Truth Magazine

By Clinton D. Hamilton

The question for this column is a broad one dealing with the subject of forgiveness, especially in relation to the idea of forgiveness in the Old Testament system. Whole theories that actually contradict what the Scriptures teach are built on misinterpretation of the concept of forgiveness. Some of these theories would, if true, make the sacrificial death of Christ unnecessary. This is because the theory is that the sacrifices under the Law of Moses actually re-moved sins. When the Old Testament speaks of forgiveness, one needs to understand these statements in relation to what is taught about the sacrifice for forgiveness; this sacrifice is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Question: Discuss the subject of the forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament with the 10th chapter of Hebrews where it states that there is no forgiveness under the Old Testament.

Response: It would be helpful to enter into a study of the words used in both testaments for. forgiveness. There three terms in the Old Testament that convey the idea of forgiveness: kapar, to cover; nasa, to bear or take away; salah, to pardon. The following terms occur in the New Testament: apoluo, to put away or send away; aphiemi, to send forth, send away (from apo, from, and hiemi, to send); charizomai, to bestow a favor such as forgiveness. It is easy from the sense and meaning of each of these words to understand basically what is embodied in the idea of forgiveness.

The Law of Moses had a show of good things to come, and not the very image of things (Heb. 10:1). Accordingly, the law can never with those sacrifices which the Israelites offered year by year continually make the corners thereunto perfect (Heb. 10:2). Had those sacrifices been effective in the removing of sins, they would have ceased to be offered; furthermore, had they been purged of their sins, there would have been no consciousness of sins (Heb. 10:2). However, they were made conscious of their sins every year at the time of the atonement.

Every year, at the atonement sacrifice, there was a remembrance of sins (Heb. 10:3). Sometimes, it is said that their sins were “rolled forward” every year. There is nothing in this passage that even hints at, much less states, this. When the sacrifice of atonement was made annually, it reminded them that sins had not been removed. The reason that their sins were not removed is that it is impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins (Heb. 10:4). The repeated offering of a sacrifice for sin demonstrated that it was not effective in the removing of sin because if it were effective, there would have been only one offering made. Jesus was offered once (Heb. 10:10). The writer of Hebrews affirms that where there is remission of sins there is no more offering for sins (10:18).

Someone might be ready at this point to inquire about how people before Christ are to be saved. By his own blood. Christ entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12). Under the Old Testament, the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sanctified to the purifying of the flesh (Heb. 9:13). The blood of Christ which he offered will cleanse the conscience from dead works (Heb. 9:14). Accordingly, “… for this cause he is the mediator of the new covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15).

Those persons under the first covenant or testament who walked by faith in observing what God had commanded in connection with the first covenant’s typical system would on the basis of their faith in observing God’s will, have their sins actually remitted by the blood of Christ. The life of the flesh is in the blood is what God told Israel (Lev. 17:11). God stated, “and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement by reason of the life” (Lev. 17:11). This blood did not remove sins as we have already learned but it foreshadowed the blood that would atone for sins, the blood of Christ. The typical significance of the system under the first covenant is not one of mean value. It abundantly and clearly pointed to the vicarious sacrifice of Christ and his cleansing blood. It was only prospective of, and foreshadowing, the new covenant system in which only one sacrifice was made for sins once.

When the sacrifice of Christ occurred, it is stated of him, “Whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:25-26). It is clear from these statements that it is on the basis of the sacrifice of Christ in the shedding of his blood that sins are removed. God declared in the new covenant why he was just in passing over sins done aforetime in the forbearance of God. Whether one may under-stand every aspect of this declaration is not an issue with a person of faith.

Paul also dealt with both the Gentile world and the Jews in these words: “For as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law; and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified” (Rom. 2:12-13). Parenthetically, he proceeded to explain this in verses 14 and 15. Then he commented that this will be the case “in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ” (Rom. 2:16). Additionally, Paul dealt with the same issue about the Gentiles in Acts 17:30-31.

Looking at the word of God as a total message, it is not hard to understand that sins under the first covenant when spoken of as being forgiven are only thus typically by a blood sacrifice foreshadowing the blood that would actually remove sins. Seen in this light, one should not have difficulty understanding the idea of forgiveness under the first covenant.

I believe that one must look at the implication of saying that sins were actually removed through the blood of bulls and goats. If this statement is true, then there was no need for Christ to die. It also follows as a consequence that the sacrifice made by Christ is not the one made for sins once.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 5-6
September 16, 1993

By Connie W. Adams

K Mart, Pornography and Southern Baptists

K Mart, which owns Waldenbooks, is the largest producer of pornography in the country. Efforts have been made, to no avail, to get this retail giant out of the pornography business. The Pension Board of the United Methodist Church a few weeks ago voted to sell all of its stock in K Mart as a protest. Now the Southern Baptist Annuity Board has voted to sell all of their 221,000 shares of K Mart stock for the same reason. Well, shame on K Mart for aiding and abetting the sleaze business. Anything to make a buck! But I am curious as to why the United Methodist Church and the Southern Baptist Church are investors in such a private business enterprise. According to the New Testament, the only authority for gathering funds with which to do the work of the church of the Lord, is by free-will contributions of members made on the first day of the week (2 Cor. 9:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-3). The only scriptural use for these funds is to preach the gospel (Phil. 4:15-16; 2 Cor. 11:8; 1 Tim. 3;15), and to relieve needy saints (1 Tim. 5:16; Acts 4:34-35). Churches which are engaged in business while being sheltered from taxes create unfair competition in the business world. The Southern Baptists are in a battle over biblical inerrant in what they teach about church finances. If so, why did they own 221,200 shares of K Mart?

Allan and Anita Turner To Kenya

Allan and Anita Turner of Louisville, Kentucky, moved to Kenya in east Africa the second week of July. Allan has made two preaching trips there, along with Paul Ayres. The last trip resulted in 45 obeying the gospel. There are now ten congregations meeting in Kenya. Eight of the 45 converted on this last trip were denominational preachers. The Turners plan to live in Nyeri (96 miles north of Nairobi). They will be supported by the Taylorsville Road church in Louisville, though there are some special needs beyond that. We salute them for their work of faith and pray God’s blessings upon them in this worthy effort.

Homosexual Deputy

Adding to the list of homosexuals in the government, HHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala has announced the appointment of news reporter Victor F. Zonana, 39, of New York City, as deputy assistant secretary for public affairs/media for the Department of Health and Human Services. He will be the principle public affairs liaison with the White House Press Office and will work directly with the assistant secretary for public affairs in an agency with 250 programs and the federal government’s largest budget.

Oh yes, he is winner of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation media award, and a co-founder of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (Reported in HHS News, May 13, 1993). Well, I guess this one is definitely out of the closet. Here is another pervert with access to the White House. And we are paying continued on next page his salary! How long will God bless America?

Buddy E. Payne, Jr. to Romania

In September, Buddy and Marilyn Payne and their 13-year-old son, will be going to Bucharest, Romania to spend at least two years in preaching and teaching the gospel. He has preached for the Temple Terrace congregation in Temple Terrace, Florida for several years and has both taught and served as an administrator at Florida College. He currently serves as Dean of the college. It was my pleasure recently to speak in a lecture program with him and also with Jerry Fite, of Pasadena, Texas, at Vivion Road in Kansas City, Missouri. Brother Payne is a very talented man with vast knowledge and the skills to convey it convincingly to an audience. The work in Romania has shown much promise. Brother Payne has done some short-term work there and sees the need for a longer commitment. Our prayers go with him and his family.

Marlboro Man Dead at 51 – Cancer

After smoking a pack and a half a day for 25 years, the handsome cowboy who made commercials for Marlboro cigarettes is dead at 51 of cancer. Late in his life he tried to warn people of the dangers of smoking and even pleaded with the tobacco company to limit its advertising, appearing before stockholders to sound his warnings. One smoker said he had read so much about the dangers of smoking that he had decided to give up reading! How many lives have been cut short from this foul habit! We serve God in our bodies and we ought to take good care of them. Read Romans 6:12-13.

Views of Future Preachers

In the spring of 1992 a survey was taken by Steve Miller, a student at Ohio Valley College. The survey concerned beliefs of Bible majors at that school. Some of the answers were startling to say the least. Question 2 was: Do you believe that a person can become a Christian without becoming a member of the church of Christ? 50% said Yes, 40% said No and 10% said they did not know. Question 3 was: Do you believe that there are Christians scattered among the various denominations? 63% said Yes, 37% said No. Question 7 was: Do you believe that the use of instrumental music in worship is sinful and that one will be lost for using them? 40% said Yes, 40% said No and 20% said they did not know. Question 9 was: Do you believe it is permissible to participate in any kind of joint religious activity with denominations? 53% said Yes, 30% said No and 17% did not know.

Question 11 was: Do you believe a person who has been divorced (but not because of their mate’s fornication) can remain in a second marriage and meet God’s approval? 23% said Yeas and 13% said they did not know. Question 16 was: Do you believe that the New Testament teaches that Christians are to partake of the Lord’s supper every first day of the week and to do otherwise would be sinful? 10% said No and 13% said they did not know. Question 17 was: Do you believe that clapping in worship (with songs or after the sermon) is wrong? 53% said No and 10% said they and not know. Question 18 was: Do you believe that the New Testament alone is sufficient for our authority’? 27% said No and 7% said they did not know.

Folks, the difference between us and some of the institutional churches and preachers becomes more pronounced all the time. In fairness, the same set of questions was put to the students at the Memphis School of Preaching with a much more conservative response. At any rate, you can see what some of these young liberals are going to be preaching (or not preaching).

A Holy Wow

Rubel Shelly, who has become too liberal for some of the institutional folks, has co-authored a book with Randy Harris, described by Shelly as “a bright young theologian at David Lipscomb College.” It is entitled The Second Incarnation, a Theology for the 21st Century Church. It makes about the same appeal as Shelly’s new journal, Wineskins. The purpose of that journal and this new book is to restructure the church in our time. Two quotes will explain what they mean by “the second incarnation.” In the church Christ is “enfleshed again” (55). “He seeks to be incarnate perpetually through the church that dares to wear His name” (240).

One thing which these men think needs drastic change is worship. “Tired forms won’t work with an exuberant message.” With a distinction drawn between gospel and doctrine, Shelly argues that “The old wine is religious legalism and the old wine skins are religious traditions and doctrines” which we “must be willing to scrap to make the message relevant to a new age.” He is ready to fellowship any who holds to “core” beliefs while differing on various doctrinal matters. Where have we heard this before?

He said, “To believe that you hear the Truth, whereas they must change (rest of the religious world – CWA) is an arrogant attitude.” He belittles the idea of using Scripture to prove what you believe. He is down on any idea of a New Testament pattern. He decries “pattern theology” and says “the extreme right (antis) have been more consistent” than the rest of this. “But we regard them as eccentrics,” he said. The restraints of pattern theology are “pointless encumbrances.”

This book is big on spontaneous worship. They decry a “tired, uninspiring event called worship.” This is “boring and irrelevant” (114). They tell us that we must somehow rid ourselves of worship that is “dull and boring to ourselves and unattractive to non-Christians.” Instead we must have a “raucous celebration” with “spontaneity” (139). He says we need “unavoidable worship” with “shouts,” “dances” (119), “jubilation … with applause and cheering” (140), “a narcotic trip into another world” (125) They tell us that worship must “become an encounter experience, that you have had an encounter with God, a holy WOW.”

That is what charismatics have tried to make of worship all along. They have made it into a religious hurray. Emotion becomes everything. This all overlooks one fundamental of acceptable worship. Worship is intended to please God. The only way finite man can know what an infinite God will accept is from his word. He told us what he wants. Granted, he should put our whole hearts into it. Granted we ought not to coldly go through the motions. When we scripturally do that which God authorized in his word, it is anything but dull and boring. Dull and boring to whom? If it is dull and boring to offer up worship which God ordained, then the fault lies with us and not with what we are doing. “Whatever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Col. 3:17). The Father seeks men to worship him “in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:24).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 3-5
September 16, 1993

By Jady W. Copeland

There is absolutely no substitute for faithful, uncompromising preaching of the word of God. Paul charged (“to charge earnestly”) Timothy, “Preach the word; Be ready in season, out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned to fables” (2 Tim. 4:2-4). (NKJ)

Within the past sixty or seventy years churches have adopted the practice of “hiring” a “”full-time” preacher to work with the local church. And whether we admit it or not, many are getting dangerously close to the “pastor system” which we so pointedly condemn in denominationalism. If all brethren (the preacher, the elders and other saints) understand the Scriptures, and if they understand their duty to God there is nothing wrong with having a “full-time” preacher in the church. The preacher or the elder is worthy of his hire, if he does his work well (1 Tim. 5:17-18; 1 Cor. 9:6-14). If he is primarily interested in “becoming a preacher” to “have a job” (and I’m afraid this is happening) he becomes a “hireling” and may not put the Lord’s work first in his life and work. Jesus, in speaking of himself as the good shepherd said, “But he who is a hireling and not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming, leaves the sheep, and flees” (John 10-12). I believe this principle is true of the elder or preacher who gets his support from brethren. If the support is a primary consideration he has not the welfare of the flock uppermost in mind. In that case he will “move on” in the interest of his job when things don’t go exactly to suit him. I realize he sometimes gets to the point that he honestly feels he can do nothing for the situation, so there is nothing left but for him to move on.

The Support of Preachers

That churches have the right to support preachers, and that preachers have the scriptural right to accept such support is not questioned. Paul said, “I robbed other churches, taking wages from them to minister to you” (2 Cor. 11:8). Philippi supported Paul (Phil. 4:15-16). This principle is taught in the Old Testament (Deut. 24:15).

When a preacher is supported by churches, is he not still primarily working for the Lord? His work may take him to many places as was the case of Paul, but he is still preaching the gospel to save souls. That is his “business.” Philippi supported Paul while preaching elsewhere. They supported him several times but it seems to me common sense dictates that the church and the preacher have an understanding about such matters when they begin to support him. This prevents problems down the line. If they want him to stay in the community where they live, have that understanding; if he does not like that arrangement he can get support elsewhere. But to say that “he is working for us” seems to put the emphasis in the wrong place. I repeat: his “business” is saving souls for the Lord and we are supporting him while doing so. Read carefully 1 Timothy 4:16.

We have (in our busy society) fallen into the practice of having a “located preacher” and becoming so dependent on him for teaching, that we are, I’m afraid, neglecting our own personal development and study of the Bible. This is a symptom of the “pastor system” that we condemn so definitely in the denominational world. Do we have to have “the located preacher” every Sunday? Is that the only source of information we have? Is this not (unconsciously perhaps) an indication that we are copying the “pastor system” of those around us? It was very refreshing to me several months ago when I visited a congregation who did not have a “regular preacher” and one of the ladies re-marked that “we are doing just fine with the various men taking turns doing the preaching.” With so many men of ability in many congregations now, could it be that if they would prepare well, and apply themselves that they could do the local preaching and have more money to support preachers overseas or other places in this country? Each congregation will have to judge for themselves, but my point is this: “Have we adopted the pastor system without realizing it?” And this is not minimizing the need of good preaching, and the power of the gospel, but we do need to give some thought to where we are drifting. If we think we must be “spoon fed” every Sunday and can’t grow without it, we need to change our thinking. And I repeat: I am not minimizing the power of the gospel, nor the need of gospel preaching; I am simply trying to get us to think about the way we may be drifting.

May I make this suggestion to my fellow preachers  especially you younger men who want to preach or have just begun preaching? Be careful about your demands for money, and be willing to make whatever sacrifice necessary if you really want to preach, and think this is the best way for you to serve God. I fully realize my thinking may be influenced by my own experiences and the time I started preaching (1941) but I believe we can see signs that many think they must have a good salary and be fully supported when they start preaching. If you do not have as your driving desire the salvation of souls, then don’t present yourself to brethren as a preacher desiring support. Think me extreme if you must, but I honestly believe that if you really want to preach, and if you think that is the best way to serve God (if you have the ability), God will provide you a place to preach and support from brethren. But I have often said this (and some may think I am in this category) that there are some who are presenting themselves as preachers who should be serving God in some other capacity. This alone has been the root of many problems.

Young men ask yourselves these questions: “Am I primarily concerned about salary?” “Do I have the attitude of Paul who was willing to work with his hands while preaching without pay?” “Is my driving thought the salvation of souls?” “Is preaching the gospel the most effective way for me to save those souls?” After all, I must not only realize my strengths, but I also must accept my limitations. Please don’t think I am trying to discourage anyone from preaching; it is one of the greatest and most rewarding works on earth. I am only trying to get us to think about the proper use of the Lord’s money as well as encouraging young men to seriously consider how they can best serve the Lord.

Now let us look at the matter of support from the standpoint of the church. Brethren, the preacher is worthy of his hire. Don’t starve him. If he has the proper attitude in wanting to preach, and has the ability, why should he suffer from lack of adequate support? Brethren think about these things when you talk about support: (1) He receives no fringe benefits as do many. Does not the hourly worker receive about’/ of his wages from fringe benefits? (Maybe more) (2) He pays over 15% of his salary in social security. (3) He usually spends more than the average for car expense. I believe car dealers tell me the average mileage put on a car is about 10-15 thousand miles per years. Through the years I have put about 20-25 thousand miles per year on mine, and I don’t drive as much as many preachers. (4) He will do a better job if his wife doesn’t work out of the home. Indeed, brethren, you have a serious responsibility in spending the Lord’s money, and it may be true that some preachers get “more than they are worth” but give some serious thought to the support  he is “worthy of his hire.”

The Support of Elders

While this is less common among us, more and more churches are supporting elders in their work, and it be perfectly scriptural (I Tim. 5:17-18). The above principles need to be kept in mind, but in the case of the elder and the church, the situation is different. The elder must have been a member of the local church for some time in order to be an elder in the first place (note the qualifications that demand this). The church must consider the arrangement and wisdom of such an arrangement. Don’t begin supporting an older man “just so he will have a better retirement.” This is not a good reason to support him. The statement, “The laborer is worthy of his hire” (quoted from Deut. 25:4) is a statement regarding the support of elders, and not preachers, primarily. So he must be “worthy” of hire. We don’t need “hirelings” in the eldership any more than we need “hirelings” as preachers. Another danger in this is that sometimes the other elders look to him to take their work “because he has more time.” While it is true he has more time, it is also true he can’t do their work, any more than the preacher can do another’s work. Both have more than they can do. Also, when an elder is “paid” some may get the idea that he is the “head” or “main” elder. Not so. There is no difference in their work at all; they have equal responsibility.

As we close this series on possessed by our possessions, let us close by saying that in whatever capacity we serve our Master, let us make sure that we are driven by the fact that he is our Master; we are his servant and since material things are only temporary and fleeting, we must not let “things” possess us; let us possess them to his glory and our salvation.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 10-11
September 16, 1993

By Bill Crews

“To steal or purloin and pass off as one’s own (the ideas, words, writings, etc. of another).” Thus does a dictionary define the word “plagiarism,” and the practice is alive and well among men. It is a form of both theft and lying, and it is found among authors and writers, students and teachers, reporters and editors, politicians and preachers. It is not practiced to a large extent, and it is nearly always found out. When it is deliberate, it is reprehensible and inexcusable.

Many of the things that every individual has learned have come from others in the form of spoken words heard or written words read. Our mind are thus influenced and molded, and they retain those things that we believe to be true and accept as good and worthwhile. These, in turn, find expression in our own words, both spoken and writ-ten. Very little of what anyone writes is completely original in the truest sense of that word (cf. Eccl. 1:9; 2:12; 3:15; 6:10).

Hardly anyone who writes anything is going to do so without using some of the words and phrases, ideas and themes, points and conclusions of others. But this is a far cry from copying the material of others and giving our-selves credit for it by affixing our own names to it. Sometimes material is copied, and the name of the author inadvertently left off. Sometimes such “anonymous” material is used, and a name mistakenly affixed to it as the author. Sometimes initials at the end of an article are misconstrued (some writers have the same initials). I have seen articles written by attributed to others  knowing how such things can happen and considering it an honest mistake (and flattered that anyone would think my material worth repeating), I usually do nothing about it. But when I see somebody else’s material attributed to me, I always want to write and correct it. But, again, all of this is a far cry from deliberate plagiarism.

This article is simply an appeal to every one who writes, prints, and circulates articles to be more careful and more conscientious. Put your name on initials at either the beginning or the end of your articlesor otherwise identify yourself as the author (“all articles written by the editor unless otherwise specified”). When using material that you do not write, identify the author; if unknown, say so. But please resist the temptation to claim credit for words written by someone else. If you have ever knowingly and deliberately done so in the past, repent of it and resolve never to repeat it.

When I was a student in college, I lost respect for one of my teachers when I learned that many statements in his own textbook were taken directly from other authors (whose books were in the school library) without putting them in quotation marks and with no credit given to those authors in any fashion. I have a Bible handbook supposedly written by a brother in the Lord (who has published several books), but much of it is taken directly, word for word, from an older and larger Bible handbook, without any credit given to the original author. An outlined article by Frank L. Cox was used by a brother in his local church bulletin, copied word for word, with his own name affixed at the end. Recently I received a bulletin with an old Erma Bombeck article (one of her few very serious ones, written more than ten years ago) in it. Credited as the author was a preacher who obviously didn’t write it.

Honest mistakes we all understand, but deliberate plagiarism is inexcusable. Anyone who resorts to it knows exactly what he is doing, and “my brethren, these things ought not so to be” (Jas. 4:10).

(Editor’s Note: Some churches are guilty of unlawfully using another’s work when they buy one copy of a workbook and photocopy the lessons from it to pass them out to the class. Besides being illegal, it is also not cost effective. A 70-page book at 5-10 cents a page costs more when photo-copied then when purchased.)

“Honest mistakes we all understand, but deliberate plagiarism is inexcusable. Anyone who resorts to it knows exactly what he is doing, and `my brethren, these things ought not so to be.’ “

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 9
September 16, 1993