ.” Who can disagree with that general complaint? Is it ever possible to show too much true love? However, this is not what the whiners mean. Their concept of love is syrupy sentimentalism; it is transparent symbol-ism, not solid, certain substance.

What the complainers desire is preaching that results in an emotional “feel-goodism.” They want worship to be an “experience of joy,” an ecstatic “rush” that makes them feel good about themselves. The term “feel” is a favorite of those “whose god is their belly” (Phil. 3:19). Listen for it. It will help you to discover the essence of their motivation. It is a “touchy-feely” religion. It concentrates on making people “feel good about themselves.” It is concerned with how people “relate” to what they have “experienced.” On the other hand, the gospel strips man of his self esteem; it reduces him to his lowest common denominator; it shows him his naked wretchedness, his bankrupt soul, his blindness and ignorance. It does not stroke his back or sympathetically pat him on the head. No, it pricks him in his heart; it stuns his conscience with remorse and regret. It enlightens his intellect. It does not want a man to “reflect” on how he “relates” to what he “feels.” It causes a man to reason, to understand, to repent and obey (Acts 2:37,38; 8:30,31; 26:18). See chart on page 9.

Are our critics showing love when they accuse us of not showing enough love? When we point out sins and errors, we are accused with not showing enough love. “There’s not enough love shown,” they say. Is that a loving charge? If your doctor saw a large tumor in your body, would he be showing love if he said to himself, “He needs an operation. It will be painful and expensive. I love him too much to put him through all of that. I will prescribe aspirin.” Would that be showing love?

“He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes” (Prov. 13:24). “Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby” (Heb.12:11). The teacher that spareth the rod of truth hateth his students, but he that loveth them chasteneth them early and often. Now no chastening correction by the word of God appears to produce joy when it is first administered; nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

Context of “Love”

“Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:1). Those are sweet, tender words, but notice the words that immediately follow  “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:3-5). Is “the meekness and gentleness of Christ” incongruous with the language of warfare and destruction? Some would have us to believe that it is. They have a perverted concept of love. They will not, therefore, see the “pulling down” and the “casting down” of false doctrines as being “loving” acts. Paul knew that first hand, saying, “though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved” (2 Cor. 12:15). The more love he showed them the less he was loved. It is true today. Those who do not know the nature of true love will accuse you of not “showing enough love.”

“Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children: And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor” (Eph. 5:1, 2). Those are gentle, loving words. Notice their context. Begin with Ephesians 4:17 and read through 6:18. The ardent appeal that they “walk in love” “as dear children” is sandwiched between blunt words of command and condemnation. Was Paul following his own advice? Was he walking in love as a dear child of God when he spoke of people’s “ignorance,” “blindness” and “shame”? Is it possible for us to heed his command to “walk in love” as a dear child when we obey his command to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (expose) them” (Eph. 5:11)? Well, is it?

Count the admonitions to godly living. How many “negative” reproofs and commands are given in the context of Ephesians 4:17-6:18? Was Paul specific? Did he cite certain, specific sins? Did he directly say that if one did certain things that he could not be saved? You know he did! Was he showing “love” when he did so? May a preacher today do the same thing and show love? Some say that he is “not showing enough love” if he “tells people what to do and what not to do, and that if they do not, they are going to hell.” They think that walking “in love” forbids specific naming of sin and warning of its condemnation if men continue in it.

Turn the question around. Does a man show true, Bible love if he refuses to tell men that their specific sins (cursing, drinking, immorality, dirty jokes, etc.) will cause them to be lost? Men who secretly love darkness rather than light will tell you that we are “not showing love” when we “condemn people” by citing their sins. Those who are “walking after their own lusts” will strive to convince you that we are not walking in love when we do as Paul did.

Did Paul show love when he “withstood” Peter “to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Gal. 2:11)? “But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all. . .” (Gal. 2:14). Was Paul showing love when he openly rebuked Peter and Barnabas? Was he? May we do so today? May we point out the errors of Peter, Barnabas, Guy Woods, Edward Fudge, Charles Holt or Homer Hailey and show love when we do so? Often those who are in sympathy with the erring brother’s doctrine will say that we are “not showing enough love” when we expose his teaching. Do not be moved away from the truth by such a charge. “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16)

 

Whats Wrong With The Church of Christ?

“Theres not enough love shown”

 

1. Is That A Loving Charge??

 

 

1. Dr. Prescribes Aspirin Rather Than Surgery  Is That Love?

 

 

1. Prov. 13:24

 

 

1. Context of “Love”

 

A. Eph. 5:1,2– 4:17 — 6:18

B. 2 Cor. 10:1 — Z0:3-5

 

1. Did Paul Show Love? Gal. 2:5, 11-14

 

 

1. 1 Jn. 2:5; 5:3; 2 Jn. 6; Jn. I4:15, 2l -24; 15:10, 14

 

 

1. Make Critic Explain, Be Specific

 

 

Is it possible to “earnestly contend for the faith” and manifest love? Is it an either-or choice, or may we do both? To the Thessalonians, Paul said, “We were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention …. But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children” (1 Thess. 2:2, 7). Thus, one is not necessarily being mean and hateful when he boldly op-poses error “with much contention.” Critics would have you to believe otherwise, but do not be misled.

Commandments, Obedience And Love

Critics say, “We need compassion not commandments; we need love not law.” To them, showing love and compassion is the antithesis of preaching the law and commandments of God. They want to apologize for the demands of truth. They see this as being caring and compassionate. They see us as being cold, hard, harsh, unloving and uncaring. They imagine that we have no sympathy for the “felt needs of the whole man.” The following article by Dennis Gulledge illustrates this point.

We are facing a crisis with respect to the home in our land. Divorce is running rampant and the merciless toll upon men, women, children, the church, and the nation is devastating. How can the church help?

We must be compassionate toward those who have problems. But we must teach them God’s will regarding the home, marriage, divorce, remarriage. The false doctrines some are teaching do not help, but hinder. We must not be guilty of trying to accommodate the sins of the world, but teach people that forgiveness of sins comes through repentance and correction of the evil ways of life.

Because so many marriages have been broken without scriptural grounds, and because so many have remarried without God’s permission, some think the solution is to teach a different gospel regarding the subject. The truth, and only the truth, makes us free (John 8:32), not the ways of the world.

The preceding was written by James W. Boyd.

The May 1989 issue of the Christian Chronicle carried an article entitled, “Singles: Churches Encouraged New Ministries,” written by Joy L. McMillon. In it she says, “Clusters of churches have established divorce support groups, and some churches are down-playing the age-old difficulties with divorce and remarriage.” Question: How are these churches “down-playing the age-old difficulties with divorce and remarriage?” Answer: “Mike Washburn, singles minister at Richland Hills (Texas), says he presents the `five or six varied views’ of the question of marriage, divorce and remarriage to his group. `If some of the greatest minds in the church disagree on this subject, I am not going to come down definitively and say this is the way it is. I want our singles to have as many facts as they can (and) then wrestle with their own consciences.’

Does the fact that great minds differ on a subject, any subject, inhibit one from teaching the clear truth on that subject? God forbid! Does the fact that there are various views on the church, baptism, the second coming of Christ, instrumental music in worship, etc. demand that we preach a smorgasbord gospel, and say, “Here it is, folks, you can wrestle with your own consciences and decide what you want to accept”? Of course not, but this is what is done, by some, with the divorce and remarriage issue. Logic would demand that we do the same with everything else. We need the truth on this subject, and nothing else (Power, June 1993, p. 3)!

Are commandments, obedience and love incompatible? What saith the Scripture? The Holy Spirit equated these items thusly:

1. “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love” (Gal. 5:6). What avails? What is profitable? It is definitely not circumcision or uncircumcision, so, what is it that truly matters? “Faith which worketh by love.” Now, listen to the echo of this passage.

2. “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God” (1 Cor. 7:19). What matters? What is important? It is not circumcision or uncircumcision, so, what is it that really counts? “The keeping of the commandments of God.”

“Faith which worketh by love” is the same as “the keeping of the commandments of God.” To do one is to do the other. If we stress “the keeping of the commandments of God,” we are not neglecting or ignoring “faith which worketh by love.” We are establishing it! We should be complimented, not criticized and condemned.

If we are not showing enough love and compassion when we preach the divine demands of gospel obedience, will someone please explain the following passages to me?

If ye love me, keep my commandments…. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me. . . . If a man love me, he will keep my words. .. . He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings (Jn. 14:15, 21-24). If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. . . . Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you (Jn. 15:10, 14). But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected (1 In. 2:5). For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments (1 In. 5:3). And this is love, that we walk after his commandments (2 In. 6).

Suppose we asked the Spirit of God, “What is love?” What will the Spirit tell us? “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” (1 In. 5:3). What does your spirit tell you? “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. …We (the apostles) are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us (the apostles); he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby (in this manner, in this way) know we the spirit (the teacher) of truth and the spirit (the teacher) of error” (1 In. 4:1, 6).

The real problem of the critics is that they chafe at the commandments they know they must obey. They resent them, and they resent those who call the commandments to their attention. They are of the world. They cannot fulfill their own lusts and be obedient to the gospel at the same time, so they seek a loophole, a way out. They will redefine “love” and create an ephemeral emotion of their own invention. They will speak so sweetly, so tenderly of love that you will never suspect their true motives. You will never believe that they want to redefine adultery, that they want to alter the work and worship of the church and replace the substance of the word of God with the symbol-ism of emotion. They want to applaud a baptism, accept the impenitent homosexual under the guise of compassion and softly hum a hymn while the Lord’s supper is being served. With tears in their eyes, they will bless and receive a couple who have been unscripturally divorced and remarried. They will tell you that “love compels it.” “These hurting people need someone who cares,” and, of course, they “care.” They care not for what the Son of God said (Matt. 19:9), but they “care” more than those who would “kick such people out in the street and refuse them a `church’ home.”

They will excuse their acceptance and compromise saying, “Every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God” (1 In. 4:7). They will not tell you, “And hereby we do know that we know him if we keep his commandments” (1 In. 2:3), or that “ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him” (1 In. 2:29). No, they will not tell you that, for to do so would mean that they would have to define love according to the Bible and not according to their own values.

Let me give you a word of warning regarding those who call for more love and compassion and for less obedience to the commands and ordinances of God. If you openly oppose them, if you challenge their presuppositions, if you unmask their fraud, hypocrisy and deceit and show the true nature of love from the Bible, they will turn on you with vim, venom and vengeance. They will use every carnal weapon to abuse you. These same ones who speak “great swelling words” of love and compassion will show you very little of it! You will receive anonymous calls, cards and letters. You will be misrepresented. Your motives will be questioned. You will be called a troublemaker. It will be said of you that while they agree with “most” of what you say, your manners and methods are so hateful and despicable that no one can listen to you. Yes, these “loving,” “positive” people will manifest their true colors. Be kind, firm, patient, strong, resolute. Do not do anything that would tend to confirm their charges against you (1 Pet. 3:16). Stick with the Bible. Pray for them.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 4, p. 8-11
February 17, 1994

By Donnie V. Rader

One of the commands of God that we sometimes act as if we haven’t read is the one that tells us to mind our own business. The text says, “that you also aspire to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you” (1 Thess. 4:11, emphasis mine DVR, NKJV).

Yes, the Bible actually tells us to mind our own business! Thus, we need to consider some ways we sometimes violate this instruction and just how serious that is.

It Is a Sin

Remember that sin is a violation of the law of God (1 In. 3:4). Since the law of God tells us to mind our own business and not another’s (1 Thess. 4:11), then it would be a sin to behave contrary.

In the second letter to the Thessalonians, Paul stated that there were some in the church who were “busybodies” (2 Thess. 3:11). A busybody is one who is not busied in his own business, but over busied in that of others’ (Vines). If he did not cease his practice, he was to be disfellowshiped (2 Thess. 3:6-15). That tells how serious being a busybody (minding the business of other people) can be. God said such a one is “disorderly.”

In 1 Timothy 5:13 Paul rebukes those who are idle, wandering from house to house telling things that they should not. He calls them “gossips and busybodies.”

Peter wrote that we should not suffer as a “busybody in other people’s matters” (1 Pet. 4:15).

How We Are Sometimes Guilty

1. In our conversation. Quite often we find ourselves talking about other people, their money, the things they do, what they buy and what we think about all of that. It may be that the things we talk about are personal which should not be of any concern to us.

Some take it on themselves to meddle by thinking they must tell others exactly what they think about their clothes, their hair, their weight or how they handle their money or children.

We sometimes ask questions about things that are none of our business. We sometimes ask how much someone makes, how much they spend or about conversations that do not concern us.

2. In family relationships. It is very easy for parents to mind the business of their children who are married and have families of their own. Some parents treat their grown children as if they were still kids, telling them what to do. When parents feel that they have to make critical comments on their grown children’s money, looks, clothes and children they are minding business that is not theirs. Why is it that some parents feel that they need hold the reigns on their adult children and meddle in their affairs?

Some are failing to recognize that a new family has been established and God has established the husband as the head of that family (Gen. 2:24; Eph. 5:31).

This sometimes is reversed. Children sometimes try to mind the business of their parents. Because of the close family ties we may feel free to meddle in the affairs of brothers, sisters, grandchildren, aunts and uncles.

3. Church-preacher relationships. Sometimes preachers feel that their role grants them the right to mind the business of some of the members of the church where they preach. He may try to tell them his opinion (not bound by the Bible) on how they ought to handle their affairs.

Sometimes members of the church try to mind the business of the preacher. A few will act as if they or the church owns the preacher. Preachers sometimes have some of their fellow-Christians to tell them how they should spend their spare time, who they should choose as friends and what his wife should do with her time. I once heard of a church that asked their preacher to bring a financial report of his personal expenses before the men in a business meeting. With tongue in cheek, he prepared one and commended them for the wonderful idea. He said he thought that every man ought to do the same so the men could watch for covetousness among the members. The men quickly decided that their first idea wasn’t necessary.

Be Careful of Extremes

As is true of any Bible principle, it is possible to go to one extreme or another. One extreme has been discussed above: minding another’s business. The other extreme is to think that no one should have a right to correct you or say anything critical. When a Christian becomes weak and lets sin hinder his service to God, other Christians are to try to restore him (Gal. 6:1). Efforts must be made to convert him from the error of his way (Jas. 5:19-20). However, that is not a violation of “mind your own business.”

Elders are to watch and rule over the souls of those who are members where they are serving (Heb. 13:7,17). They have the oversight of the flock of God (1 Pet. 5:2). That will involve talking to some of the Christians about how they live, train their children, treat their mates, etc. That again, is not a violation of “mind your own business.” However, a few may cry that it is none of their business.

Some Questions to Ask Yourself

Before we get too carried away asking questions, telling what we know or passing on our advice let us ask ourselves the following questions: (1) Is this really any of my business? (2) Have I been invited into this matter? (3) Will my action of asking or telling possibly do more harm than good? (4) Will others think that I am minding other people’s business?

Though our text (1 Thess. 4:11) is easy to violate, it is a text that we can obey. Let’s try!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 4, p. 16-17
February 17, 1994

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Foreknowledge of God fascinates and puzzles many people. Some contend that if God foreknows anything that this foreknowledge predestinates and foreordains the thing to occur. Consequently, it is argued that if something is foreknown about a person or a group of persons, they cannot avoid the doing of it. In this situation, it is argued that the free will of man would be absent.

Others express wonderment that God could foreknow something and yet call on man to do something to ascertain whether he would do what he is asked to do. This presumes that God foreknows everything. In consideration of fore-knowledge in relation to revelation, God expects one to use the rational nature in him which is in the image of God. The reason for this is that the revelation that God has made to man is one agreeable to the reason; it is rational which is the meaning of the term logikos that is used to describe the word of God (1 Pet. 2:2). In this passage the word spiritual is the translation of logikos in the American Standard Version which I use.

The question to be considered in this article relates to the foreknowledge of God and some implications this fore-knowledge has for individuals.

Question: Did God know of Abraham’s willingness to offer Isaac and that he would offer Isaac before Abraham did the actual offering? And Judas and Peter (three times) etc. If he knows, why does he express it as though he did not?

Response: In responding to the querist’s question, attention will be devoted to the meaning and significance of foreknowledge in relation to the nature and power of God, on the one hand, and the freedom of the individual, on the other hand. Implications of each of these come to bear in responding to the question. All three specific individuals mentioned (Abraham, Judas, and Peter) will be focused on in the light of what heaven has revealed about them in the instances alluded to by the querist.

Foreknow in the scriptures is translated from proginosko, which is used five times in the New Testament: Acts 26:5; Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2 Pet. 3:17. Of these uses, two have reference to men. Paul said in his defense before Agrippa that the Jews accusing have “knowledge of me from the first” (Acts 26:5). Peter made certain predictions and exhorted that the brethren “knowing these things beforehand” should beware lest they be carried away with error and fall from their own stedfastness (2 Pet. 3:17).

Foreknowledge from prognosis is used twice in connection with God: Acts 2:23; 1 Pet. 1:2. Accordingly, it is used only of God, not of man. God has prescience because if he did not he could not predict future events. When God predicts and knows what will happen does this knowledge of necessity bring the conclusion that the thing predicted is thereby foreordained? This is an issue that needs to be considered also.

A term that must be considered and defined in this context is foreordain or predestinate. This term is from proorizo which means to mark out or determine before-hand. It is used six times in the New Testament: Acts 4:28; Rom. 5:29, 30; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5, 11. God determined certain things. These were within the counsel of his own will and must of necessity come to be. They depend on the omnipotence of God. Just how does man with a free will fit into this foreordination? This is a question that deserves our reflection in the light of God’s revelation.

The relation between foreknowledge and foreordination is an important one; it deserves our reflection. Again, we should be content with God’s revelation and we should not run to philosophical speculations beyond the scope of the scriptures. It appears it would be helpful to consider this issue before proceeding further with comments in response to the question.

Being omniscient, God can know everything and any-thing. To say that he cannot is to put a limit on his knowledge which would be inconsistent with the nature of Deity. That God can plan and purpose is made clear in scripture. “. . . I am God, and there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient time things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure” (Isa. 46:9-10). Assyria was the rod of God’s anger that he would send against a profane and wicked people but Assyria had another purpose in mind than being the rod of God’s anger (Isa. 10:5-11). Although Assyria was the rod of God’s anger, God said of him, “Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off nations not a few” (Isa. 10:7). God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge can operate independently of the free will of a man in such a manner that God’s purpose as planned is carried out without interfering with the working of the will of the individual. This passage demonstrates this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Assyria would remove nations through conquest and devastation but his heart and purpose would be greed and self aggrandizement but at the same time the counsel of God’s will would be accomplished by Assyria’s fee will action. This is a point of revelation that must not be overlooked.

It has been shown that God can foreknow and predict; his ability to do so is without the constraint of time and the finiteness that attend men. Being able to foresee and to know how men will behave in a given set of circumstances does not cause that set of circumstances and the decisions foreseen within them to be foreordained or determined in relation to the individual or individuals involved. In that given set of circumstances, God used Assyria but independent of Assyria’s decision making process. Assyria was left to do what she would but what she chose to do worked to fulfill God’s plan. God’s prediction of Assyria destroying Israel did not foreordain it, but God was able to see the future as if it were the present or the past. If this were not the case, God’s power to foreknow would be limited.

On the other hand, God can and did foreordain or predestinate certain things to occur. The remedial work of Christ is one such thing (Acts 4:28), as is the adoption of Christians as sons of God and a heritage of God (Eph. 1:5, 11). God could foresee the character and the state of circumstances in which Christ lived and he did determine that all men were to be saved from sin by the crucified and resurrected Christ. These determinations of his were from the counsel of his will independent of those who may have participated to bring them to pass. In fact, it is said of the men who put him to death that they did it by the hands of “lawless men” (Acts 2:23). They were guilty for their lawlessness but God did not ordain their lawlessness. He foresaw it and knew that it fit into the counsel of his will. The action of the freewill of men could not thwart the purpose and plan of God but neither did his sovereignty in purposing and planning interfere with their freewill. What some men do is to set up a false proposition: God’s foreknowledge causes predestination and God’s pre-destination sets aside free will. It has just been shown from the scriptures that this is not a true proposition.

God can and did test men. It is said, “By faith Abraham being tried, offered up Isaac” (Heb. 11:17). In the Old Testament account of this after Abraham went to the designated mountain appointed by God, he was about to slay his son Isaac when God said, “Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him; for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me” (Gen. 22:12). Evidently, this is the account that served as the background for the question being considered.

The force and the crux of the question is that if God foreknows and knew what Abraham would do, why command him to do it or as the querist put it, “If he knows, why does he express it as though he did not?” What Abraham did here is in the plan and purpose of God to use as an example of faith for men in subsequent time. The force of the example is seen in the working of Abraham’s faith. Relating that God knew what we would do and therefore not call on him to do it would not have the powerful effect as did the actual happening. Surely, God could know what he would do. But God wanted men to have an example to follow. No doubt, the statement, “for now I know that thou fearest God,” is also in the background as the basis for the question.

By this test of Abraham, God shows to all generations the necessity of trial in the development and perfecting of faith. God had a purpose in mind for men the conveying of which could best be done in his counsel through this example of behavior. Accordingly, he chose the occasion to have Abraham demonstrate what faith is. This is how men are shown to be men of faith. To use only his foreknowledge and not the example of the behavior of the man was not the purpose and plan of God. Men are demonstrated to be people of faith when they behave as did Abraham.

Several times in the New Testament, God shows by example what was in his mind when he called on Abraham to walk by faith. The fourth chapter of Romans is a powerful one on the meaning of walking by faith; at the heart of it is the behavior of Abraham. It is said of him, “Who in hope believed against hope, to the end that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which had been spoken, So shall thy seed be. And without being weakened in faith he considered his body as good as dead (he being about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb; yet, looking unto the promise of God, he wavered not through unbelief, but waxed strong through faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what he had promised, he was able also to perform” (Rom. 4:18-21). Because he had such faith, it was reckoned to him for righteousness (Rom. 4:3, 9, 22). Why the example? Listen to revelation: “Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was reckoned unto him; but for our sake also, unto whom it shall be reckoned, who believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:23-25)

The example of Abraham’s offering Isaac was used by James to demonstrate the meaning and significance of walking by faith (Jas. 2:23-24). The plan of God was to have this example to teach men the meaning, and the elements, of saving faith. Why should a man complain that God had such a plan? Why should man say that it was unnecessary or useless?

Judas serves as a negative example in the plan of God. His greed (Jn. 12:6) becomes a negative example to show the devastation to one’s well being that yielding to it can bring about. Surely, the Lord foreknew it was he that would betray him but the act of betraying him was in the purpose of God. Judas did the act out of his own heart and its being foreknown did not cause Judas to do it. God permitted the act to occur because there was in his purpose the plan to teach and to use Judas as an example.

Judas predicted that Peter would deny him (Matt. 26:34; Mk. 14:30; Jn. 13:38). Peter protested that he would not. He was over confident and serves as a wonderful example of this and the remorse that comes when one fails. God’s plan and purpose was to demonstrate this to men. The fact that Jesus knew what Peter would do was not the cause of his doing it; foreknowledge did not predestinate it nor did it interfere with Peter’s will to do as he desired.

Another matter should be discussed to bring some further context to the issue before us. It is obvious from Genesis 22:12 that God chose by his command to deter-mine whether Abraham feared God in not withholding his son. This suggests that in God’s purpose he sometimes decides to learn something through commands to men. In a similar vein, God chose to learn about Israel in the wilderness after they left Egypt. “And thou shalt remember all the way which Jehovah thy God hath led thee these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble thee, to prove thee, to know what was in thy heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments or not” (Deut. 8:2). To say that God must foreknow a thing is to limit His omnipotence to choose not to know except under a given set of circumstances. Must God foreknow? No. He can choose to know some other way such as to give a command and observe the response to it. He chose this means to ascertain whether Israel would keep his commandments.

Likewise, God chose to send manna and to give commandments about their gathering and eating it. In connection therewith, God said, “Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that 1 may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or not” (Exod. 16:4). God then gave instructions about what was to be done on the sixth and seventh days (Exod. 16:5). God chose to know their behavior by observing their response to his commandments.

Men not being deity cannot know all there is in the nature of deity except by what God reveals. His revelation makes clear that he can foreknow and predestinate without interfering with the free will of men; revelation also makes clear that God can choose not to foreknow but to observe to gain knowledge. Whether the character, nature, and behavior of God fits our preconceived notions is not the issue. What God reveals should be enough for men. “The secret things belong unto Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:29). May we ever have this sentiment in our hearts.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 4, p. 5-7
February 17, 1994

By T. Doy Moyer

To secularize something means to make it worldly and unspiritual. It is to deprive something of religious character and spiritual influence and significance. This is precisely what has happened, and continues to happen, to America. The United States was founded upon religious and biblical principles. However, in this modern age, those principles have been swept away and replaced by the depraved principles of situation ethics, “values clarification,” and general moral emptiness. Many factors have contributed to this, but one of the leading factors is, without question, the dominant news media.

The news media is a powerful factor in the thinking of people. They shape the world outlook of listeners. They are supposed to report news  what’s happening, the facts of events  without being biased. That is far from reality. Instead, the dominant news media is making news, and putting their own perverted twists onto whatever news events they choose to report. They are leaders in the fight against Christianity and biblical principles. They reflect the thinking of the government, and support virtually any liberal decisions that are made by the government. Cal Thomas wrote: “The American government, once the protector and even reflector of religious tradition and thinking, has become an enemy of those with religious faith” (The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky, Dec. 12, 1992). The news media shares a glad hand in opposing religious thinking. One wrote that the “media assault upon religious believers has been fierce” (AFA Journal, June 1993, p. 24). Though this includes all of the media, it cannot be denied that the news media has joined the assault.

Undermining The Bible

One way in which the news media contributes to secularism is to report things that undermine the integrity of the Bible. They always seem to find room for reporting someone’s study that says that the Bible is not what it’s made out to be. For example, in December, 1992, a story made the front page of the Louisville Courier-Journal showing that an Episcopal Bishop questioned the historical accuracy of the gospel accounts of the virgin birth of Jesus. The Bishop John Shelby Spong argued that the story in the Bible “contains much theological truth but precious little historical fact. The account is unbelievable to modem, thinking Christians” (Dec. 23, 1992). Other statements are made which undermine the integrity of the accounts.

Now, I wonder why this made the front page of the newspaper? Though the story mentioned opposition to the position, there was no “fairness” (a word they are well familiar with) of time given to someone who could defend the integrity of the accounts. Thus, there is one more barb against the Bible. People see this and accept it without real question, and it gives them more reason not to believe the Bible.

In a December, 1992 addition of USA Weekend, the front page advertised an article on “Who Was Jesus?” The thrust of the article was to show all of the debate about who Jesus really was. It talks of the “Jesus Seminar” conducted by liberal theologians who have virtually no respect for the Bible. It’s just one more piece added to the confusion that most people already experience.

News articles can be found almost daily that add skepticism to the Bible. Very few news articles can be found reflecting respect and defending the integrity of Scripture. This would not be the case if the news media were unbiased.

Every time the Bible is put down, secular humanism is built up. Let’s be thankful that, in the end, the Bible will stand while all other systems will be put down (1 Pet. 1:22-25; 2 Cor. 10:3-5).

Calling Good Evil, And Evil Good

The media contributes to secularism by painting a good picture of sinful people and putting those with biblical convictions in a bad light. This is especially true when it comes to issues like abortion and homosexuality. In the news media, abortionists and homosexuals are pictured as good, compassionate and loving people. Those who op-pose these things are pictured as mean, unkind, radical, right-wing religious fanatics who don’t know up from down.

For example, I have a copy of some video footage taken from a “gay” rights parade in San Francisco a couple of years ago (“The Gay Agenda”). What is seen is tasteless and obscene, but it shows the true character of so many n the homosexual community. Has this ever been shown in news coverage? No. If a statement is made, it is reported simply as being a gay-rights parade with perhaps hundreds of thousands in attendance. Nothing derogatory is said. Then, perhaps they will show some foaming-at-the-mouth religious leader condemning what is happening and making him look like the fool. The effect is that the homosexuals look like the “good guys,” and those in opposition look like poor, pitiful idiots. The kind of scenario has occurred far too often to deny it. The slant in the media is, without question, pro-homosexual.

One recent news article had the headline: “Study linking genes to homosexuality doesn’t alter religious leaders’ stance.” Immediately, we see the slant. Credence is automatically given to the “study,” and religious leaders who oppose it look like they oppose scientific evidence. Many such articles can be found. Just read the papers. One writer, concerning the pro-homosexual bias in the news, correctly observed: “Editorials are running on the front-page disguised as news stories. And activists  not reporters  are writing the stories” (The Homosexual Cop in the News-room, by Joseph Farah, AFA Journal, June 1993, p. 17).

We see virtually the same thing when it comes to the abortion debate. Abortionists are given the air time, and they are made to look kind, compassionate, and rational, while those who oppose it are made to look like irrational fools. Anti-abortionists are given coverage, but it is usually coverage of them blocking clinics, screaming madly across a street, or, as took place not long ago, shooting an abortion doctor. This just makes anti-abortionists look like radical, mean-spirited fanatics who have no capacity for reason. Thus, the public’s view of these people is perverted. And it is not difficult to notice that when the news media speaks of abortion, they speak in terms that show they believe that abortion is an axiomatic right for women. Terms like “pro-choice,” and “right to choose” show this slant.

Isaiah wrote, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (5:20). This is exactly what is happening today, led by the dominant news media.

Political Correctness

Perhaps the most perverted idea advocated by the news media today is that of “political correctness.” This has to do with appeasing certain special-interest groups (such as homosexuals and abortionists) and offending as few people as possible (that is, those who do not believe the Bible). To be politically correct, we have to say certain things in the exact way that we have been told to by the media. For example, it is politically correct to say “pro-choice,” but not so to say “pro-abortion.” To be politically correct, one must support abortion, homosexuality, feminism, and whatever else those of left-wing ideology decide.

It is not politically correct to talk about the Bible. After all, that has been removed from classrooms and anything having to do with the government. Bible believers certainly have no sympathy from the dominant news media either. Consequently, to speak of things from a biblical worldview means that we will be called bigoted and hateful. This is all part of the slant. Anyone who does not bow to the demands of the politically correct are promptly condemned without a fair hearing. Of course, these same people, led by the media, are dogmatic in their support for the right to free speech. But in these days, freedom of speech means that you can say and do anything you want, as long as you do not do it with a moral standard such as the Bible. That would be pushing your morals on others; and that would be terrible. Meanwhile, the politically correct are pushing their version of morality on the rest of us, and many Christians are cowering in shame at their demands. It is time for us to stand up and fight the good fight of faith.

Conclusion

There is nothing wrong with reporting news. But to do so with a secular humanist agenda is another matter. In this case, the goal is not simply to report news: the goal is to influence the thinking of people so as to support the agenda. The dominant news media is a willing participant in this as activists take the positions of reporters. People watch and listen, and are affected greatly. All of this just goes to say, “Take heed how you hear.”

Christians need to remember that our thinking must not be shaped by men. It must be shaped by God and his word (Col. 3:16). There is a real war going on, and we cannot ignore it. We must have minds trained to discern good and evil (Heb. 5:14). So, while we wade through coverage of news, let’s make sure that we can separate actual news coverage from the biased advocacy of a liberal agenda. Remember: “Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but such as keep the law contend with them” (Prov. 28:4).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 12, p. 11-12
February 3, 1994