Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. … So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:1,27). “In the beginning there was no God, but after a while man imagined and invented God.” Which account is accurate?

A former nun who says man created God is none too smart. Karen Armstrong recently wrote A History of God which claims that God, in the words of a reviewer, “is a product of humankind’s creative imagination” (Time Magazine, 27 September 1993, pp. 77-78). Such nonsense is the product of Armstrong’s not so creative imagination. Solomon wrote about such vain imaginations when he said, “God hath made man upright; but they have sought many inventions” (Eccl. 7:29).

There is no history of God because he dwells in eternity, not in the limitations of time. God rules over history (Acts 17:26). History is the story of man living on earth in the presence of God, at times imagining that God is imaginary.

The charge that man created God banishes man to utter darkness about God, himself, and proper conduct. According to Armstrong’s reviewer, she grants that “the one and only God” found in the Bible gives “meaning and value” to human life and establishes “the dignity of the individual.” Truly, man’s whole meaning and purpose in life is grounded in the reality that he was created by God and in God’s image, and was told by God, “Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man”

(Eccl. 12:13). Man’s meaning, value, and dignity are reduced by Armstrong to the byproduct of his own imagination. In other words, when God is dead, man is dead.

Armstrong is a monotheist who prays “with Jews and Muslims.” Why worship the product of one’s own imagination? How does this differ from worshipping oneself? If there is no God, then man is the highest order of creation and thus assumes the place of God. Satan told Eve, “Ye shall be as gods,” and we are still suffering the consequences (Gen. 3:5). Past generations “who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator,” turned to rampant immorality, violence, and ungodly conduct of every kind (Rom. 1:18-32).

To reveal and confirm his existence, God autographed the universe. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork” (Ps. 19:1-6). The intricate design and harmonious functioning of the universe remind us of its Creator and Sustainer. “For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God” (Heb. 3:4).

God revealed and confirmed his will to man in the Bible. He left his autograph upon its pages.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Like the universe, the Bible is made up of many parts which function in perfect harmony to accomplish God’s purpose. Its sixty-six books were written by forty authors over a period of fifteen hundred years and it tells the story of God’s plan to redeem man from sin through His Son Jesus Christ (Jn. 20:30-31). Of all books, it alone reveals man’s origin, nature, duty, happiness, and destiny as ordained by God. The reality of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the divine inspiration of the Bible are con-firmed by its fulfilled prophecies and other miracles recorded upon its pages.

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps. 14:1). Such claims are the result of the deceitfulness of sin, and of men turning from God. Thank God, we can turn back to God and be forgiven of our sins through the blood of his Son. We receive God’s grace when we believe the gospel, repent of our sins, confess Christ as his Son, and are baptized in water for the remission of our sins (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 10:10; Acts 2:38). We cannot “imagine” our sins away by imagining that man created God. “When they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom. 1:21). GI

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 15
January 6, 1994

By Max Tice

Dear Mr. Stossel,

I wish, first of all, to commend 20/ 20 for its excellent investigative re-porting on so many topics of great interest to the general public. There are very few television programs about which many positive statements can be made. It is, therefore, refreshing to be able to offer such high commendation to yours. Please keep up the good work.

Since I do hold the staff at 20/20 with high regard, I regret that my first correspondence with you has been elicited by a report with which I must take exception. Your effort to explore the effect of spanking children is appreciated, but I believe that it is also incomplete. As you recall, several passages from the Bible which endorse corporal punishment were flashed across the screen. These statements were then contrasted with the views of modern “experts” on the topic, and the Bible was pronounced an outdated and barbaric guide on how to raise children properly.

As a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a student of child-hood development, I am compelled to take issue with this conclusion. In the interest of fairness, I am asking that another report on the subject be presented which gives consideration to an opposing view. The fact that such a presentation is needed is what I wish to show in the comments which follow.

I will begin by reinforcing the Bible’s commitment to the propriety of spanking children. As already noted by 20/20’s report, the book of Proverbs makes the following statements:

He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (Prov.13:24).

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him (Prov. 22:15).

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Prov. 23:13,14).

Since the term “beat” (selected by the translators of the King James Bible) evokes images of cold-hearted brutality, it is important to recognize that such an idea is not at all inherent in the term. Neither the intensity nor the duration of the act is conveyed. The Hebrew word from which this has been translated simply means “to strike.” Neither is there any implication of a hostile disposition within the one who ad-ministers this discipline. The verses clearly show that the intent of the action is to help, not harm the child. Thus, no sanction is given to the savage behavior of those who mercilessly abuse their children.

As a matter of fact, those who study the Bible realize that it exalts children as special gifts from God worthy of deep respect. See Psalm 127:3-5 and Proverbs 17:6. God’s care for children is further demonstrated in his compassion for orphans. He is called the “father of the fatherless” (Psa. 68:5) and promises to avenge those who oppress them (Exod. 22:23,24). Indeed, it is in the interest of preventing child abuse that mothers are told to love their children (Tit. 2:4), and fathers are warned against provoking their children to wrath (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21).

Now, at this point, one might say: “This is all very nice, but the Bible is still dead wrong in its approval of spanking children. It disagrees with the experts who have clearly proved that this form of punishment only encourages violent behavior.” Thus, we come to the question: Who is right? Are modern psychologists who oppose spanking right, or is the Bible right?

First of all, it should be pointed out that not every psychologist agrees with the anti-spanking campaign. It is unfortunate that this fact was never mentioned in 20/20’s report. Instead, the impression was left that all of the experts agree on the subject.

Secondly, thoughtful consideration should be given to the evidence that spanking is, in itself, harmful. How did the “experts” reach this verdict? The men who appeared in 20/20’s presentation failed to cite any case studies or any particular details concerning the procedure that was followed in such studies. Instead, a dogmatic assertion was offered as fact.

The truth is that causation of human behavior is not easily established. A fundamental flaw often ignored in such evaluations is that correlation is not causation. In other words, if a study of a certain population were to yield a positive correlation between spankings and aggressive behavior, this would not demonstrate that the spankings caused the aggressive behavior. For example, a strong correlation can be shown in some populations between race and the crime rate. Shall we conclude that a certain skin pigmentation causes crime? Of course not! Instead, most people readily understand that other variables play a role in delinquent behavior.

In the case of spanking children one cannot prove that this form of discipline encourages violence unless he can first isolate the act of spanking from all other potential influences. Specifically, it would be necessary to exclude the possible effect of parental hostility, modeling of aggression by a host of environmental figures, displays of partiality and other unfair attitudes on the part of parents, failure to clarify the purpose of the punishment, lack of general affection, etc. Unless these and other factors are taken into consideration, the claims of “experts” who attack the act of spanking cannot be taken seriously.

As a matter of fact, in a study involving 157 students at a midwestern university in 1989, variables similar to the ones just mentioned were taken into consideration while researching the effects of spanking. Although aggressive behavior was not specifically targeted, the general impact of corporal punishment upon self-esteem and other personality features was explored. The researchers concluded that “how parents are spanking their children appears to be more important than whether or how often spanking is employed” (Psychological Reports, “Relations of Spanking and Other Parenting Characteristics to Self-Esteem and Perceived Fairness of Parental Discipline,” by Robert Larzelere, Michael Klein, Walter Schumm, Samuel Alibrande, Jr., 1989, 64, 1140-1142).

Since I consider 20/20’s report to be a direct assault upon the reliability of the Bible (whether intended as such or not), I ask that equal time be given to alternative views. There are competent psychologists and other professionals capable of defending spanking as a positive means of discipline. Will you allow their voices to be heard?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 2, p. 1
January 20, 1994

By H. E. Phillips

Law is necessary to obedience. Obedience is required to receive the blessings of God. The wrath of God is upon all who disobey him.

Man does not know the way of life. It must be revealed unto him. Jesus said he was “the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). “0 Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jere. 10:23). “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 16:25).

Some hold to the idea that to be free we must resist the shackles of “legalism” and reject that rigid code of law found in the New Testament. They pervert what Paul and other apostles said about law, obedience and salvation and replace it with words like “freedom,” “love,” “tolerance of others” and “unity in diversity.” They stress the prayer of Jesus for unity among his disciples and tell us that the rigid adherence to the New Testament will not accomplish unity. The “legalist” mind is without love and mercy and will never be in harmony with the mind of Christ. They tell us that the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17 is blocked by the legalism preached and practiced by the divisive branch of churches of Christ.

If No Law, No Sin

If there is no law, there is no sin. Sin is the transgression of the law. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). “. . . for where no law is, there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15). “. . . for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). “. . . but sin is not imputed when there is no law” (Rom. 5:13). Law defines sin (Rom. 7:7).

It is not true that obedience to “Law” is a system that tries to merit salvation. The forgiveness of one single sin is far beyond any human effort. We are saved by “grace through faith” (Eph. 2:8). Faith must be a live, obedient faith in order to justify. That is well established in the second chapter of James. “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?” (James 2:14) It is answered by demonstrating the futility of one saying to a brother or sister, naked and destitute of daily needs, “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?” (James 2:16) The conclusion is definite: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone” (James 2:17). Again in verse 20 he says: “But wilt thou know, 0 vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:20) He who says that one is saved without works is ignorant of the Bible meaning of faith.

God gave a commandment to the first man whom he had created: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:15-17).

Did God intend for Adam to be a “legalist” to strictly interpret and obey that commandment? The question is answered by the consequences that fell upon Adam and Eve when they transgressed that law. They were driven from the garden and “died” according to the promise of God for their disobedience to his command. From the dawn of creation God intended for mankind to understand and obey his word. In every law and dispensation since Adam God has required the same obedience. Disobedience to the commands of God brought death to the first man and woman.

Under the law of Moses, God severely punished those of his own people who transgressed his laws to them. Twenty three thousand died in one day for the sin of fornication (1 Cor. 10:8). That was written to us as an example under the New Testament. Do not try to tell us that God does not rule by law; he does!

Some people do not like rules to regulate their lives. They want “freedom” to do as they please. These who want to be “free” from the rigid shackles of the law of the New Testament, want to be regarded as children of God with all the blessings that accompany that relationship, but they despise the law of the New Testament. Jesus said: “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). To know God and be in him, we must keep his commandments. “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him” (1 John 2:3-5).

Justified By Faith That Works

Abraham is given as the example of being justified by faith that worked. Romans four contains the nature of Abraham’s faith that justified him (Rom. 4:21-25). He offered his son Isaac upon the altar just as God had commanded him to do. Abraham would never have been justified if he had not obeyed the command of God to offer that son.

Romans 4:1-5 and James 2:21-24 both discuss the same subject: justification by faith. Both passages use Abraham’s faith as the example of justification. Both show Abraham’s faith to be essential to his justification. Romans 4:1-5 shows that Abraham was justified by faith without the works of the law of Moses, by which no flesh could be saved (Rom. 3:20).

James 2:21-24 says that Abraham was not justified by faith only (dead faith without works of obedience), but by works (faith that moved one to obey God). His active faith that obeyed God did count for righteousness. James 2:21-24 is discussing the nature of acceptable faith in God, and Abraham is given as an example of that obedient faith in God. We are to walk in the steps of Abraham (Rom. 4:12). The gospel is the system of faith that justifies.

James 2:23 says, “Abraham believed God , and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.” Romans 4:3 says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” Abraham is used in both passages to show justification by faith. In one “works” are prohibited; in the other “works” are demanded. The difference is that in Romans the “works” are merit works of the law of Moses. In James the “works” are works of obedience to the commands under the covenant that grants remission. That which makes both cases apply to Abraham was that “he believed God” and acted in obedience to the will of God. By faith Abraham obeyed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness (Heb.11:8). If Abraham had not obeyed God, he would not have been justified. But without the gospel no flesh can be justified. It is the power of God unto salvation, to everyone that believeth, both the Jew and Gentile (Rom. 1:16).

Jesus taught that the one who will enter the kingdom of heaven is “he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:23). Those who have the right to the tree of life and will enter into the city of God are those who do his commandments (Rev. 22:14).

The truth is that the obedience to any part of the law of God does not merit salvation to any degree. What we do is not done to merit salvation to any degree. It is only “by grace are ye saved through faith,” but that faith must work the obedience of God, who imputes our obedient faith for righteousness. Disobedient faith avails nothing!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 2, p. 3-4
January 20, 1994

By Sherrel A. Mercer

A Christian will endeavor to give cheerfully and responsibly to the local church of which he is a member. His conscience will be his sole guide, both in the gift he makes, and in his reporting of his annual contribution as a deduction. No other party is involved, since churches of Christ, in adhering to scriptural standards, normally have no direct accountability to the Internal Revenue Service concerning the contribution received from their members.

It is fitting and proper for a Christian to claim his correct itemized deduction for religious contributions. By so doing, the wages he earns will have its greatest value, since more of it will be available to do good works. But some individuals have abused the privilege of giving, and as a result, new IRS regulations effective in 1994 will require a change in the way churches handle the contribution received from members.

Effective January 1, any contribution of $250.00 or more to a church will be excluded from the IRS as a deduction unless a signed receipt is obtained from the receiving church. A cancelled check will no longer be sufficient to substantiate such contribution, and the testimony of knowledgeable individuals will not be accepted! In addition, if a group of checks, each of which is less than $250, is given on the same day, the deduction for those checks will be excluded if no receipt is obtained.

The vast majority of contributions in support of churches of Christ are under $250 each. But consider these scenarios that do regularly happen:

1. A family takes a four-week vacation, and provides the contribution for four Sundays on the last Sunday before they leave. The parents regularly contribute $75 each week. The contribution for the four weeks together amounts to $300. Their contribution will be disallowed by the IRS if a receipt is not obtained.

2. A sizeable gift is made to the congregation in memory of a departed member. If $250 or more, the contribution will be disallowed by the IRS if a receipt is not obtained.

The new law places no responsibility on churches, but rather on individuals who make gifts of $250 or more. But clearly, churches must make adjustments in how they handle the offering in order to assist members in preserving their privilege under the tax law. And the adjustments need to maintain the privacy of the offering in order to be consistent with the scripture.

The IRS is seeking to prevent, for example, a person from writing a check of $300 to a church, and then receiving $250 in change from the collection plate. Such a person in the past could declare the $300 as contribution, when in reality his gift was only $50. (This actually was happening!) Since churches are not accountable to the IRS, no one was the wiser.

In 1994, it will be important for churches to put in practice one or more of the following changes:

1. The persons who count the contribution must be pre-pared to issue a signed receipt to anyone who gives $250 or more on any occasion. The receipt must include the name of the church, the date received, and a statement that no goods or services other than intangible religious benefit was received by the giver in exchange for his offering. The receipt must be signed. Or,

2. The endorsement stamp used on the back of personal checks could be worded as above to make the endorsement a valid receipt when signed. For example, it could say: “This check was received by the Any town Church of Christ as contribution on (date) . The donor received no goods for services other than intangible religious benefit for his gift. Deposit to account number 123456 of the Hometown Bank. Signed

3. In addition, as additional protection of the rights of the giver, my advisors say that the one who signs the receipt or the receipt stamp should not be a close relative of the one who issues the check.

4. Finally, these changes need to be explained to the members of the congregation, so that there will be no surprises if someone is audited by the IRS.

The rules seem to indicate that the receipt could be given at a later time, so long as the receipt is in hand by the time a person files his personal income tax return.

A local congregation could choose to do nothing in preparation for these changes, and hope that the need for a receipt will not arise. That seems tantamount to hoping a large contribution will never arrive! Brethren, leadership demands that those in positions of responsibility initiate actions that serve to defend against undue criticism.

We are fortunate to live in a great country which allows churches to function without monitoring or interference from the government. There are forces at work that will, I am sure, make many more changes in the way churches function in the next twenty years. The 1994 changes seem to be reasonable, but churches must respond in order to assist their members to be the best possible stewards of the funds they possess.

(Information is from the RIA Analysis of the 1993 Federal Law Changes.) GI

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 14
January 6, 1994