Truth Magazine

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

By Mike Willis

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or tree; and have been all made ft drink into one Spirit (1 Con 12:13).

There is much controversy surrounding both the work of the Holy Spirit and the subject of water baptism. A study of this verse is, therefore, help[ul to us in understanding both.

By One Spirit

The phrase “by one Spirit” is used in I Corinthians 12 to mean “by the influence or direction of the Spirit.” The one who speaks “by the Spirit of God says “Jesus is the Lord” (12:3). The word of wisdom and word of knowledge (two of the nine spiritual gifts under discussion in this chapter) were given “by the Spirit” (12:8). Coiisequeiitly, when Paul mentions that “by the Spirit we are all baptized, he is using a phrase introduced several times before to speak of being directed by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit directs men through the word of God, The modern concept of how the holy Spirit leads lien identifies any strong, subjective feeling with the direction of the Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit guides and directs us through the revealed word of God. He “guided” the apostles into all truth (John 14:26; 16:13). We read the truth into which lie guided them by reading what they wrote.

When men begin following their subjective feelings, rather than the word of God, we have incidenees such as the one which happened in Texas with David Koresh, when men starting following a self- proclaimed Christ to kill officers of the state. This is what happened several years ago when over a thousand obeyed the voice ofJim Tones to commit murder and suicide. God leads and guides us through the word of God, The psalmist wrote, 0 send out thy light and thy truth: let them lead me” (Psa. 43:3).

The one Holy Spirit has given the same instructions to all men. Ue has not prepared one set of instructions for one group and another to others. The guidance which he has given is found in the New Testament.

Baptized

The word ~baptize is a transliteration of the Greek word baprizo which is defined as to immerse, Baptism is an immersion in water. The modern practice of sprinkling or pouring a small amount of water on a person and calling that baptism” is not revealed in the word of God. Therefore, when Paul states that the Corinthians were baptized, he means that they were immersed in water.

Into One Body

Paul also states that “by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” The body of which he speaks is the church. Elsewhere he wrote, “And hath put all things under his feet. and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:22-23). The only way a person can become a member of the Lord’s church is to be baptized into the one body.

What is the church? The church is not a social club. Rather, it is those people who have submitted to Lord Jesus, whose sins have been washed away in the blood of the Lamb. These are the redeemed of all ages, those who are saved from their past sins. Unless a person is a part of the church, he will not be eternally saved. This is not because the church is the dispenser of salvation; rather it is the recipient of salvation.

Conclusion

What this verse is teaching, therefore, is this: Under the teaching and direction of the Holy Spirit of God, men have been baptized into Jesus Christ. As a result of their having been baptized, the blood of Christ has washed away their sins and Jesus has added them to his church.

Are you a member of the body of Christ? If not, you are outside of Christ, in the kingdom of Satan, and lost. We wish for all men to be saved. Life is too short, eternity is too long and hell is too horrible for one to die in a lost condition. If you miss heaven, you will have missed all that there is. To so live before God that we can receive our eternal home with God is man’s eternal purpose. Don’t allow yourself to put off obedience to the gospel until you die outside of Christ!

The Sinner’s Greatest Need .. .repent of his sins (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38; 17:30), [c] confess his faith in Christ (Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:10), [d] and be baptized into Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Gal. 3:26-27).

5. That upon obedience from the heart (Rout. 6:17-18), he is a new creature in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17), and that as a new babe in Christ (1 Pet. 2:2), he is to grow and learn to observe the Lord’s will (2 Pet. 3:18; Matt. 28:20).

6. That God has done his part and he (the sinner) must now do his. To that end, we seek to teach men of their sin, of the consequences of sin, and to exhort, even plead, that they now step out in faith and accept God’s provision.

We believe this to be the sinner’s greatest need  your need if indeed you have not yet become God’s child. We would rejoice to be of any further assistance to you.

(My thanks to W.R. Jones for many of the ideas ex-pressed in this article.)

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

By Tony Washer

When I was in school, I hated studying history. It was boring to me because it meant agonizing for hours trying to memorize names, dates, and places. While these things are a part of history, its true value is not born of them.

Now that I am older and have had more time to reflect upon its value in life, I realize that a good knowledge and understanding of history is important to understanding why and how men act in this world. It is also interesting to find that, from the pages of Holy Writ one can analyze the historical patterns of those times and see that modern history follows the same basic course.

A significant advantage to the individual is the fact that when one learns the patterns of history, he can see the course of events taking shape as they unfold. From knowing the past, he can look into the future and make adjustments to his life to compensate for the negative impact that current events may have upon them. Therefore, history is a friend, not an enemy.

There are many things which happen in this life which we do not understand, many miseries which humankind continues to suffer. Armed conflicts continue between nations, self-willed brethren continue to force their opinions upon the church causing conflicts among God’s own people, and arguments among family members continue to destroy our homes. In fact, there are so many evil things happening in this world that we often ask,’ Is there any end to this madness?”

We know that this is not the way the world should be, but this is the way it is, has been, and will continue to be until the end. Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that many evils could be avoided if people would learn from the mistakes of their ancestors, but with each succeeding generation comes the idea that these evils are unique to them and something new, and being “caught off guard” by them, each new generation of the offspring of man, like babes, are born to repeat the patterns of evil which are all too familiar to us.

History Is Circular

There is an old saying that we all have heard: “History repeats itself.” Solomon wrote of this in Ecclesiastes 1:9-11; “The thing which hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there anything whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things which are to come with those that shall come after.”

Some would have you believe that the world is constantly changing. In the light of this inspired Scripture, is this true? Is the world constantly changing?

Though many examples could be given to illustrate the point. I would call your attention to one, for it is exemplary of the others: the art of war. Do men still make war against one another? Yes. Has this fact changed in our so-called “constantly changing world”? No. What has changed about the art of war? The tools. Guns and bullets instead of bows and arrows, missiles instead of catapults, tanks instead of chariots.

What about the reasons, the motives men have for going to war: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the pride of life, greed, selfishness, power, fear. These motives have not changed in man since the beginning.

Think about other areas in mankind where things have changed: communication, transportation, exploration, productivity in the work place, etc. The principle applies to them also.

So, you now see that the tools which men use may change, but their reasons for using them do not. Therefore, the principle that I want you to understand and to remember is this: “History repeats itself not because the world is changing, but because man is not.”

Church History is Circular

In his pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine wrote, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reasons.”

As it related to his time, many people living in pre-revolutionary America considered loyalty to the king of England to be right and the ability to change their circumstances beyond their rights, even though the things he enacted upon them were oppressive and opposed to the principle that all men are equal in the sight of God. Because they believed that they did not have the right to hold their king accountable for his actions, many did not question the rightfulness of it. The lack of conviction to uphold this principle convinced some that the struggle for freedom was wrong; right became wrong and wrong became right. Thank God that there were men in the colonies who were willing to become a sacrifice for the higher principles.

In Isaiah 5:20-21, the prophet states the problem in this manner: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitted Woe to them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” It is this attitude that encourages men to change the doctrine of God and change his Word to conform to their practices, rather than conforming their practices to his doctrine.

In 1 Corinthians 5:6, Paul tells how departures from the truth enter into the church, causing discord and division among the brethren and eventually becoming the practice of the church when he writes, “Know ye not that a little leaven leaventh the whole lump?” Just as leaven takes time to spread throughout the lump, so do false teachings enter into the church over such an extended period of time that it is not noticeable until after its infusion is complete. The history of the church confirms this principle.

The first major departure from the patterns established by Christ and his disciples came with the appointing of one elder to preside over the others at their meetings. The second step of this process came when the elders of churches within local geographic areas began to meet to discuss problems within the church and what should be done to handle the influences that their society was placing upon it.

Of course, when this occurred, they would elect one of their own to preside over them. This individual was called the bishop of the city in which he dwelt, i.e., the bishop of Smyrna. This action essentially divided the church leader-ship into two distinct groups: the presbyters (those involved with the local congregation) and the bishops (those who oversaw the activities of the presbyters). The result of this was that the bishops gradually assumed total control over the church within their religion, the natural result which occurs when people elect someone to be over them.

Eventually, a power struggle developed between the metropolitans of Alexandria and of Rome (the chief bishops of the territories or countries in which they lived). This ended in the winner being proclaimed the pope and supreme human authority in the church.

This process took place over a period of time of about five centuries. How could anyone have seen this departure from truth developing? No one who was alive when it began would live to see its end.

Many other practices which are foreign to the Scriptures entered into the church in the same way. Infant baptism, sprinkling and pouring as forms of baptism, an order of priests who preside over the people, not partaking of the Lord’s supper every first day of the week, and not one of the Protestant reformers believed that mechanical instruments should be used in the music worship, and yet, mechanical instruments are commonplace in all of the denominations which sprang from them. These departures from truth took place over a period of centuries, and were introduced to accommodate people who wanted exceptions to be made.

Many of them were saying the same thing we hear today, `”The world is changing, and if we expect to keep up we must change too.” To which I say, “Hogwash!” The very fact that God preserved the patterns for us belies that statement, for if it mattered not if we changed with the world or not, he would not have left us with the record of his will. The fact that he left us with his will, means that he wanted us to adhere to it, and if we are to adhere to it, then we cannot change the standard, though the world change about us. Else, how can he say that he “is the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8)? If we can change his word at will, then there is no stability in the church for tomorrow.

Through the practice of the denominations, history shows us what happens to those religious bodies that compromise the truth.

History is repeating itself in the Lord’s church today. In the early church, false teachings on a large scale entered in as the result of the councils, the conventions, and the synods. The discussions of the church leaders were trans-formed into practice as they brought their ideas back home. Today, we don’t call them councils, conventions, or synods; we call them seminars.

The church is faced with extreme societal pressures in areas such as divorce, homosexuality, and woman’s role in the church. Rather than bow down under the weight of accommodation for the unrepentant, should we not rather boldly stand for the truth?

As an example, look at the new teachings of some elders and preachers concerning unscriptural divorce and remarriage: that those unscripturally married can be forgiven and stay in that relationship. What are we going to say when a homosexual couple married in a state that accommodates such comes to us to be baptized and wants to continue in that relationship. When we tell them “No!” what are we going to say when their reply is, “But we know that you accommodate one form of unscriptural marriage, why not another? What’s the difference?”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 17, p. 10-11
September 2, 1993