Truth Magazine

By Billy Ashworth

At the close of President Eisenhower’s eight-year tenure, this nation elected John F. Kennedy President. He was the first, and as yet, the only Roman Catholic ever elected President in America. He was also the next to youngest President ever elected, at the age of 43.

In his inaugural speech, Kennedy said: “The torch has been passed to a new genera-non.” How little he could know of what was to come during his brief two years and ten months as President.

The Lawless Sixties and Seventies

For the next fifteen years after Kennedy assumed office as President, this nation experienced one of the most difficult periods of its history. There were the youth and sexual rebellions; civil, racial, and religious turmoil; integration of the public school systems, done at times with the presence of troops armed with bayonets! In addition, quite a few schools had deputies patrolling the hallways of school buildings. This nation was almost in a state of anarchy. I preached through this period, and served as Postmaster at Franklin, Tennessee. I say without hesitation that it was the most difficult time of my life.

Early in the sixties, the rock group called the Beatles came to America; Elvis Presley surfaced with his wild gyration music, which he said he learned in his church; the youth and sexual revolutions emerged; and the drug abuse culture all dovetailed. Violence was rampant in the land. Youths, aided and abetted by radical “intellectuals” (some college professors, others radical so-called lawyers) paraded in the streets in defiance of all properly constituted laws, civil and divine.

They burned college administration buildings; held professors hostage; copulated in the streets; and finally marched on Washington, D.C., with the intention of shutting down the Federal government.

At the same time, militant parties arose professing “the establishment,” and taking important people hostage, such as Patricia Hearst, heir to the Hearst fortune. She was abused, humiliated and forced to take part in a bank robbery for which she was sentenced to prison. The militant Black Panther Party surfaced with such infamous, evil leaders as Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, Eldridge Cleaver, et al.

Angela Davis, a radical Marxist and apparently a member of the BPP, was on the faculty of a large University on the West Coast. She was dismissed from her position, but later sued to be reinstated and was successful. I have an article that appeared in The Nashville Banner (February 20, 1971), written by Henry J. Taylor. I quote: “ANGELA DAVIS, the darling of the New Left, the Black Panthers, and some tragically confused intellectuals, indicted for alleged complicity in the horrible California courthouse shooting in which four men, including the judge, were killed, went to Castro’s Cuba for unrevealed talks in July, 1969.” Of course a jury found Davis “not guilty” as charged, for whom she threw a party afterwards! The court system had been corrupted with the wild, radical lawyers defending any radical criminal that was indicted.

Another radical “New Left” party was the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) under the leadership of Mark Rudd. “The position: Leadership advocates overthrow of the US `System”‘ (Communism and the New Left, Books by U.S. News & World Report, 18). We were living in perilous times. It was a “violent crowd who committed violence to provoke violence that they might protest violence.”

The nation and world were shocked when President Kennedy was assassinated November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas. To this day, investigators have been trying to determine who killed Kennedy and why. Bobby Kennedy, the late President’s brother, was assassinated in California while running in the Democratic primary for the presidential nomination. Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. It seemed as if our society was disintegrating. In retrospect, the influence of Communist/ Marxists on the youth of our nation was, at least to a large degree, the cause of the rebellion sweeping the nation.

The ungodly influence of humanists was another major cause of the turbulent times. Their evil influence upon the Federal Judiciary has been contributory to the “law and order” breakdown. The Supreme Court of the United States began rendering liberal opinions of the Constitution with its Bill of Rights. The Court, in effect, began issuing orders to implement these liberal decisions which consisted of that august body’s becoming a law-making and enforcing branch instead of its being an interpretive body as authorized. These liberal rulings weakened the hands of law enforcement agencies, while coddling criminals. These activities were most detrimental to the apprehension and interrogation of suspected criminals.

“Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Ecc. 8:11). Liberal lawmakers have set up an endless appeals system for convicted criminals to which they are “entitled,” which has almost destroyed just punishment of criminals. Liberal law schools are turning out radical lawyers on fire to see that one who is charged with a crime gets a “fair trial.” But they are not interested so much in a fair trial as they are interested in making a name for themselves as great defense lawyers.

I heard a lawyer on a talk show some time ago say: “I will do every thing I can to keep the truth from coming out against my client.” How does such an attitude as that square with a “fair trial”? Or how does such an attitude on the part of a lawyer square with justice in the judicial system. These men are out to make a name for themselves, along with the megabucks that come from such evil activities! Covetousness is rampant in this humanistic saturated society.

Symptoms of Decay

The famous historian, Gibbon, attributed the decline and fall of the Roman Empire to five causes: “(1) Rapid increase in divorce, undermining the sanctity of the home, the basis of society. (2) Higher and higher taxes, and the spending of public money for bread and celebration. (3) The mad craze for pleasure; sports becoming every year more exciting and brutal. (4) Building of gigantic armaments, when the real enemy was within  the decadence of the people. (5) The decay of religion, faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life, and impotent to guide.” Plainly, the once-great Pagan Roman Empire rotted within!

Any serious-minded, discerning person knows that all five of the above listed causes for the decline and fall of Rome, are inherent in our once-great nation. Worldly people know it. We should. I heard a worldly woman on TV, who had engaged in receiving pornographic telephone calls, refer to America today as a “morally bankrupt society.”

Consider the Following Symptoms in the USA

Since “the wicked will be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God,” we need to examine the condition of this once-great country and be alarmed at the direction it has taken. We cannot afford to be arrogant and expect God to make an exception of us just because we were once, at least to a large degree, a God-fearing, morally-oriented people. I personally am incensed at the deterioration of the moral standards that were once held by the majority of people in this country.

Cal Thomas, a conservative syndicated columnist and TV commentator and once a vital part of the “Moral Majority” that was most instrumental in the presidential election in 1980, wrote an article recently in which he affirmed that there is no longer a “moral majority” in this country.

In his incisive article, Thomas said that, in the twelve years from 1980 through 1992, the majority of people in this country no longer adhere to the Old and New Testaments as the standard of morality. How sad. I feel as Jeremiah did when he sat in the rubble of the once-great Jerusalem: “Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and great servitude . . . for the Lord hath afflicted her for the multitude of her transgressions . . . Jerusalem hath sinned grievously … All her people sigh, they seek bread; they have given their pleasant things for meat to relieve the soul; Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?” (Lam. 1:3-12a) It seems to me that the majority of people of this once great nation either do not see the grievous sins committed with no sense of shame, or they just do not care! Do we not see that this is the same condition that caused Rome to fall  the decadence of the people?

“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). “Fools make a mock at sin” (Prov. 14:9). This nation has run the gamut of folly, wickedness and mockery against God. During the mid-sixties, Phil Donahue initiated a daytime talk show. He is outrageous in his mockery of God and everything good. Then along came Oprah, Sally Jessy, Maury Povich, Arsenio Hall, Geraldo, et al. All of these deal in the weird, vulgar, perverted and pornographic jungle in which they revel and “make a mock at sin.” ” What they have done is try to make every evil activity in America “socially accept-able,” which sometimes deceives even professed members of the Lord’s church.

But Paul warned: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting” (Gal. 6:7, 8). The word “mock” means liter-ally “to writhe the nostrile,” to treat with contempt, to sneer at. Today, we use the term, to turn up the nose at. Of course, Paul did not mean that people could not try to mock God. He did mean that one cannot get away with it, and warned of the consequences of trying. “He that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption.” Fools still try to “mock” God!

Consider the hue and cry by the liberal, humanistic gaggle demanding our government spend millions of dollars to try to prevent or cure the AIDS infection. The immoral reprobates who have contracted the virus because of their evil “lifestyle,” tried to mock God and demand acceptance of our society on an equal basis with the black race that fought the civil rights battle. But there is no comparison between the two. It is not immoral to be black or any other skin color. But it is immoral to try to mock God and “receive in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet” (due, ASV, Rom. 1:26, 27) The context here shows Paul was describing homosexuals/ lesbians and was affirming they got what they deserved!

I am not saying that these miserable creatures should not receive medical treatment for their sexually transmitted diseases. I grieve over the poor hemophiliacs who have contracted the disease through contaminated blood from the immoral reprobates. I think any person who knows he/ she is infected with HIV and gives blood which contaminates an innocent person who is afflicted with hemophilia, should be tried and convicted of murder! I have very little respect for all the movie stars who are feverishly pressing the government for millions of dollars to find a cure for AIDS with my taxes. Paul warned: “For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).

The Blight of Secular Humanism

As one surveys the chaos in which U.S.A. 1993 finds itself, he should be impressed with the fact that in the last quarter of a century there has been a profound change for the worse in our society. The change came slowly, insidiously. It reminds me of a statement by our Lord in the parable of the tares: “The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man who sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat” (Matt. 13:24, 25).

While America was lulled into complacency by a false sense of great prosperity, good times, financial security, pleasure and inflated money, the secular humanists (atheists) sowed seeds of a God-denying, faith-destroying, codified philosophy, set forth in their own publications  Humanist Manifesto I, published in 1933, and Humanist Manifesto II, published in 1973.

These two manifestos have been published together in paperback form by Prometheus Books, 700 East Amherst Street, Buffalo, NY 14215. The publication is edited by Paul Kurtz and should be bought and studied by every person who is concerned about the moral decay of this nation. I urge all gospel preachers, Bible class teachers, parents and all Christians to become knowledgeable about this destructive false religion whose propagators are deter-mined to rid the world of “faith in the prayer-hearing God.” If this warning fails to get the attention of the reader, I am convinced he/she is “sleeping the sleep of death.” My copy cost me only $2.95. Buy it, study it. It will be time and money well spent. One preaching brother reportedly said, “I have never preached on humanism. I don’t see any need for it.” This is one of the preachers and public Bible teachers who are to be blamed for the decay of our society, including decline in the church. They saw no need! GI.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 20, p. 8-10
October 21, 1993

By Bobby L. Graham

“The spirit of pacifism is taking the fight out of the church. But the conflict between truth and error is unending. Victory does not come by truce. God’s terms are unconditional surrender…. The church grew when the fight was waged and the battle raged. When the letup came in the fight, the let-down came in the church. It is said that the sectarians do not fight any more. That is because the church has quit fighting and they have nothing to fight. If gospel preachers (and other Christians  BLG) will fight now as preachers fought then, the denominations will also fight now as they did then . . . and truth will triumph now as it triumphed then. Shall we yield to the line of least resistance, or shall we challenge error in its strongholds and its citadels?”

 The preceding quotation from brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr., which I read sometime ago, has provoked the thought ex-pressed in the title of the article. If anything needs to be said to Christians of our time, it is what brother Wallace said. We have, beyond any doubt, experienced a let-down in the church in numbers of places because many members have little faith and even less conviction or courage to stand for their faith. This article is not commending the use of mean and ugly tactics, but rather the vigorous waging of the battle for truth in the spirit of love and kindness.

We do follow the line of least resistance. Many choose to disregard errornot fight it; others suggest that we condemn sin in generalities  not in specifics; yet others say that we should accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative. Whether we realize it or not, such is the very path Satan would have us to follow if we are not fully pledged to him. We are playing to his hands.

Let us look to the pages of God’s Word to see how earlier men of God reproved error. Elijah called upon the prophets of idolatrous Baalism to demonstrate the authenticity of their claims or to quit making them. He also urged the undecided Israelites to commit themselves to either Jehovah or Baal and quit limping between the two sides (1 Kgs. 18). John the Baptist stood in the courts of royalty and rebuked Herod for his adulterous marriage to his sister-in-law (Matt. 14). Jesus, from his first confrontation with the Devil in Matthew 4 to his return to the portals of glory, condemned sin and challenged the sinner. The Chorazins and the Bethsaidas and the Capemaums were the objects of his rebuke, nor did the Jewish hierarchy escape his woeful warnings (Matt. 23). In the instructions Jesus gave to the disciples in Matthew 10 when he sent them on the limited commission, he told them to leave behind those who had no appreciation for the gospel message; even Sodom and Gomorrah will be sooner the recipients of divine mercy than those who spurn the saving news of Jesus and his kingdom. Peter on Pentecost pointed the accusing finger of inspiration at the very Jews who had slain the Christ and blamed them with his death. He and John courageously informed the Council of the Jews, that they took their instructions from the Lord, not men (Acts 4-5). Paul strolled the streets of Athens, was stirred in spirit by the idols in evidence, and subsequently preached to the people Jehovah whom they knew not and his son Jesus who would judge even them (Acts 17). Preachers are urged to preach the Word, whether it be seasonable or unseasonable. In doing so, they must reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering and teaching, even when men call for teachers to scratch their itching ears (1 Tim. 4). Jude exhorts Christians to contend (agonize) earnestly for the faith of the gospel (Jude 3).

When gospel preachers, elders, and other Christians do as these did, do they show a lack of love? No! Let us pray and teach for the day when the people of God see themselves as the mighty army of the living God going forth full-force to follow their leaders in doing battle against the forces of sin.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 20, p. 4
October 21, 1993

First Negative

This debate is about “unity in diversity.” Ron Tate says that we can and must be united upon the “core gospel” (the essentials of faith), but that we can differ on doctrinal matters. His argument is that we can be united even though we differ on matters of worship (instrumental music) and the work and organization of the church, etc.

No Scripture Given

Mr. Tate agreed to affirm a proposition that said, “The Scriptures teach …” Yet, he made no appeal to the Bible to prove his proposition. I realize that he cited a few passages in telling us what he thinks the “core gospel” involves. But not even one passage was cited to support his “unity in diversity” concept. We will be watching for some Scripture in his next affirmative.

Tate’s Distinction in “Core Gospel” and “Doctrine”

He defines the “core gospel” as the “essentials” of faith, “clear, specific statements in the Scriptures” and “essential matters of faith to which we must hold.” To speak of “essential matters of faith” implies that there are matters of faith that are not essential. Would Mr. Tate care to tell us which matters of faith are non-essential? Which matters of faith are not the ones “to which we must hold”? He identifies six points in the “core gospel”:

Tate’s Core Gospel

Acceptance of:

1. Authority and existence of God (Heb. 11:6).

2. Deity and lordship of Christ (Jn. 14:6).

3. Scriptures as infallible, inspired & complete (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

4. Church as entity for which Christ died . . . (Acts 2:47; Eph. 5:23).

5. The importance of immersion (John 3:5; Rom. 6:4; 2 Cor. 5:17).

6. Faithfulness as a way of life (Matt. 16:24; 1 Cor. 4:2).

How did he determine what fits into the “core gospel” and what does not? Is this all there is to the “core gospel”? What about faith in the Holy Spirit? What about the virgin birth? What about the resurrection of Christ from the dead? What about the doctrine of a resurrection of the dead in the end of time (I Cor. 15)? What about worship offered to God? What about the work and organization of the church? What about God’s law concerning divorce and remarriage (Matt. 19:9)? What about homosexuality? What about the question of whether the church can have a Pope? I would be interested in knowing not only where he places these, but also how he determines where they go.

“Doctrinal matters” he defines as “those areas that are not addressed by specific commands.” He calls this area “matters of opinion.” We can differ here and still be united we are told.

I wonder about the doctrine of the virgin birth or the doctrine of the resurrection of all the dead? Are these “doctrinal matters”? What about elements for the Lord’s supper? It that a “doctrinal matter”?

To the contrary, the Bible teaches that we must be united on doctrinal matters and they are essential. John wrote, “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Fathe and the Son” (2 Jn. 9). Paul said that we must all “speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). Paul thought it essential to hold not only to the six elements of Tate’s “core gospel” but also the “words in this epistle” saying those who do not obey the words of that epistle are not to be fellowshipped (2 ‘Mess. 3:14).

When Mr. Tate makes a distinction in essential matters of faith (“core gospel”) and non-essential matters of faith (“doctrinal matters”) he puts himself in the place of God to tell us what is important and what is not. Jesus warned the one who “breaks (annuls  NASV; relaxes  RSV; from Greek luoword for looseMatt. 18:18) one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so …” (Matt. 5:19). Mr. Tate is taking it on himself to loose some of God’s instructions. There is but one lawgiver (Jas. 4:12).

Mr. Tate wrote, “It is important to note that the men who began what we know as the Restoration Movement disagreed quite strongly among themselves over certain issues. However, in spite of this disagreement they did not divide.” Can we disagree and not divide over the issue of the “pious unimmersed”? Can we disagree and not divide over Baptist baptism? Can we disagree and not divide over the issue of the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures? Some use this same reasoning to say that we can disagree and not divide over the issue of divorce and remarriage.

Different Heremeneutical Approaches

Mr. Tate points out that those in the churches of Christ have followed the heremeneutics which calls for command, approved example or necessary inference, while the Independent Christian Churches subscribe to a different one. Theirs calls for obedience to direct commands, under-standing what is non-scriptural (what is not mentioned) and what is anti-scriptural (what is prohibited). He mixes apples and oranges under his list of things that are “non-scriptural.” He lists instrumental music (which is an addition to the word  being a different kind of music) along with song books and communion sets (which are aids to carrying out the commands of God).

In Acts 15 when the matter of the necessity of circumcision was discussed, the answer was proven by a heremeneutics that Mr. Tate says came from man. Peter argued from the conversion of Cornelius and necessarily infered that the Gentiles do not need to be circumcised (vv. 7-11; cf. Acts 11:18). Paul and Bamabas argued from the example of God working through them among the Gentiles which was approved by the miracles (v. 12). James con-tended that a direct statement from God proved the same thing (v. 13-21).

We are chided for elevating this hermeneutics to the level of Scripture. Yet, that is exactly what he has done with his hermeneutics as he applies it to the proposition. That says that we can’t understand the Bible alike. If we cannot, how can we understand the six elements in the “core gospel” alike?

Approved Examples

Tate asks, “Are people today required to imitate the actions of individuals or churches recorded in the New Testament?” Paul said, “Be followers of me…” (1 Cor. 11:1; 4:16). “Be followers of me … ” (1 Cor. 11:1; 4:16). The same writer said, “join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern” (Phil. 3:17) and “The things which you … saw in me do …” (Phil. 4:9). See also Hebrews 6:12. If examples are not binding, then the Lord’s Supper could not be limited to the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).

There Must Be Diversity

Mr. Tate tells us that “Mindless cloning is out of the qustion.” Yet, he thinks that there must be “mindless cloning” on the six elements of the “core gospel.” ” He says it is “ludicrous” to suggest giving up matters of disagreement. Yet, he does not think it “ludicrous” to ask others to give up those matters that do not harmonize with his “core gospel.” Is “mindless cloning” out of the question on homosexuality or the question of a Pope?

All will agree that there will be some differences among those who are in fellowship with one another (Rom. 14). The question is concerning the type of diversity. Will there be diversity in matters of indifference (matters which do not involve sin) or in doctrinal matters? That’s what this discussion is about. How would our friend deal with the issue of sprinkling?

Questions for Mr. Tate Us

1. What is the Scripture from which you base your argument of unity in diversity?

2. How do you determine that acceptance of Christ’s Deity is an essential matter of faith and how we worship God is not?

3. What is the criteria for deciding whether the questions of homosexuality and divorce and remarriage will go under the “core gospel” or “doctrinal matters”?

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 19, p. 18-19
October 7, 1993

By Lowell Blasingame

For years a basic difference between the preaching of the gospel preachers and denominational preachers has been our plea for a restoration of the church of the New Testament while they have taught that every man has the right to the church of his choice. We have insisted that by speaking where the Bible speaks and remaining silent where it is silent and by contending that scriptural authority is necessary for all that is taught and practiced in religion, we can restore the church of the New Testament.

Now a group of brethren are telling us that we have gone about our preaching in a wrong way and have antagonized and alienated our religious neighbors by this approach to the Scriptures. They tell us that we need a new set of rules or hermeneutics for applying and interpreting the Scriptures. ACU Press has released a book, The Cruciform Church, written by C. Leonard Allen, in which the restoration plea is ridiculed as one of the conceits of our time and we are told that we cannot return to the beginning and start all over again (Introduction, p. x).

Advocates of the new hermeneutics ridicule the plea for restoration by asking which church of the first century we want to restore, Laodecia with its indifference, or Corinth with its immorality, etc. Their conclusion seems to be that since these failed to be ideal that there is no pattern worthy of restoration. I agree that these churches were lacking in some things but suppose they heed the instructions given for correcting these faults, will they then become examples worthy of our emulation? Besides, there are some who received no censure. How about choosing the church at Smyrna or Philadelphia (Rev. 2-3) or the church at Philippi?

The assumption that corruption in a church in the first century eliminates an ideal for restoration is ridiculous. Shall we also assume that since false gospels were taught in the fast century by Judaizers and Gnostics (Gal. 1:6-8) that we cannot sweep away the past and restore the true gospel of the first century? Is this another of the great conceits of our time to suppose that we can do this?

Is our plea for a restoration of the church of the first century a valid plea? I affirm that it is and do so for the following reasons.

First, the word of God is the seed of the kingdom. Matthew called it “the word of the kingdom” (Mau. 13:19) while Luke identifies it as “the seed” (Lk. 8:11). An irrevocable law of God says that a seed produces after its kind (Gen. 1:11). As long as a seed has life, it will produce the same kind of plant as that from which it came. And, if all of these plants are lost, the possibility of their being restored remains as long as their seed exists. Exactly the same is true regarding the kingdom or church of our Lord. Preaching the word produced the Lord’s church during the first century and as long as we have the word (seed), we have the potential for the restoration of the church. If not, why not? Why will it not make the same thing of those who believe and obey it today as it did 1990 or more years ago?

Second, the New Testament is a “form” of doctrine or of sound words (Rom. 6:17; 2 Tim. 1:13). The word hupotuposis, used in 2 Timothy 1:13 also occurs in I Timothy 1:16 and is there translated “pattern.” The New Testament is a form, a pattern or blueprint of what God wants his people individually and collectively to be. As Moses was forbidden to alter the pattern of the tabernacle (Heb. 8:5), we are forbidden to make changes in the teaching of Christ (I Pet. 4:11; 2 Jn. 9; 1 Cor. 4:6). Inasmuch as the New Testament is a pattern showing how to start a local church, what its organizational structure is, its mission and its worship, it follows that as long as we have a New Testament, we have the blueprint for restoring the church of the first century.

I do not know what kind of dress Martha Washington wore when her husband became the first president of our country. But I know that, if a seamstress has the material and pattern from which it was made, she can today make one exactly like it. As long as these exist, the dress can be restored. Equally as well, using the same material and following the same pattern today will restore the church of the first century.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 20, p. 10
October 21, 1993