Truth Magazine

By Harry R. Osborne

The war in the Middle East gave rise to much speculation attempting to relate events to Bible prophecy. Many TV preachers were busy warning their audiences of an imminent battle of Armageddon. Several months ago on television, I heard Ed Young from the Second Baptist church in Houston proclaiming that the recent conflict was the “vestibule to Armageddon,” whatever that is. Others have preached on “The Identity of the Antichrist” and a host of other pet premillennial theories. The current speculation is simply the latest in a long line. Let us consider a few examples.

In the early part of this century, World War I gave rise to such speculation. Some premillennialists published books claiming Armageddon was just around the corner. All of them said the events of that time were the “clear” fulfillment of prophecies about “the end time.” The premillennial teachings about the tribulation, Armageddon, the rapture, and the beginning of the thousand year reign of Christ on the earth were all supposed to become a reality within that generation. Of course, the fact that we are still here more than a generation later would strongly suggest that their predictions were incorrect.

World War II brought the premillennial speculators out in force again. Hitler was commonly viewed as “the Antichrist” whose destruction would initiate a thousand year reign of Christ upon the earth. Hitler’s hatred of the Jews and his alliance with Mussolini (the successor to ancient Rome) fueled the speculation to a roaring flame. The events of that time were again said to be the “clear” fulfillment of prophecies found in Ezekiel, Daniel, Joel, Revelation, and other Bible books. The predictions again failed to come true and it was back to the drawing board once again.

The establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine brought another round of speculation from premillennialists. They claimed this was the “clear” fulfillment of Bible prophecy regarding the return of Israel to Palestine. Actually, God had promised that only a remnant would return to the land following captivity (Isa. 10:20-25). That return was to take place after seventy years of Judah’s captivity in Babylon (Jer. 29:10-14). The Bible recorded that fulfillment as having taken place in the 5th and 6th centuries before Christ (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah; 2 Chron. 36:17-23). God had previously kept his promise to give the Israelites all of the land promised to Abraham (Josh. 21:43-45; 23:14-16; 1 Kgs.4:21;Neb. 9:7-9;Psa.105:42-44).

In more recent time, the Middle East wars of 1967 and 1973 caused a rash of speculation. Hal Lindsey’s book, TheLate GreatPlanetEarth, was written during that time. Lindsey said forces led by Egypt and Russia would join to battle Israel in the great tribulation. We were told that Russia would be the “King of the North” in a confederacy made up of Iran, “black African nations,” Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, “the Iron Curtain countries,” and the Cossacks. We were further told that Egypt would be the “King of the South” in a coalition with the “Arabic nations” (which would include Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other such harmonious partners) along with the “countries of black Africa.” After Russia was wiped out, the Arabs and the Chinese were supposed to be allies in the battle of Armageddon, according to Lindsey. Lindsey’s whole theory was predicated on the continuance of Nasser’s pro-Soviet policies and Egypt’s continued leadership in seeking the annihilation of Israel. Unfortunately for Lindsey’s theories, Nasser’s death brought a change in Egyptian policy. In its time, Lindsey’s teaching was touted as the “clear” teaching of the Bible.

With the decline of Soviet domination, premillennialists seemed to become unsure about the “Russians” as the focus of the armies allied against Israel. As a matter of fact, the crumbling of Communism across eastern Europe and much of the world has dealt a severe blow to the previous theories of the premillennialists. Their “clear” teachings from books of prophecy suddenly became very unclear. Until late last year, premillennialists got extremely quiet.

The war in the Persian Gulf again brought the proponents of premillennial theories out of the woodwork. However, an amazing thing has happened! The theories have all changed! What we heard to be the “clear” teaching of Bible prophecies a few years ago has suddenly been replaced with entirely different teachings also said to be “clear” from Bible prophecies. I must confess my inability to understand how all of these contradictory, changed, and convoluted theories can be passed off as “clear” teaching by fellows who taught entirely different theories a few years ago. What amazes me even more is that they do it with a straight face!

Over the past few decades, the list of leading candidates for “the Antichrist” included Henry Kissinger, Anwar Sadat, a Soviet president, the head of the European Common Market, and an unnamed man of “Roman descent.” Now, I hear rumors from premillennial quarters that it is surely Saddam Hussein. How is that for “clear” teaching? It seems to me that it would have been far easier for the premillennialists to have understood the truth on this matter than to change their predictions. After all “the Antichrist” is like “the unknown tongue.” Both are an attempt to identify a particular one while the Bible usage is generic. In 1 Corinthians 14, any language foreign to a listener which he did not understand was “an unknown tongue.” In John’s use of the term “antichrist,” he simply refers to one who opposed the person or teaching of Christ (1 In. 2:18, 22; 4:3, 7). Instead of finally seeing the truth, our premillennial friends have stepped into the speculation ring once again in preparation for another bloody nose to their theories when the new “clear” teaching fails again.

For the past 40 years or so, the premillennialists have also told us that the “Babylon” of prophesied destruction in the book of Revelation is either a one-world religion under the control of the Vatican or the Soviet Union. Now, the TV preachers are telling us “Babylon” is the land where ancient Babylon literally existed Iraq. How “clear” can it get?

Actually, these differing theories all have a common point  they are false! They all claim that the book of Revelation deals with events of our time, not a past time. When their predictions fail to come true, they simply change them and ask people to accept the new theories as the `”clear” teaching of the book. The premillennialists of this century have perverted and re-perverted the book of Revelation more than any people in religious history. If they would just look at the book and listen to its truly clear statement, they would abandon their absurd theories. Let’s see what the book really says about when its prophecies were to be fulfilled:

Revelation 1:1  “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass.”

Revelation 1:3  “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand.”

Revelation 22:6 “And he said unto me, These words are faithful and true: and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angels to show unto his servants the things which must shortly come to pass.”

Revelation 22:10  “And he saith unto me, Seal not up the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand.”

From beginning to end, the book of Revelation declares its prophecies deal with things “at hand” and “which must shortly come to pass.” Unlike the modern TV preachers, the Bible’s teaching is really clear. Let us not be fooled by the current peddlers of speculative theories, but let us listen to God’s teaching as declared in his truth. The premillennial theories will change and fail, but God’s word remains constant and true regardless of the changes in the world (1 Pet. 1:23 -25).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 17, p. 8-9
September 2, 1993

By Robert Wayne La Coste

No, I didn’t vote for Bill Clinton, but he is still my President. I will honor his office and will pray for him often. Surely the word of God encourages both (Rom. 13:7; 1 Tim. 2:2). However, though we live in an age and a society that seems to think one’s “rights” include being wrong; such is just not so, including the President.

Jesus reproved earthly rulers when they were wrong. Jesus told Pilate that any power he had as governor was because God gave it to him (John 19:11) and he even called Herod “a fox” (Lk. 13:32). The apostle Paul rebuked governors and kings, told them they were lost and yet did so with respect (Acts 24:25; 26:24-29).

As an evangelist of the gospel of Christ I am charged to “speak and exhort, and rebuke with all authority” (Tit. 3:15). With such divine authority, I took the liberty of sending President Clinton the following letter:

Dear President Clinton,

It is my hope you will reconsider your desire to lift the ban against homosexuals in the military. Such an unnatural sexual lifestyle can only have negative effects against our military and our nation. You are in my prayers daily, Mr. President (1 Tim. 2:2; 1 Pet. 2:17)

A Concerned Christian and Patriot, Robert Wayne LaCoste

The following was sent from the White house the following week:

Dear Robert:

Thank you for sharing your views with me regarding the ban on homosexuals in our Nation’s military.

I believe that people should be judged by their conduct, not by their status, I favor stricter rules of conduct on sexual behavior for all military personnel, along with lifting the ban. Everyone concedes there are and have been homosexuals in the military. Everyone agrees they should be separated from the service for inappropriate conduct. The only question is whether a person can acknowledge being homosexual and stay in the service if he or she has a good record and commits no improper act.

My belief is that we don’t have a person to waste. I respect the wisdom and experience of military leaders, and 1 am working with the joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services, the Congress, and others concerned to design a policy which will ensure equality and fairness, while preserving the unity and preparedness of our military.

 Though we may differ on this issue, I hope that our common concerns for the future of America will unite us. I appreciate your sincerity and candor.

 Sincerely, Bill Clinton

Now, of course, I am not naive to believe that the President himself actually sat down behind his typewriter or computer and personally sent this letter. The signature was no doubt a signature stamp or signed by one of his many secretaries. However, I was appreciative of a response being sent from the White House. Let’s with “all fairness and equity” examine the President’s position.

The President says we should judge people “by their conduct not by their status.” What does he mean by this? If he means we should judge the sexual conduct (lifestyle) of a homosexual, that’s my point exactly. By what standard shall we judge them? How shall we determine if such conduct is good or bad, evil or righteous? There is such a thing as righteous judgment to be sure, but this must be done by the highest standard of moral and spiritual ethics existent and that’s the Word of God! If the President judges such conduct by anything short of this high standard, his judgment will be only superficial and lacking in substance. What do the Scriptures say about homosexuality? Our President was reared a Baptist in Hope, Arkansas. Though we disagree with our Baptist friends on many matters of a doctrinal nature, I believe most of us know how most of them feel about this evil. We should all know what the Scriptures say and be guided by God’s judgment on the matter. God says that such conduct is “wickedness” (Gen. 19:7), “an abomination” (Lev. 18:22), and “vile affections” (Rom. 1:26). God says that “they that commit (conduct) such things are worthy of death” (Rom. 1:32).

The President seems to be implying that there have always been homosexuals in the military. I have discussed this with many World II, Korean and Vietnam veterans. Especially do the World War II vets tell me that homosexuals were never heard of among their ranks. If there were any, they never admitted it, for they knew their fellow soldiers and especially commanders would never have tolerated such. Does anyone have any idea what such men as Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton and Douglas McArthur would have said about such “men”? I believe each reader who has any knowledge of these military leaders knows full well what their feelings would have been about such conduct. Even those men who were in Vietnam, my age group, said that such conduct was intolerable. One special forces sergeant even suggested it would not have surprised him that if there were homosexuals in that war, “friendly fire” no doubt would have weeded them out. That’s sad to contemplate, but men who are fighting for their country are not going to trust such “men” with their lives when the chips are down. They figure any man who is so depraved and so morally degenerate could surely not make judgments that involve life threatening situations.

President Clinton fails to recognize what many do about the homosexual community when he says, “… they should be separated from the service for inappropriate conduct.” Homosexual conduct is such that these people have little control over their unnatural lusts. Their misconduct there-fore could take place most anytime. In the barracks or on the battlefield such conduct could be catastrophic. For just one life to be lost through such misconduct, whether by disease or by being killed by an enemy, is too great a price to pay to say that when it happens they will then be separated. Why not keep them permanently separated by keeping them out of the military altogether and away from situations where morals are so important and team dependency is a must for men to survive?

The President is naive indeed if he thinks such immorally inept people are going to maintain “a good record and commit no improper act.” Some of the homosexuals that were eventually destroyed by God in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19) were blinded by angels who were in fleshly garments visiting Lot’s home. Yet even after being punished by blindness they still wearied themselves to get into the house (v. 11). These people are not capable of maintaining good records and conduct, for their illicit sexual lusts control them at every point. Because of this, the apostle Paul says twice that God “gave up on them” (Rom. 1:24, 26) and thirdly states, “God gave them over to a reprobate mind” (Rom. 1:28). So should our President, until such people repent and turn from such a lifestyle as did some of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 6:9-11). If homosexual men and women repent and turn from such, then and only then should their “record” be judged as good and their acts proper.

Our President doesn’t want to waste anyone, but sexually transmitted diseases are wasting plenty. Why would he want to encourage such opportunity for it to increase? I read just today from the Associated Press that one in every 5 Americans has some kind of sexually transmitted disease! Folks, that’s shocking and it’s only going to get worse until we decide enough is enough.

I’m happy the President is working with all executive and congressional branches on this and especially the military leaders. Our liberal Congress concerns me as always, but I know how General Colin Powell and the Joint Chiefs feel about it. Let us all pray that President Clinton will respect their military experience and wisdom, since he has absolutely no military experience himself. Truly there is no substitute for experience. They are trying to convince him that there will be little unity and therefore much unpreparedness if he, as the Commander-in-Chief, has his way.

Yes, I differ with my President, for reasons I have stated. My concern is for him and this great nation which he now leads. If we have learned anything from the history of the nations of the earth, it is what caused their collapse. From the Babylonian empire to the great Roman and Greek empires, nations collapsed because, as King David of Israel wrote, “there was no fear of God before their eyes” (Psa. 36:1).

Perhaps this truth compelled King David to also write what all our leaders in this country need to reflect on time and again, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psa. 3:12).

(Editor’s Not e: Although the issue of Gays in the miitary is momentarily resolved, this article is still of interest to our readers.) Gr

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 17, p. 6-7
September 2, 1993

By Ron Halbrook

Bob La Coste was born 29 December 1948 and died 16 August1993 alter a long battle with a lung disease Brother La Coste died at the Methodist Hospital in Houston IX while awaiting a double lung transplant He is survived by his wile Carolyn and by two sans Bill (19 years old on 19 August) and Tim (12) HIs funeral was held on IS August at the Wonsley Drive Church of Christ In Austin, TX. where he has preached for the past ten years Bob was buried In the Memorial Hill Cemetery at Austin

Brother La Coste will be remembered for his faith, cour age, and dedication tothecause ofChrlst. I-fe will be missed in the Northwest where he has been holding gospel meet ings for small and struggling churches since 1976 In a recent report he said With my chronic lung condition its a simple cause of have oxygen tank, will travel but rather than slowing down, lam speeding up! Tim is olthe essence (Preaching Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the State of Washington,” Guardian of Truth, 3 June 1993, Pp. 336- 38). Bobcarried aportableoxygen tankwith him everywhere he went but continued preaching even when it was neces sary to sit down to preach more recently Never afraid or ashamed to earnestly contend for the faith,” Bob had several debates with denominational people and liberal brethren.

Brother Ken Vaughn and I have just returned from Bobs funeral. On 18 August the Wonsley Drive church building was filled with 300-400 people, including many gospel preachers. Joe Price of Layton, lJtah, who was converted by Bob and Carolyn, preached a lesson emphasizing the hope of the gospel and Harry Osborne of Alvin, TX, who is Carolyns brother, preached from 2 Timothy 4:1-5 on the preachers charge. About six songs were sung by the congregation. Dennis Scroggins, who preaches in Austin, read appropriate passages about the resurrection at the graveside.

Carolyn has exemplified great faith in God in her whole demeanor She was agreat source of strength to Bob as she expressed herlovesang praisesto God! and prayed forhim constantly. Her example i~ an inspiration to all who witnessed it during this trial. She delighted to repeat Bobs assurance, “It is going to get better one way or the other.” One of the last things communicated to Bob was the fact that his son Bill obeyed the gospel; Harry baptIzed him in a hotel swimming pool near the hospital. Bob Indicated that he understood, and smiled in reflection of his joy and thanksgiving. Carolyn is a school teacher and plans to begin almost immediately in teaching during the new term. Though she loved Bob dearly and will miss him greatly, she wants people who know her to see that Christians do not sorrow as others which have no hope.”

Those who wish to express their love and sympathy may contact the La Coste family at 7300 South Ute Trail, Austin, Texas 78729 (phone: 512-250-5374). A memorial fund is being established for the benefit of the family and Dennis ScroggIns is helping with the details at this time.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 17, p. 8
September 2, 1993

By R.J. Stevens

Singing praises to God in worship by God’s people will always be done in this life and in the world to come. Paul exhorted the brethren at Rome, “That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6). He also encouraged the brethren at Corinth to pray and sing with spirit and with understanding (1 Cor. 14:15). The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to command the church at Colosse, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Col. 3:16). Hebrews 2:11-12 says, “For both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.” Hebrews 13:15 says, “By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.”

The above passages emphasize the importance of spiritual singing, especially when the church assembles together. Singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs is as important in worshipping God as any other act of worship. God knows what is best for his people and he has specifically told us in his word what to sing and the manner in which we are to sing praises to Him. In our assemblies we ask brethren to lead the congregation in prayers. We also ask brethren to lead the congregation in the study of God’s word. Brethren are asked to lead the congregation in praising God in song. It is always best to call on brethren to lead in prayer, to lead in teaching and to lead in singing who have prepared themselves to lead in these areas. Many times brethren are asked to lead who have no desire to lead. Worship is to glorify God and edify brethren. If a person is indifferent about leading in the assembly, he will not glorify God or edify his brethren.

A church should train men and boys to be leaders in our assemblies in a training class. The assembly for worship is not a training class. Churches that have men and boys who are capable song leaders am fortunate. However, there are many churches that don’t have song leaders who can stir the congregation to love and good works (Heb. 10:24). This is not because no one has the ability to lead, but it is usually because no one has applied himself to grow in this ability. Every good song leader was weak when he started. It takes time and effort to grow in our abilities.

I can remember when I was a boy when churches within a radius of fifty miles of home would call my dad to lead singing for their gospel meetings. I have been called on many times to lead singing for churches that have good song leaders in their membership. Many of the preachers in years past who would preach meetings would have a song leader to go with him to direct the singing. These men realized that poor singing can almost kill a meeting. No one objects to having another preacher come to lead the congregation in the study of God’s word. Sometimes the local preacher is a more capable preacher than the one who preaches the meeting. If we can accept having another preacher from another congregation do the preaching in a gospel meeting, we ought to be able to accept having another song leader from another congregation do the song leading for a gospel meeting. If the leaders of a congregation feel that this will make the meeting more effective, no one should object. The ideal arrangement is to have someone in the local congregation who has prepared himself to lead so that the singing will be an asset to the meeting.

Nearly every gospel preacher I have known will say that good congregational singing adds much to the success of a gospel meeting. Good spiritual singing makes a preacher want to preach. I believe that at least twenty minutes ought to be spent in singing praises to God before the sermon. It is also effective when the song leader has planned the song service to have a theme that is related to the preacher’s sermon. Halley’s Bible Handbook gives some of the best observations concerning congregational singing and song leading I have ever read (pp. 740-741). I recommend that all song leaders and those interested in the song service read this material.

“I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being” (Psa. 104:33).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 16, p. 18
August 19, 1993