Truth Magazine

By Alan Highers

(This article is a response to Dick Blackford’s article “Reply to a Spiritual Sword editorial published in the October 21, 1993 issue of Guardian of Truth.)

I. A Personal Word

Before responding to Dick Blackford, I would like to offer some personal expressions. I have had a cordial relationship with several of those with whom I disagree, who are on the “other side” of the issues. A.C. Grider listed me in his autobiography as the “best debater” he ever met. He sent me a copy of his book and inscribed it: “To my good friend Alan Highers.” Franklin Puckett referred to me as the strongest debater he ever heard for “bur position” on the issues; his statement was conveyed to me by Roy Cogdill during the “Arlington Meeting.” I heard brother Cogdill preach on several occasions. He was an able preacher and always treated me with courtesy and consideration.

Prior to my first public debate, I went to the home of W. Curtis Porter and studied with him at length (approximately eight hours). On the day he died, he called for me to come to the hospital but I was out of town. I drove to Monette, Arkansas, to attend his funeral. I always wanted a book from his library as a keepsake, but this never materialized. H.E. Phillips has always treated me with kindness. For a number of years he and I would exchange rare debate tapes that we discovered. Tom O’Neal and I have been friends since college days. I have never been closely associated with James W. Adams, but in our contacts he has impressed me as a perfect gentleman. From time to time I hear from Yater Tant (I once met brother Tant’s mother); his letters are always interesting and filled with good humor. My relationship across the years with such men as Connie Adams, Eugene Britnell and Dick Blackford has been infrequent, but congenial.

Several attended the debate I had in 1988 at Neosho, Missouri, with Given Blakely of the Christian Church on the subject of instrumental music. Dick Blackford and his son were there, and I think also Harry Pickup, Jr., Hiram Hutto, Paul Keller, and possibly others. I appreciated their presence, and in the course of the debate I told Blakely (in response to a question he asked about divisions among us) that I had more in common with these brethren than I did with him! (See Highers-Blakely Debate, p. 117.) I mention these things merely to indicate that a spirit of congeniality can exist even in spite of basic differences.

 II. The Spiritual Sword Editorial

In the October 1992 issue of The Spiritual Sword, I wrote an editorial regarding the dangers of theological liberalism. The article consisted of twenty-three paragraphs. In one of those paragraphs I included two sentences and one footnote pertaining to those with whom I disagree on the issues of church cooperation and benevolence. To date, there have been four full-length articles in two different publications reviewing my statements. These have been: “Joash: From Good Start to Tragic End” by Harry R. Osborne, Guardian of Truth, January 21, 1993; “Problems of Theological Liberalism,” by Earl E. Robertson, Gospel Truths, January 1993; “Facing Facts or Covering Tracks,” by Jack L. Holt, Gospel Truths, April 1993; and “Reply to a Spiritual Sword Editorial,” by Dick Blackford. Brother Blackford was kind enough to send me a copy of his article along with an invitation to write a response.

For the benefit of those who may not receive The Spiritual Sword, perhaps it would be helpful for me to give the background and quote the sentences which have provoked such a bountiful outpouring of replies. I pointed out that liberalism is a problem being faced now by all religious groups. I stated that its presence, even in the body of Christ, can be attributed to several factors: (1) the general tenor of the age in which we live, (2) the currents of contemporary religious thought, (3) the influence of denominational seminaries and theological schools, and (4) the presence of some among us who are seeking a “renewal” and “restructure” of the church. I then stated:

The problems of theological liberalism in our midst have not arisen because we support orphan homes or engage in church cooperation. The very suggestion that this is the cause (as found occasionally in the periodicals of our anti-cooperation brethren) manifests a myopic analysis and a failure to recognize that some of the most liberal thinkers among us came from the most conservative backgrounds, including some from their midst.

The footnote stated: “Edward Fudge, who denies eternal punishment in hell, came from the anti-cooperation movement. Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside emanated from the anti-college, anti-located preacher faction.”

I believe that the point is legitimate. We are often labeled as “liberal” because of our position on “the issues,” yet I believe in verbal inspiration, the inerrancy of the scriptures, and the necessity of biblical authority. You may disagree with what I teach, but there is a difference in disagreeing over what the scriptures teach and in denying the inspiration and authority of the scriptures. If I disagree with a Baptist regarding the teaching of Acts 2:38, I may think he is in error but I do not call him a “liberal” if he believes the Bible is the inspired word of God. The contention that liberalism has resulted from our position on “the issues” is finger-pointing at its worst; it is wishful thinking on the part of those who make the charge because it allows them to say, “See, I told you so.” The fact of the matter is, however, that liberalism has permeated nearly every religious group in America for reasons which I have already cited, and it is counter-productive to any further discussion among us for this ridiculous charge to be continually repeated.

We believe the support of orphan homes is authorized by the Scriptures, and we defend it on that basis. I have done so in two public debates; one of these was published in book form and is now out of print; the other has been widely distributed on tapes. In neither of these discussions did I adopt a liberal attitude toward the scriptures, nor did I defend church support of orphan homes on the basis that scriptural authority is unnecessary. All may not agree that I established my case by the scriptures, but they cannot say that I disregarded the scriptures in my presentation. How does an attitude of respect for the authority of the Scriptures, even if one disagrees with the application, create theological liberalism and its ensuing problems? The charge simply is not true. The allegation does not make sense.

I pointed out in my editorial that all of us are susceptible in this day to the inroads of liberalism. Liberalism has crept into such conservative denominations as the Southern Baptists and the Missouri Synod Lutherans. I particularly mentioned that liberalism does not arise from the support of orphan homes or church cooperation, and I stated that the anti-cooperation brethren (more about the term later) have produced a few liberals of their own. Frankly, I did not call attention to this in a gloating spirit, but rather to illustrate that all of us suffer from this cancer in today’s religious climate. There is not necessarily a cause/effect relationship so that what we believe will lead inexorably to liberalism. There are outside forces at work today over which we have no control because liberalism is cropping up even among the most conservative religious groups.

Now, Dick Blackford understandably wants to make a distinction between the liberalism of Edward Fudge and the liberalism of someone like Rubel Shelly. He says that Fudge’s denial of eternal hell is totally unrelated to his prior opposition to support of orphan homes and church cooperation, but the liberalism of Shelly, for example, is related to our support of such works because we say, “We don’t have to have authority for everything we do.” Well, again, the analogy just will not hold. I have never said, “We don’t have to have authority for everything we do,” either in defense of cooperative and benevolent works or otherwise. In fact, I have probably criticized that idea as thoroughly as brother Blackford has. Furthermore, I was a member of the Getwell church in Memphis when Rubel preached there, and I can assure you that Rubel never took such a position. Thus, the suggestion that there is a “connection” between our position on “the issues,” and the theological liberalism characteristic of some, is utterly without foundation.

I could argue there is, in fact, a connection between the earlier views of Edward Fudge, Charles Holt, and others, and there present posture. I could argue that extremes beget extremes, and the pendulum simply swung from extreme right to extreme left. Some brethren believe this is what actually did occur. It seems more logical to me, however, to believe that both Fudge and Shelly were tainted and influenced by some of their professors in higher education rather than to suggest that either of them went “off’ in consequence of their earlier beliefs about “the issues,” whether one way or the other!

Most of what brother Blackford says in his article has no relevance to what I believe and teach. He goes on at length about those who believe “there is no pattern,” etc. I have never rejected the scriptures as “pattern authority.” Those who read The Spiritual Sword know that I and other writers have strongly maintained that the scriptures constitute a pattern for the church today. He is the man who at this point misrepresents and creates a “straw man.”

Reference is made to A.C. Pullias and his tract entitled “Where There Is No Pattern.” This small tract, published thirty years ago, is often mentioned by writers in papers such as the Guardian of Truth, but the only thing I see quoted is the title, not the body of the tract. Brother Blackford tells us, “No tract did more harm to the cause of Christ in leading the apostasy over institutionalism …” Why did he not quote from the tract to document this harmful teaching that helped to lead the church into apostasy? Apparently brother Blackford thinks the title of Pullias’ tract is, “There Is No Pattern,” but that is not what the tract says and it is a blatant misrepresentation to suggest such. Let us examine what this tract actually said. In the opening paragraph, it is stated: “Where there is a divine pattern in any particular area of work and worship, the loyal Christian will follow that pattern without variation.” Brother Pullias went on to say, “Certain principles must always be kept in mind in the glorious task of restoring New Testament Christianity. First, there is a realm of faith where the specific pattern has been given.
When God has spoken on any subject through the pages of the Bible, what he has said is definitely in the realm of faith” (emphasis added). Notice further: “When God has given a commandment and a plan, or method, for the execution of that commandment, then both the commandment and the plan of execution are matters of faith.” What, then, did brother Pullias mean when he used the expression, “where there is no pattern”? Hear him: “There are many examples of instances when God has given a definite commandment, and has not given instructions as to how this commandment shall be obeyed. In these cases, all things must be ‘done decently and in order,’ and in a manner consistent with what God has revealed in his
word.” In the concluding sentence of the tract, he said, “Rock-like firmness in the realm of faith, and the spirit of Abraham in the realm of judgment, are both essential to the successful restoration of New Testament Christianity.” Now, where did he ever say there is no pattern? In truth and fact, he said just the opposite! He utilized exactly the same principles that W. Curtis Porter set forth in his debate with J. Ervin Waters on classes and cups! One may not agree with Pullias’ application of the principle, but one cannot truthfully say that he denied a biblical pattern. I am shocked at the manner in which the title of this tract has been distorted to convey an impression that is wholly different to what the tract itself plainly teaches. It is little wonder that readers of certain journals have a perverted conception of what we actually teach. After all, they have been told that we believe “there is no pattern,” that “we don’t need scripture,” and that “we don’t have authority for everything we do.” (These statements are all enclosed in quotes in brother Blackford’s article. Pray tell, who is he quoting?) Further, to suggest that Pullias left the church (as Dick does) as a result of what he taught in his tract is truly preposterous. Those who know the history of the situation know this is not the case. This is just another example of supposition and reading into a situation what one wants to see.

Brother Blackford intimates that some of us have just discovered the pattern; that it has only been in the last four years that the subject has been preached; and that 25-30 years ago he and his associates were preaching the pattern while we were all preaching “Where There Is No Pattern.” My, my, “upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed, that he is grown so great?”

Take note of the following:

1. In The Spiritual Sword for October 1973 (I believe that was more than four years ago), Roy Deaver wrote an article entitled “The New Testament Is the Pattern.”

2. In the April 1975 issue of The Spiritual Sword, there appeared an article, “The New Testament Is the Pattern for Men Today,” by Alan Highers. This article was reprinted and included in Rightly Dividing the Word (the 4th annual Shenandoah Lectureship in San Antonio, Texas, 1990).

3. In the October 1970 issue, Andrew Connally wrote an article on the subject: “We Must Have Bible Authority.” He stated, “Everything believed and practiced in religion must have authority.” This is the very opposite of what brother Blackford alleges against us in his article.

4. The Spiritual Sword for July 1973 contained an article by James D. Bales entitled “The People Without the Pattern?” in which he refuted the idea that there is no pattern for the New Testament church. He stated, “The very concept of covenant involves the fact of a pattern, or blueprint …”

5. In the 1970 Freed-Hardeman lectureship, Gus Nichols said, “In the New Testament we have divine authority for everything that we are to do in religion.” This contradicts brother Blackford’s allegation that we say no authority is needed.

6. Hugo McCord wrote in the Gospel Advocate in 1963, “According to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glory, even from eternity, God laid out a plan, a blueprint, for man’s good that would be as fixed and unchangeable as God himself.”

7. Roy Deaver, in the 1977 Freed-Hardeman lectureship, argued: “The scriptures teach that in Christian work and worship we must do only that which is authorized by the word of God.” Again, this statement is in direct opposition to the charges and allegations which brother Blackford and others have made against us. They may think that we act without Bible authority, or that we have failed to establish Bible authority for our practice, but they are wrong when they flatly assert that we do not believe in Bible authority or the divine pattern! Where is a sense of journalistic ethics? I ask you to read brother Blackford’s article carefully and to compare what we actually believe and teach with what he says we believe and teach! Are these sources I have cited not equally as available to our critics as they are to us? Is there no a journalistic obligation to ascertain what we actually teach and to represent us truthfully, accurately, and fairly?

Some may have taught that we do not need authority for what we do, but that has never been generally characteristic of us, and it is dishonest to repeat these charges over and over again.

Brother Blackford refers to my debate with Blakely on instrumental music, and says, “Brother Highers had to affirm a pattern in worship.” Had to affirm a pattern in worship? He further states: “Brother Highers and his associates have not been willing to accept the consequences of the `no pattern’ doctrine.” Certainly not; we do not believe it! The articles and citations which I have listed above all show that to be the case. We believe that whatsoever we do in word or deed, i.e., in teaching or in practice, must be “in the name” or by the authority of the Lord (Col. 3:17). That is not a position I just discovered last week; it is a conviction which I have held and proclaimed for all of my adult life. Brother Blackford lives in a dream work, not a world of reality, when he charges us with teaching otherwise; yet, judging by the frequent repetition of this misrepresentation by so many such writers, I am led to wonder if they are merely reading and quoting from each other. Certainly, they have not researched what some of us have written in order to represent us accurately.

We do not agree with brother Blackford as to what the pattern is in the work of the church, but that does not mean that we reject the New Testament as a pattern. Our difference is over what the scriptures teach, not whether the scriptures are authoritative!

III. The Use of Descriptive Terms

Brother Blackford, in his article, expresses his displeasure because “brother Highers referred to us twice by the prejudicial term, `anti-cooperation brethren.’ It seems to me that Jesus said something about “Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” (Matt. 7:3) And Paul once inquired, “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself’?” (Rom. 2:21) Brother Blackford does not seem to be acquainted with these passages. It takes a strange and twisted form of logic to callus by pejorative terms such as “liberal,” “liberal brethren,” “more liberal than he is,” etc., and then to complain about what he is called! In his first paragraph he stated, “My use of the terms `liberal’ and `conservative’ apply to the institutional issues among brethren.” That statement is somehow supposed to cleanse and sanctify the use of the objectionable appellations! The word, liberal, has a meaning; it is not a particularly pleasant word to any conservative group of believers. Yet, brother Blackford and many of those associated with him persist in applying that expression to those of us with whom they disagree, and most of the time they do not even use the “cleansing and sanctifying” explanation in the process! The term is prejudicial, plainly and simply, without question and without doubt. No amount of “disclaimers” and “explanations” can make it otherwise. Further, all of us know, if we have studied at all, that it is a term usually applied to those who no longer believe in the inspiration or the authority of the scriptures. You may disagree with my understanding of the scriptures, but you cannot read what I have written and listen to what I have spoken and rightly call me a “liberal.” It is not only prejudicial, but it is also an obvious misrepresentation because it uses the word in a way and manner that is contrary to its accepted definition.

Brother Blackford’s “explanation,” of course, is no explanation at all. In fact, it is very much akin to the explanation that Baptist debater Bob L. Ross gives for calling us “Campbellites.” He says he does not do it in an “offensive” way, but only to describe a “system of belief’ such as Calvinist, Lutheran, and the like. We know, however, that “Campbellite” has a long history as a derogatory term, and it takes more than neat little distinctions to overcome the fact that it arouses prejudice, ill will, and preconceived notions. So it is with the word “liberal,” as used with reference to those of us who unreservedly believe in the verbally inspired and authoritative word of God.

As for the expression “anti-cooperation brethren,” I chose it because I believed it to be the most descriptive and least offensive term by which I could briefly describe those whom I had in mind in my editorial statement. I recognize the difficulty in finding descriptive terms by which we can identify each other. It is regrettable that such is necessary at all. “Liberal” is a word known throughout all of the religious world, however, and it is used in a particular and restricted sense. It is unconscionable to assign a wholly new and different definition to that word (perhaps known only to the writer and his regular readers) and to apply it to individuals to whom the word does not, and could not apply in its general, ordinary, and accepted meaning. “Anti,” on the other hand, is a word meaning “against,” and it does not of itself necessarily carry prejudicial implications. No one in the pro-life movement, to my knowledge, objects to being called “anti-abortion.” No one is the peace movement thinks it is prejudicial to be called “anti-war.” I have never taken offense when Christian church preachers have called me “anti-instrument.”

But it is objected that the error is in saying that one is “anti-cooperation.” Brother Blackford goes on at length about this. He says that he is only against a certain kind of cooperation. But some consideration must be given to context. When we say that someone is “anti-cooperation” in the context of discussing “brotherhood issues,” it is clear that we are identifying one who is opposed to the type of cooperation which has been under discussion for the past forty years. Such an understanding is inherent in the circumstances. I know that some will try to parallel this to their use of the “liberal” label, but for the reasons already stated I do not believe they are the same. For my part, I would be glad to use some other descriptive expression if (1) it fairly conveys the meaning, (2) does not require extensive explanation, (3) and can be used without offense. At the same time I think brother Blackford and others ought to give some thought to the manner in which they have utilized the “liberal” epithet.

There has to be a better way to disagree than we have found thus far. When this controversy first began, I can remember that brethren who disagreed continued to conduct meetings where they had gone before. Roy Cogdill and Homer Hailey went to any number of places that practiced the type of cooperation and benevolence which they opposed. Roy Foutz was a Mend of my father and held meetings where we lived. In time, however, controversy arose over whether these and other brethren could preach in meetings without mentioning their views. Ultimately, the preachers felt they had to express their convictions, and congregations decided they did not want men in meetings who opposed the work they were endeavoring to do. As time passed, the gap between brethren widened. Today, as all know, there is little communication between us. Yet, we are in agreement on some very fundamental matters. We believe in the verbal inspiration of the scriptures, we teach the same plan of salvation, we are all seeking to convert those who are outside of Christ, and we all oppose certain movements which have arisen both from within and from without. It is a pity that we are unable to work together, yet I confess at the present time I do not see a way. We are practicing that which we believe the scriptures authorize, and you feel that what we are doing is out of harmony with the scriptures and that we cannot be in fellow-ship.

In closing, I would ask brother Blackford and others to consider his own advice. He says, “The gap between conservative and liberal brethren will not be bridged until we accept the fact that there is pattern for the work and organization of the church and until we correctly represent (without prejudicial terms) those with whom we disagree.” I have shown that (1) we believe the New Testament is the pattern, (2) we have been misrepresented by statements to the contrary, and (3) we have been unfairly and prejudicially labeled as “liberals” when such is not and never has been the case.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 21, p. 16-19
November 4, 1993

By Clinton D. Hamilton

This column will address two questions that were submitted together by one querist. One concerns the origin of sin and the other deals with the consequence of sin. Both have biblical answers.

Question one: Is every sin the result of temptation, i.e. James 1:14-15?

Response: Temptation is an issue with which many are uncomfortable. Some may argue that since God made all things, one can attribute temptation to sin to him. James in this first chapter has been dealing with tests or trials through which men may go. In verse three, he speaks of the proving of faith. This proof of faith is considered in the abstract, not concrete (Alford). The concrete would have reference to the medium of the proving, which would be the temptation itself. The proof of faith or the proving it, James says works endurance. One is not to be weary with this endurance but should let it have its perfect work (1:4).

Perfect is from teleios, which means to reach its end or to be complete. Endurance or patience can reach its end of bringing into approvedness in relation to God (Rom. 5:4). By letting endurance or patience come to the end that God has intended, one can be complete and whole as a man ought to be in the sight of God. In this context, perfect does not mean sinlessness. Rather, the idea is being complete or whole as a man ought to be in relation to meeting successfully his trials to the point of reaching endurance under pressure of tests or trials. Having done this, one is then approved of God.

That person who successfully endures trials is blessed.’ If this endurance is characteristic of his life, then he will have become approved by God and will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to them that love him (Jas. 1:12). This prospect as the outgrowth of successfully meeting trials or tests is most encouraging to one; consequently, the one under trials can approach his life under pressure of the proving of faith with optimistic hope. No doubt, this was the purpose of the penning of these words to the twelve tribes which were scattered abroad (Jas. 1:1).

What is the source of the temptations by ti- successful meeting of which one is proved? One is testeu Jr tried in the plan of God. But this does not mean that God is the agent that sent the desire to violate his law. One cannot say that when he is tempted that he is tempted of God because God cannot be tempted of evil (kakos, base or bad in character). God’s character is good and righteous, pure. Consequently, he is completely unversed in evil. Being thus, he certainly is not going to cause evil to arise in one’s heart (Jas. 1:13).

Deity has no part in evil whatever. Jesus, the Christ, who is God, has no darkness in him. Darkness, sin, is no part of deity for deity is light (I In. 1:5). Christ was manifested to take away sins and in him is no sin (1 Jn. 3:5). One cannot, therefore, say that the desire to do sin originates or comes from God. Man cannot transfer the responsibility for his sin to God. Human accountability demands that one be responsible for the coming of sin into his life, not God.

When sin comes into one’s life, whence is it? James proceeds to answer the question with clarity and directness. He says that one is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed. This affirmation in relation to the statement that God is not tempted of evil and does not tempt any one has led some to state that scripture contradicts itself. This view appears to come of a misunderstanding of what is said in relation to its context.

Lust, from epithumia, means in this context a desire for what is prohibited. The word must depend on its context of use for its precise meaning. It basically means a desire, inclination, wish, or lust. The nature of this desire or lust must be ascertained from the particular context in which it is used. In some instances of its use, epithumia has the meaning of a good desire. Paul had a strong desire to see the face of the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 2:17). Jesus said that with desire he wanted to eat the passover with them (Lk. 22:15). Paul had a desire to depart and be with the Lord (Phil. 1:23). In all three of these instances of the use of the word, the meaning is a good, not evil desire. When one has a desire to participate in that which violates the will of God, the desire is evil and if it is satisified, sin is the result.

The noun form of the term occurs 37 times and the verb form 16 times in the New Testament. With the exception of the instances of the use of the term examined in the preceding paragraph, the noun does not occur in a good sense. A Christian is not to let sin reign in his/her mortal body to obey the lust thereof (Rom. 6:12). Desires or lusts are not necessarily base or immoral. A desire to procreate is a God-given desire but it becomes sinful if one seeks to satisfy it in violation of the law of God. A desire for food is wholesome and essential for one’s physical wellbeing but a desire to eat food that leads to gluttony would be a sinful one. Every natural desire has a lawful means of satisfaction in God’s system.

There are lusts based in the flesh (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 5:16,24; Eph. 2:3; 2 Pet. 2:18; 1 Jn. 2:16). When one yields to a desire in a manner in which the satisfaction of it would lead to a violation of the law of God, sin is the result. There is a proverb that says, “You cannot keep the birds from flying over your hair but you can keep them from building nests in your hair.” Desires originating in the flesh, eyes, and mind can be sinful if one proceeds to do his own will and not the will of God.

H. Leo Boles once made the statement in one of his lessons on sin, which I heard, that as every spoke in a wheel points to the hub, so does every sin point to lust from which it originates. It is my conviction that the analogy is a good one. God, James affirms, is not the source of the temptation which results in one’s sin. One’s lust is that which draws him/her away and by which the enticement occurs (Jas. 1:14). Drawn away is translated from exelko which means to lure forth. One’s desire is that which allures him to violate the will of God. The allurement does not come from God. He does not commit evil himself and he does not allure men into sin. Entice is from deleazo which conveys the idea of being lured with bait. In effect the lust is the bait. God does not produce the bait which is the lust in order to cause one to sin.

When the lust has conceived, sin is the result and when sin is finished the result is death (Jas. 1:15). Conceived is from the term sullambano which means in its metaphorical sense in the passage under consideration a decision to act as based on lust’s enticement and is based on a woman’s conceiving in the physical realm. When the conception runs its course, sin is the result. Fullgrown in relation to sin in verse 15 is from the word apoteleo which means “to perfect, to bring quite to an end” (Thayer). In this context its metaphorical sense is that the sin has come to maturity. What started out as a desire to do wrong, which desire conceived and ran its course to maturity in a completed sinful act, is the idea conveyed by the sin’s coming to its full growth.

In further amplification of his affirmation that God is not the source of temptation to sin, James states that every good and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the father of lights with whom there is no variableness, neither shadow that is cast by turning (Jas. 1:17). God is not fickle or changeable, therefore, he would not of his own will beget one by the word of truth and then seek to entice him back into sin from which he rescued the person (Jas. 1:18).

One commits sin when he is lured by his own lust as the bait to violate the will of God. The question can be simply answered by stating that every sin arises from lust. The above analysis, I believe, makes this abundantly clear.

Question two: Do all sins separate man from God?

Response: In the preceding discussion, James was quoted as stating that the result of a sin brought to maturity is death (Jas. 1:15). The meaning of death is separation. The term is translated from thanatos which by definition is separation from God in this context. One’s sins and iniquities “have separated between you and your God” (Isa. 59:1-2). Adam died when he violated God’s law (Gen. 2:17).

When a Christian sins, he has an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous (1 Jn. 2:1). He ever lives to make intercession for Christians (Heb. 7:25).

 Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 22, p. 6
November 18, 1993

By Jeff Asher

We are living in a time when civil law and divine law are not in harmony. The ideal situation is that civil government be “the minister of God to thee for good” and “not a tenor to good works, but to evil” (Rom. 12:3,4). However, increasingly, government seeks to “change laws” (Dan. 7:25), God’s laws.

Fortunately, our government has not moved to the extremes of ancient Judea and Rome forbidding that men should preach Christ (Acts 4:18). But, it is nonetheless guilty in that it exercises authority to legalize and protect what God has forbidden and condemned. Ours is not the first nation to do this. Observe Isaiah’s statement concerning Judah:

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! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight! Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of this right! (Isa. 5:20-23, RSV)

The experiences of Daniel, Mishael, Hananiah and Azariah in Babylon stand as proof that legalizing sin does not make it right. These four young men came to Babylon during the first installment of the captivity. In Babylon it was certainly legal to eat and drink what would have been regarded as unclean in Judah (Dan. 1:7,8). Yet, they purposed not to defile themselves. Later, Mishael, Hananiah and Azariah are compelled to worship the image of the king of Babylon which they refuse to do (Dan. 3:1-18). In this case it was not illegal to worship Jehovah, but it was also required that one worship the image. While Nebuchadnezzar was willing to allow the worship of many gods, Jehovah only allowed the worship of himself (Exod. 20:3-5). During the reign of the Persian kings Daniel is required to make his petitions to the king only, in other words, prayer to Jehovah is outlawed (Dan. 6:1-17). Here government went to the limit of perversity forbidding what God had commanded. Yet, Daniel remains true to his God in old age as he had in youth. These four men were not deceived by Satan’s attempt to weaken their convictions against sin by having civil government make it legal. Thus, they are remembered among the great heroes of faith (Deb. 11:33,34).

Our purpose in this study will be to consider some practices which our government has decided are legal, but which the Lord condemns. It is hoped that by such a study the faith of some will be renewed and others will be led to repent. Like the companions of Daniel, Mishael, Hananiah and Azariah, there are some among the church who have succumbed to Satan’s devices and turned asied to “legalized sin.” As we study together let us remember these great heroes of faith.

Legalized Intoxicants and Addictive Drugs

Since the end of Prohibition the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages has been legal in the United States. Alcohol sales generate a substantial revenue for the federal and state treasuries ($8.01 billion for the U.S. Treasury in 1992). The enforcement of the regulations and collection of the taxes necessitates a sizeable bureaucracy in Washington. Similarly, our government subsidizes the production and sale of tobacco. This, too, generates revenue for the government ($5.05 billion). Following this precedent there are those who advocate the legalization of marijuana, heroine and cocaine. However, the legalization of these intoxicants and addictive drugs will not change the sinful nature of their use in any amount.

The New Testament specifically condemns the drinking of strong drink in any amount: “For we have spent enough for our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles  when we walked in licentiousness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries” (1 Pet. 4:3, NKJV). The “drinking party” of the New King James Version is the “banqueting” of the King James 1611 Version. Notice that the text says drinking and not drunken. Of this word H.A.W. Meyer in The Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the New Testament says the term is “chiefly applied to social drinking at the banquet.” R.C. Trench in Synonyms of the New Testament says the drinking is “not of necessity excessive” (p. 225). The New English Bible translates the word as “trippling” which means “to drink alcoholic liquor continuously in small amounts.” Thus, the text condemns drinking strong drink.

While one may use intoxicants and drugs with impunity from civil authority, there yet remains the consequences of this sinful behavior. In wake of their use lie the dead bodies of innocent men and women (Mark 6:17-29), broken homes (Prov. 23:33), wasted money (Prov. 23:21), lost virtue (Gen. 9:21,22), weakened manhood (Dan. 1:5-16), corrupted manners (Dan. 5:1-4; Ps. 78:65), perversity (Gen. 19:32), ruined spirituality (Amos 2:12; Isa. 28:1-8) and others sins too numerous to mention.

Solomon knew the consequences of going after strong drink and the only remedy:

Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who linger long at the wine, those who go in search of mixed wine. Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly; at the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper (Prov. 23:29-32).

Never take the first drink.

Tobacco is no better. We now know that it is an addictive drug which robs a man of his self-control. It too consumes money, health, good manners and spirituality. While there is no specific prohibition against “smoking” in the Scriptures, how can the smoker justify his habit in light of these general principles? Paul wrote: “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful; all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any” (1 Cor. 6:12). Peter commanded the Christian to “add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perservance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love” (2 Pet. 2:5-7).

Legalized Gambling

May 29th marked the one year anniversary of the Texas Lottery. The State boasts that it has in that year given away 968 million dollars. Texas is a relative late-corner to legalized gambling. Most of the neighboring states have had parimutuel betting on sports events, casino gambling, bingo and lotteries for several years. Las Vegas, Nevada and Atlantic City, New Jersey have been gambling meccas in the United States for decades. Like alcohol and tobacco, gambling is a source of revenue for the state treasuries. On the average governments receive about six percent on parimutuel operations and 14 percent on lotteries. Thus, Texas made about $265 million from the lottery in its first year.

However, the Scriptures condemn every form of gambling. One text in the New Testament, Romans 13:9-10, strikes gambling out: “For the commandments, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, You shall not covet, and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this wrongheaded ought to be apparent to even casual Bible students. Saying, namely, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”

Gambling is sinful because it is stealing. Granted all parties to a wager are willing, but this does not affect the fact that whoever wins obtains the proceeds by extortion. There are only three authorized means by which property can be exchanged. One may give or receive a gift (Acts 20:35). One may earn it as a wage (Eph. 4:28). Or, property may be obtained through a fair exchange or investment (Jas. 4:13-15).

Gambling is sinful because it is rooted in covetousness, that is, a greedy desire to have more. Those who gamble do not do so in order to provide for someone’s needs. If this were the motive, then following the example of the early saints is in order (Acts 2:44,45; 4:32,34-35). No, those who gamble do so in order to get rich. This is the base desire upon which the government preys when it promotes its lotteries. Paul knew that Christians would be tempted by such means and strongly warned us against the snares and temptations which covetousness brings (I Tim. 6:5-10).

Finally, gambling is sinful because it is contrary to the ethic of love. Jesus taught, “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Matt. 7:12). The gambler does not put up his wager because he wants the other gambler to take his money, deprive his family and make him late on his bills. Let’s get serious. Is the gambler living by the principles of love, blessings, giving and praying for those who bet against him (Matt. 5:44)? Is the gambler when he wagers “envying not” and “seeking not his own” (1 Cor. 13:4-8)? Those who say they love their neighbor and then take his money on a bet do not know the meaning of the word.

Legalized Adultery and Fornication

In the last fifty years we have gone from a society in which it was nearly impossible to get a divorce, to a society in which divorce has been relegated to almost a do-it-yourself legal kit. Marriage is held in low esteem with many couples living together without its benefit. Legislators have advocated renewable licenses for married couples which expire every three years, more often than a driver’s license. The federal government actually penalizes through its tax policy married couples on social security. Even the courts of our land are ruling in favor of everything but biblical marriage. Recently the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the state must show a “compelling interest” for not allowing homosexuals the privileges of marriages.

The Bible is clear and easily understood on the question of who may marry. In the beginning God revealed that one man and one woman may marry for life, that is, “until death do us part” (Gen. 2:24). Jesus reiterated this teaching while upon the earth in Matthew 19:3-9. Jesus rejected divorce on all grounds but one, “except it be for fornication” (Matt. 19:9), and then only the one who puts away a fornicating spouse has the liberty to remarry. All who divorce and remarry for causes other than fornication commit adultery (Matt. 5:32). Therefore, the only way to avoid this sin is to “remain unmarried, or be reconciled” (1 Cor. 7:11).

To make matters worse some in the church are advocating that alien sinners who have divorced and remarried according to civil law, regardless of the grounds, should be accepted into the church upon their baptism. This cannot be; aliens are as much amenable to the law of God on marriage and divorce as are believers. Jesus said that “from the beginning it was not so” that a man could not put away his wife for every cause and remarry. Thus, God has never allowed men to divorce and remarry at will.

Consistent application of this principle would reak havoc on the morality of the people of God. Think about the consequences if the civil authority recognizes homosexual marriage, then those who are baptized must be accepted into the church. Consider if the gospel went to polygamous nations there would be men with a plurality of wives in the churches. That this teaching is sinfully

What Shall We Do?

When we see our nation obviously following the broad way that leads to destruction what should you and I do? Some have taken to the streets in protest, others have organized committees, preachers and elders are becoming more and more involved in politics in an effort to change the course. However, this is not the mission of the church.

Christians need to exhibit child-like trust in God’s providence over the nations (Dan. 4:25). It is his business to rule the kingdoms of men. It is our business to spread the gospel to the whole world (I Tim. 2:1-4) and save our-selves in the process. If the moral character of this nation is to be elevated, it will be accomplished through the transformation of the individual citizen into a child of God. Yet, if this nation falls because of its wickedness, no matter how terrible the destruction you will have saved your soul and the souls of those who hear you. Remember, brother, you are a citizen of heaven (Phil. 3:20).

Let us all strive toward that heavenly kingdom. Let us honor the king and pray for peace that the gospel may be preached. But above all, let us obey God rather than men (Matt. 7:12).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII, No. 22, p. 12-14
November 18, 1993

By Larry Ray Hafley

As Paul said in his day, “the mystery of lawlessness doth already work” (2 ‘Mess. 2:7), so it is in our day. There are misguided souls who, though they may have the best of intentions, would alter the nature, spirit, power and character of the gospel. Their ideas, if followed, will lead to wholesale changes in the church and doctrine of Christ. There will be a revision of teachings on everything from morals and modesty to music and marriage. Some who are involved do not see the far reaching tentacles of their present posture and position. They are blind and oblivious to the consequences of their convictions and criticisms. For them, we feel the deepest sympathy. Against them, we shall wage a relentless, withering warfare. All “the weapons of our warfare,” every gun in the arsenal of the gospel shall be trained on them (2 Cor. 10:3-5; 1 Tim. 6:12). Our purpose, like that of the Son of God himself, is to maim and to kill, to cast down and destroy, to help and heal (Rev. 2:23). “See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build and to plant” (Jer. 1:10). “Cry aloud, and spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins” (Isa. 58:1).

Let no one mistake or misunderstand our mission. “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear?” (I Pet. 4:17, 18) “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins” (Jas. 5:19, 20).

The “Germ” Of Truth

There is often an element, a”germ” of truth, in what critics charge against the church.

See Chart.

Whats Wrong with the Church of Christ?

“Germ” of Truth in Complaints, but men pervert, distort truth because they love error and hate truth (John 3:19-21)

19. And this is the condemnation, that light if come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21. But he that doest truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Examples: Luke 23:2; Acts 6:11-14; 17:7

Was it true that Jesus was a king and that he had a kingdom (John. 18:36, 37)? Was it true that Jesus was a rival of Rome, a usurper of the Emperor? Jesus’ enemies said, “We found this fellow … saying that he himself is Christ a King” (Lk. 23:2). They twisted the truth. Correctly, they said that he was “Christ a King.” Corruptly, they inferred that he was royal, regal, rival of Rome (Acts 17:7).

Why did they do this? What was their purpose? Ultimately, there is no way to “white wash” it. Men resort to such maneuvers when they love darkness rather than light. At least, that was Christ’s conclusion (Jn. 3:19-21). Men pervert and distort truth because they love error and darkness, and hate truth and light!

In coming articles in this series, we shall note some per-versions and distortions that critics make. We shall deal with them in detail. Here, though, we simply want to get to the heart of their complaints and criticisms. They say things like, “There’s not enough love shown”; “Our preaching needs to stress the love and grace of God”; “We should receive homosexuals and let them know there is hope”; “We should not exclude a person as a prospect for gospel obedience just be-cause they have been `messed up’ in a bad divorce situation”; “Hurting people need the healing power of the cross, not a `bloody nose’ produced by an argumentative sermon on the necessity of baptism’ ; “People do not care how much we know until they know how much we care”; “We need to manifest a loving, positive spirit, not a combative, negative attitude if we are going to convert our friends.”

In essence, who can disagree with the “germ” of most of the statements above? Can we ever show too much real, true, godly love? Who would say that we could? Does our preaching need to stress the love and grace of God? Absolutely! Are homosexuals and divorced people to be refused “repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18)? Certainly not! Should we lovingly care for people and seek to soothe their sorrows with the balm and blessings of the Beloved? Of course! Will warmth, kindness and friendliness help us to reach more people? Yes, a thousand times, yes!

The Hidden Agenda, the Distortion

The “good words and fair speeches” above often are used to mask a hidden agenda. When they say they want more love shown, what do they mean? They want less preaching against immodest dress and social drinking, but they do not tell you that. No, they give you the “germ” of truth; they present that which you cannot deny, i.e., we need more love shown. What do they mean when some say that preaching needs to emphasize God’s grace? They mean they want less preaching against their lifestyle, their sins. They feel the pinch of preaching that condemns their manner of life, but they dare not admit that. Instead, they say we need to hear more about grace, and who can disagree with that?

When they say that homosexuals and unscripturally married people should be included, they do not tell you what they really mean. They have a relative or a friend who is caught up in a “bad marriage,” and they want brethren to accept him. When one opposes false doctrine of divorce and remarriage, they will not oppose the truth that is taught. They are too subtle and clever for that. No, they will accuse you of “attacking” others, and they will ask if you do not agree that we should try to include those who are “struggling with demons in their lives.” They love darkness rather than light. That is the “bottom line,” but they cannot tell you that.

When they profess that a “positive” attitude is needed, what are they really saying? Some mean by this that they are “uncomfortable” with sound doctrine. They are “embarrassed” by sermons that teach the truth on music in worship and water baptism. They are “questioning our traditions” and “rethinking” their views on some of the “pat answers” that “the Church of Christ s been known for through the years.” However, they likely will not admit that to you! No rather, they will ask you if you think that we should be gentle in our “approach to people who are hurting in this old, sinful world?” Well, of course you do!

Now, what? Next, you will be enlisted in their core, their coterie, their group. Unwittingly, you will help them to carry the ball of rebellion against the elders and/or the preacher. You will not want what they want, but you can serve their purposes as you join them in calling for a “kinder, gentler” gospel of love and acceptance. You do not mean for the truth to be “gutted” and watered down, but they do! You innocently want what every true disciple wants. You want to reach the most lost souls in the most effective way possible. The men who love darkness are using the “germ” of truth to infect you with their virus of error. The germ of truth is the worm of error.

So, they will use you. Your soundness in the faith makes you an ideal pawn. Everyone knows that you stand for the truth. You will be courted and wooed by their sincere spirits and winsome ways. They will give you every assurance of their love for truth. They will insist that they “stand where you stand,” and that they are “only interested in not driving people away with a needlessly negative, hateful attitude that some of our preachers sometimes manifest.”

My friend, when you hear such things, an alarm bell should go off in your heart! “Take heed what ye hear” (Mk. 4:24). “And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch” (Mk. 13:37).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 22, p. 9-11
November 18, 1993