Truth Magazine

By Andy Alexander

Writing about Paul’s visit to Athens, Luke describes the Athenians and strangers who visited there as people who spent “their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new” (Acts 17:21). This first century malady is still seen today in many quarters.

The news media is constantly trying to be the first to report some new item. Television talk shows go to great lengths finding deviants or perverts who are not ashamed to talk about their perversions. This effort is fueled by the desire to show or tell something that no one has seen or heard before. This kind of news obviously sells or we would not see such a large volume of this trash produced each week. Telling and hearing some new thing certainly is not confined to Greece or the first century.

Telling and hearing some new thing can be good or it can be bad. Telling people the gospel is a good thing and though so many people have a Bible, they have not really been taught the truth. Therefore, it is a very good thing for someone to properly guide them in a study of God’s word.

Relaying joyful news to others is a good thing. News such as the birth of one into Christ or the birth of a new baby into the world is happy news that is good to relate to others. Even sad news can be a good thing to pass along to others. This will help brethren to be aware of a potential need physically or spiritually. While one will not enjoy passing along sad news, it is sometimes necessary because some news is news that needs to be known.

However, there is news that does not need general issemination, news that is personal in nature and news that all the brethren need not be made aware of. Yet, at times it seems that some brethren feel it their responsibility to let others know everything that they know. And, they like the Athenians of old enjoy “hearing and telling some new thing.”

This that we are referring to is commonly called gossip. The Scriptures list gossip as a sin which will cause one to experience the second death (Rom. 1:29-32). Among the sins Paul was afraid he would find when he visited Corinth was the sin of gossip (2 Cor. 12:20). Gossip is defined as `”idle talk, notalways true about people and their affairs.” It is possible that gossip stems from the desire to hear and tell some new thing. We just like to be the first with news that nobody else knows.

Listed with the sin of gossip in Paul’s second letter to Corinth was the sins of strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, arrogance, and disturbances (2 Cor. 12:20). It is interesting because these sins seem to all go together. They feed off each other. If we, as Christians, would keep this in mind, it might help us curb our desire to tell and hear some new thing and at the same time help maintain peace in the congregation. Striving to maintain peace and harmony is required of each Christian (Phil. 2:1-2; Eph. 4:1-3). It is not always possible to maintain, but we are responsible for trying.

It is easy to participate in the sin of gossip. We some-times justify our actions with the reason that we are trying to help, and we may be, but telling people who are not involved and who likely will not do anything to help a situation can only lead to trouble. We are talking about “idle talk, not always true about people and their affairs.” We must always ask ourselves the purpose for relating such news. Will it build up the body of Christ? Will it promote peace and harmony in the church? Is it really necessary to tell? Will it help the person being told and the person that it is about? Are we sure that it is the truth?

Jesus says “that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be condemned” (Matt. 12:36-37). The reason this is so is explained in the context. The words we speak are indications of our true character (Matt. 12:34-35).

If our words are words of gossip, murmuring, and slander, then our heart is not pure and clean as it ought to be. If, on the other hand, our words are uplifting, helpful, and true, then our heart is in the right condition.

James warns Christians of the dangers of the tongue. His book is filled with excellent teaching that will help each child of God to grow spiritually in Christ. Following the teaching of James regarding the tongue will eliminate gossip, slander, backbiting, and all other sins of the tongue. It is one thing to know what to do and another to put into practice the things that are known (Jas. 1:22-25).

Think Think Think before speaking! If what we are about to reveal is true, is it something that others who are not involved need to know? It may involve a family situation that the family would rather keep quiet. It could involve the gain or loss of a notable amount of income and general knowledge may create jealousy in-stead of rejoicing among some of the brethren. It could embrace sins of the past that have been forgiven and do not need to be and should not be brought up and passed around. Whatever the case may be, bridling the tongue is a requirement, not a request (Jas. 1:26).

Telling or hearing something new in the first century in Athens, Greece usually involved a vain philosophy that would damn one’s soul. The urge to let our tongues run wild and open our ears to any new thing is a real and ever-present danger that can cause us to lose our souls just as the false philosophies of men would in the city of Athens. This urge has not died away with time and as Christians, we should keep in memory the admonitions of our Lord to guard what enters our mind and exits our lips (Prov. 4:23-24; Matt. 12:33-37).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 17, p. 22-23
September 2, 1993

By Clinton D. Hamilton

The question posed below did not reference any Scripture but presumably it is based on one. Accordingly, my response will be based on the Scripture which I believe was in the mind of the querist that suggested to him the question he raises. The question is one that is often asked and appears to capture the interest of many people.

Question: What if the “habitual practice” of a people or society is that of divorcing and remarrying, and they think it is acceptable, won’t God then judge then on the basis of that knowledge and their “habitual practice”?

Response: Romans 2:14-15 may be the passage undergirding this question. In the response, I am making this assumption. Accordingly, my comments, observations, and arguments should be interpreted in the light of this assumption.

The referenced passage reads as follows: “(for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them)” (ASV). Phusis is the term from which nature is translated. In this context, it refers to a habitual practice handed down; evidently, it came from the tradition that can be traced back through those who did not have the law of Moses. This would be the non-Jewish segment of the human family. The querist probably commenced with this assumption and moved to the deduction that men who accept such will be judged by it and not by the norm of behavior set forth in New Testament teaching on the marriage and divorce issue.

A general principle is laid down in verse 11: “for there is no respect of persons with God.” The first three verses of the chapter tell the Jews that they cannot escape the judgment of God because they were recipients of the law. If they practice what ungodly Gentiles did which God condemns, then they condemn themselves and should not think that they can escape the judgment of God. Paul then contemplates a judgment by God that makes a distinction between the righteous and the unrighteous (Rom. 2:4-10). Those that sin under the law will be judged by the law, those that sin without the law will be judged without the law. Note these verses: “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). Several salient points appear to be appropriate. Two groups of people will be judged: Jews and Gentiles. No respect of persons applies, because the Jews were given the law will this fact not aid them nor will the fact that Gentiles did not have the law of Moses work against them. It is the doers of the law that will be justified whether Jew or Gentile.

But in judging both groups God takes into consideration their situation. From Adam, there had been revelation from God relative to sacrifice, marriage, murder, etc. This revelation was handed down from generation to generation. To the Jews God gave the special revelation of the law of Moses but he left the Gentiles with their tradition and habitual practice. Their lapse into idolatry and other forms of ungodliness was inexcusable (Rom. 1:18-21). On the other hand, Jews were guilty of similar sins. Their being Jews would not protect them from thejudgment of God for their ungodliness.

Another point needs to be kept in mind: it is doing the things of the law that matters (Rom. 2:14-15). There is not contemplated here the situation which is set forth in the question: individuals doing what the law of God condemns. In this connection, note especially verse 14. Judgment is to be meted out according to Paul’s gospel, by Jesus Christ (Rom. 2:16). Whether we understand every-thing about it is not the issue. The gospel states that this is the case.

Jesus makes clear by what we will be judged: “He that rejected me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same judge him in the last day” (Jn. 12:48). Likewise, Paul is clear on the point when he says, “The times of this ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent: inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31).

Paul set forth in Romans 2 how God would be just and no respecter of persons in the final judgment, looking at all mankind both Jew and Gentiles. To Gentiles in Acts 17 Paul pointedly said that they will be judged by the law of Christ. Were Ito know everything about the judging of the Jews and the Gentiles who lived before the law of Christ, I would be as God. I do not propose to put myself in that position. But it is my responsibility as a child of God by faith to believe what God has revealed. He told me how he is going to be just and no respecter of persons. I believe what is revealed. No one who violates the law of Christ can do so with impunity.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 17, p. 5-6
September 2, 1993

By Connie W. Adams

Jesus gave the greatest invitation of all when he said “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Mt. 11:28-30).

Two Classes Who

Need To Respond

When the gospel is preached in the hearing of sinners, it is in order to not only teach them what they need to do to be saved, it is also in order to make it known in some way that help is avail-able to assist them in that obedience. Paul spoke of an assembly when “the whole church was come together in one place” in which there would be “unlearned” and also “unbelievers” present (1 Cor. 14:23).

On the day of Pentecost, Peter’s sermon, along with that spoken by the other apostles, brought forth the agonizing question “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Peter’s answer was prompt and to the point. They were told to “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:37-38). There was a great response. “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls” (v. 41). I do not know exactly how they proceeded to determine which ones wanted to be baptized as opposed to those who did not, but there had to be some means of determining the will of those who desired baptism.

At Samaria Simon the magician was converted. Some time later Peter and John came down from Jerusalem and laid hands on some, imparting to them spiritual gifts. Simon was amazed and offered them money for that power. He was told that his heart was “not right in the sight of God” and that he must “repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.” Simon then asked them to “pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of those things which ye have spoken come upon me” (Acts 8:18-24). Their message to Simon reached his heart and brought forth a response.

So then, those in sin who have not repented and been baptized need to do so. Those who have at one time repented, been baptized and then fallen into sin, need to take steps to correct the matter. In the latter case, it may be that the sin is known only to God and the one who sinned. No public response is necessary. In the case of Simon, there were at least some of the brethren aware of his sin and he was not only to confess his sin, having truly repented, but he called upon these who knew of his sin to “pray ye to the Lord for me.”

An Expedient

Offering a public invitation at the end of a sermon and singing a song at such a time, commonly called a song of invitation or a song of encouragement, is an expedient. Paul said concerning public assemblies, in which there were “unbelievers” present, “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). A public invitation is not the practice among brethren in some countries, or perhaps in some places in this one, nor does it have to be. It is an expedient means of urging those who need to bring their lives into harmony with

God’s will to do so. The book of God virtually closes with the great invitation of the Saviour. “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst say, Come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17).

If we have compassion for the souls of lost people which moves us to take the message of salvation to them, then we need somehow to let them know that we are ready to help them obey the Lord. A public invitation is an orderly way to do it.

Good Preachers 

Poor Exhorters

Some brethren are excellent preachers. They have their material well organized, work hard at presenting it in a clear and forceful manner. But they do not know how to exhort the sinner. If an invitation is offered at all, it is done almost as an after-thought, or as a trite little speech while the audience scrambles for song books and much of what is said is not heard. In earlier years in this country during protracted meetings, one brother would present the sermon and another would exhort to obedience. Some-times the exhortations were long and ardent and there were often much public response with people requesting baptism. The danger in this is that emotion can override reason and understanding. And yet, there is a danger of treating the whole matter so matter-of-factly that all genuine emotion is lost. It ought to be a moving experience for one to decide, in a public gathering, to make a lifetime commitment to serve the Lord, to confess the name of the Saviour and to put him on in baptism. It often evokes tears from those making such decisions as well as from concerned friends and loved ones in the audience.

Avoiding the Song Book Shuffle

I preached a sermon once on worship and made a point about the usual distraction when a preacher mentions the word “faith” near what is perceived as the end of his sermon. A good brother came out and said, “Your point is well taken. But people do have to get their song books. Why don’t you just ask them to get their books and turn to the invitation song, and then ask for their attention again and offer the invitation?” It sounded so simple, I marveled that I had not thought of that before. I have been doing that ever since. That is one way to avoid this problem. If there are lost souls in need of obedience to the Lord, they need to hear what is being said.

Parents with young children also need to think about the fact that, if they allow an upset child to talk or cry aloud for an extended period while lost souls are being urged to obey the Lord, they may bear a heavy responsibility should those who need to listen at that very moment be hindered from doing so.

Don’t Give Up

If this expedient is to be used then let us make the most of it. Song leaders often give a signal that this is not very important. They sometimes will sing every verse of several songs with a two-page spread, and then sing two verses of an invitation song. Why? What’s the hurry? Or, a song leader will sit far back in the audience, and then take his own good time getting to the front, get his pitch and lose a powerful moment when the audience first stands. Gentlemen, have your song ready and come out of your seat singing! Sometimes it is said that most people who respond do so right at the first of the song. That is not always the case. Sometimes, I think it necessary to stop the song after two or three verses and exhort a little more. That depends on what is observed as I look out over the audience. Sometimes you can see those who are really struggling with themselves as an added word of encouragement is sometimes all that is needed. In today’s world, hearts are not as easily stirred and moved with the gospel as in other times. I have seen a number of occasions when the song had ended, but after a word of exhortation, another stanza would be sung and several would respond. I recall two occasions when there were 10 souls who responded after the song was finished and added words of encouragement were given, followed by another song. Care must be taken not to over persuade. But Paul said, “Knowing the tenor of the Lord we persuade men” (2 Cor. 5:11). Pray tell, what is wrong with urging lost people to flee to the loving arms of Jesus who said to the heavy laden, “Come unto me”?

Sometimes preachers minimize the invitation. They may say, “Let’s just sing one verse of an invitation song.” Is this a guilt compensation for preaching too long? Or, some will invite those needing to respond to do so without any instruction as to what they are asked to do. Sometimes there are people present who know they are lost but they do not know what they ought to do. Denominationalists do not teach the sinner what to do to be saved. They have scrambled the message. It could be a very instructive time for them. It is true that Christians have heard it many times. But others have not. And what of our own family members yet unsaved? Are they unimportant? Preachers minimize the invitation by giving up and walking out the aisle before the last verse is even finished. Brother, don’t do that! Dig in and stand your ground and act like you hope someone will respond! I know one young preacher who turned around on the last verse to take his place on the front row and four people came up and sat down, all wanting to obey the gospel. He was really surprised. He does not do that anymore! If we are going to invite people to obey the Lord, then let’s genuinely show them that we are anxious and expect them to do what is right. I firmly believe the poor manner in which public invitations are handled has contributed to a reduced number of public responses.

Sometimes I hear that this expedient is no longer expedient. Yet, when I ask audiences how many present obeyed the Lord in a public gathering, I see the hands of 1/2 to 2/3 of those present, and it doesn’t matter what part of the country I am in when the question is posed. This includes people of all ages, many of whom have obeyed the gospel in recent times.

Once in Aprilia, Italy where my good friend and brother Rodolfo Berdini effectively works, at the end of a sermon (they do not sing an invitation song), an elderly man stood up near the back and in Italian asked, “Why can’t I be baptized here tonight?” Brother Berdini hastened to tell him he could. Then while we waited for a little more water to run in the baptistry, a young man came to the front while brother Berdini was presenting several Scriptures on the subject, interrupted the speaker and said he was also ready to be baptized. It was a great service and though we stayed a long time that night, it was a memorable occasion for all.

Public Responses Teach

A few months ago an elderly man responded to the gospel invitation at Manslick Road while we were singing an invitation song. In the audience that day was a young man reared as a Catholic. He had never witnessed an immersion. He was much impressed and after the service had a number of questions which led to some Bible study. Two weeks ago I had the great privilege of baptizing him into Christ. He is our son-in-law. Other factors were certainly involved and several people had a great hand in teaching him, including his wife, but he did learn some things from the public response to an invitation which prompted questions all of which in time led him to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.”

Brethren, if we are going to employ this expedient in urging the lost to obey the truth, then let’s take a good look at how well we are doing this. If we can make a few adjustments and make it more effective, then we ought to do it. After all, we have nothing to lose but the souls and men and women.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 16, p. 19-20
August 19, 1993

By Connie W. Adams

The January 1993 edition of The Spiritual Sword contains a very good article by my friend and former school-mate, Roy H. Lanier, Jr., entitled “Faith and Opinion: A Study of Romans 14.” While brother Lanier works among those we generally refer to as “institutional,” he is far more conservative than most of those I would count in that camp. His article on Romans 14 is clear, thorough and pointed. In view of what some among us have been writing and preaching on Romans 14, especially as it relates to the marriage, divorce and remarriage issue, I thought our readers would appreciate and profit from the following section from this good article.

This Context Clearly Does Not Cover Some Things

1. This context does not concern unacceptable practices. Paul said esteeming a day or eating meats were both acceptable (vv. 5-6,14). For someone today to argue for the use of instrumental music in worship and cite this chapter as proof, he must first show that instrumental music in worship is acceptable to God! Paul clearly argues that the different practices he was considering were both acceptable to God. Does the Lord teach anywhere that instrumental music in worship is acceptable?

 2. The context does not concern matters other than personal choice. All things mentioned here refer to desirable choices in one’s daily life. In this area God has left many of the choices up to the “sanctified common sense’ of knowledgeable Christians.

 3. The context does not concern congregational matters. Nothing is said in this context about congregational work or worship. For someone to include matters of church activities or worship in this context is to be untrue to accurate heremeneutics.

 4. Differences discussed here are not matters which make up the kingdom. Paul pointed out clearly that these matters were not as important as those which make up the kingdom of God (vv. 16-17).

 5. These liberties of differing opinions must not cause disruption among brethren. Fellowship should be maintained in these cases.

 6. These different practices cannot violate any other instruction of the Lord. Paul could not intend this fellowship be maintained when other teachings would be contradicted. One could not fellow-ship the doctrines of Balaam (Rev. 2:14), the false teachings of Hymanaeus, Alexander and Philetus (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17), nor the idolatry and sexual immorality of `that woman Jezebel’ (Rev. 2:2-21). The matter of adulterous remarriages tolerated within a congregation is not under consideration in Romans 14 since the Lord taught specifically about this (1 Cor. 5). Preachers who are unwilling to stand where the Lord stood in regard to adultery cannot ease their aching hearts from Romans 14.”

 Amen, Roy!

Significant Work

A recent report from Alessandro Corazza of Rome, Italy lists works which he has personally translated into Italian for the use and study of future generations among Italian brethren. Brother Corazza is now 67 years of age and was the first man converted in Italy after World War II. He wrote:

“Till now I have translated: The Infallibility of the Church (by George Salmon) , Revela tion (by Homer Hailey), Commentary on Hebrews (by Robert Milligan), Campbell-Purcell Debate, the entire Truth in Life series (60 work-books), TheNewTestamentBook by Book (all three by Roy E. Cogdill); I have published my own book Let’s Study the Bible (a correspondence course in 24 lessons, each lesson 16 pages), and edited for nine years a paper (Straight Paths). At present I am translating Robert Harkrider’s series, which will be complete about next June. During 1993 it is my intention to translate the Mike Willis Commentary on First Corinthians. In the future, God willing, I will translate commentaries on the entire N.T. My age (67) permits me to do many or few things, according to health, etc.

“I have always been persuaded that written things are a witness which cannot be changed. Nobody knows how much value in the future will be ascribed to works which were according to the Bible. Probably you in the States don’t care much about this point, but we in Italy, having only Catholic or Protestant literature, urgently need sound and clear literature for those who don’t find their light only in the Bible. I am also persuaded that through written means we can preach to more people than just by mouth. My only regret is that the best years of my life have gone and I cannot have all the time for this specific task.”

I have personally seen much of this work which this good brother has translated and have copies in Italian of several of these books and also received the journal he edited during its nine year tenure. It almost exhausts me just to think of the mountain of time and painstaking labor expended all with an eye to the future good of workers in Italy. His labor is not only commendable but also his wisdom and foresight.

The Two-Ness Doctrine

For many years gospel preachers have debated with those sometimes referred to as “The One-ness Pentecostals.” My first public debate was with one of their men, A.H. Payne of Porterdale, Georgia. It is their contention that Jesus is the only member of the Godhead, that he has simply existed in three different manifestations: in the Old Testament as God the Father, in the gospels as God the Son and now as the Holy Spirit. But all the time, we only had one divine person.

It is now being contended by some that when Jesus came to earth he divested himself of the qualities and attributes of divinity so as to be a man. Whatever miracles he performed were therefore not because he was divine but because he had these powers granted to him by the Father and they were bestowed on him by the Holy Spirit even as they were on the Apostles. Well now, if that is true, then while Jesus was on earth, we only had two functioning members of the Godhead possessed of the full qualities and attributes natural to them. We had a fully empowered Father and a fully empowered Holy Spirit but a man with no inherent qualities of divinity (only those granted to him). So, any way you slice it, if these brethren are to be taken seriously, while Jesus was on earth we had not three equal-in-power members of the Godhead but only two. Why does that not come out to being a “two-ness” doctrine?

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 17, p. 3-4
September 2, 1993