Truth Magazine

By T. Doy Moyer

We live in an age of non-controversy. People don’t want to discuss things that are controversial. The shift in recent years has been toward “positivism.” “Don’t say or teach anything that has a negative tone to it. Let’s just be positive and make people feel good.” The trends in denominationalism show this attitude, as churches have become more and more social in their approach to the world. The new “mega-churches” cater to everyone, including those who don’t care about God. Churches have apostatized as they have become more concerned with making people “feel” good, instead of trying to save souls. Never step on toes or preach things that could offend hearers. Doing such just turns people off. (See Matt. 15:1-17 to see what Jesus thought about this.)

Sadly, the trend in denominationalism has become well-accepted by many disciples of Christ. Many have bought the techniques of pop-psychology. Instead of taking the approach toward teaching people that Jesus or the apostle Paul took, we promote the “Dale Carnegie” approach and refuse to call sin. Whatever the cost is, we are determined that we will not make enemies. This is the basis of the “peace at any price” ideas. Consequently, we have those among us, who say things very much akin to the things Isaiah had to deal with: “Speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceits” (Isa. 30:10). Teachers speak falsely, cater to itching ears, and the people “love to have it so” (Jer. 5:31; cf. 2 Tim. 4:2-4). As long as we don’t get controversial, we can keep our jobs and keep the peace.

I don’t know many people who really enjoy controversy for its own sake. Who likes to agonize over something that is a source of contention? I would not try to promote controversy for its own sake. But at the same time, the fact of controversy is something we had better understand. It is a fact that those who care about the Lord and his cause will have to get involved in controversy. The Lord could not avoid it (Matt. 22-23); and neither could his disciples (Acts 15). Today, as in the first century, what the Lord wants are disciples who are brave enough to enter the battlefield and contend for the faith (Jude 3). “For if I still pleased men, I would not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

Those who engage in controversy are generally criticized for doing so. Call into question a particular teaching, or deal with something in a straight-forward manner, and the next thing we know we are mean and unloving. Those who refuse to enter the battlefield then might complain that the ones who fight the battle are doing it for their own reputations, to promote themselves. I suppose the same could have been falsely said about Jesus or Paul. If you want to get someone upset at you, just deal with an issue in a straight-forward manner. Question something that he engages in and see the sparks fly. Ask for answers and you’re a troublemaker.

What is it that divides? Often when an issue comes up, people want to avoid discussion about it by saying, “That’s just another one of those issues that can splinter and divide brethren into thousands of little groups.” Does the fact that there is potential division mean that we must avoid the subject? We are afraid to discuss virtually anything these days. Issues like the deity of Christ, divorce and remarriage, different aspects of the Lord’s supper, and many other subjects must be studied. It seems, though, that just to bring them up for study is looked down on. I don’t know what the problem is in studying such issues. The Bible deals with them. Why should we be so afraid to? When a person says that “those issues can divide,” is he asking that we do not teach on them? Is the only way to keep the issue of divorce and remarriage from dividing brethren not to teach on it? Should we avoid teaching on the Lord’s supper because some brethren are so touchy about that? Talk about splintering! Before long, we’ll splinter teachings down so that we can’t address anything. We’ll just have to give up preaching truth altogether in favor of ear tickling. That way we can make friends and keep from upsetting anyone, except those who love the truth. (Can’t please anyone can we?)

I don’t believe that issues divide per se. Attitudes are what divide. For example, the issues of circumcision was not what divided brethren in the first century. Rather, it was the differing attitudes toward the issue that divided. If we can just get brethren to be rational and calm as they face certain issues, then there would not be nearly as much division. However, instead of trying to calmly study out an issue, the moment a question is brought up we get angry and irrational. We become unwilling to put our beliefs to the test and prove our convictions. The easiest thing to do then is just divide and say the other side is at fault for bringing up the issue. It is easier to get mad and indict motives than it is to think out and think through difficult questions. Giving an answer demands thought and study. Is it that we don’t want to do that?

The only way that we can “speak as the oracles of God” is to put our beliefs to the test (I Jn. 4:1; 1 Pet. 4:11). Truth has nothing to fear. We don’t have to be unkind and cranky about it. But we can engage in honorable Bible study together over any issue and not have divisive attitudes about it. This is not to say there will never be a division. But we dont have to cower in fear and refuse to talk. We can’t pass over our responsibility to contend for the faith by letting others do all the work. “I don’t like controversy” is no excuse. Who does like it? It would be wonderful if everyone voluntarily believed and taught the very same things with complete conviction. The only way to make that possible is through Bible study, which will often involve controversy as people think through their positions. I may not agree with someone, but I can respect him much more if he will try to study the issue and give honest answers.

In the end, the “non-controversy” attitude will backfire. Such an attitude will allow for false teaching to run like wild-fire through the ranks of God’s people. Then, we might all be in union with each other, but we’ll all go to hell together also. The aim of the gospel is to save souls. When the gospel is perverted, it means the loss of souls. Therefore, lets take up the sword of the Spirit and preach the truth without compromise, understanding that the wisdom from above is “first pure, then peaceable (Jas. 3:17). Division is not the goal. No one wants that. We an want unity; but we want it to he true unity, not a compromised union. Thus., its time that we exercise our senses and dig into the issues that trouble us. Do so with the attitude of finding truth, and our efforts will he rewarded. Though controversy is often unpleasant, it makes for better understanding and the greater knowledge of the things of God. “Those divisive issues” dont have to divide, if well approach Gods word and each other with proper attitudes, determining that whatever God says is his word and we will submit to it. Will true disciples do any less?

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 23-24
July 15, 1993

By Kevin Campbell

In a recent debate with a Baptist preacher on the necessity of water baptism to salvation, an unusual argument was advanced. Rejecting the plain teaching of Scriptures such as Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21, this preacher made several arguments that were based, not on the Bible, but on human wisdom and perspective.

One argument, which forms the basis of this article, was that if baptism were necessary to salvation, salvation would then be dependent on a third party, namely the administrator of the baptism. This could not be possible since salvation is a personal matter between the sinner and God, argued the preacher.

Now on the surface this sounds logical, although it certainly is not scriptural. Who would deny that salvation is a personal matter between God and each individual? Is it not true that each individual must make the choice to obey or disobey (Acts 26:19, 28; Rom. 6:16; cf. Josh. 24:15)? The question that needs to be answered is, “Can salvation depend or rely on the instrumentality of a third party yet re-main a personal choice or matter between the individual and God”? The biblical answer is “yes.”

Let us turn our attention for a moment to another consideration that is parallel to the objection stated above. Remember that the objection is to the necessity of baptism on the grounds that it requires a third party to administer or perform the baptism. Could not the same objection be raised against the necessity of faith? The answer is yes and it has been raised!

The Baptist preacher mentioned above is of the Missionary variety. Missionary Baptists believe that faith is essential to salvation and that each individual must choose to believe the gospel if he will be saved. Thus, it is imperative that sinners hear the gospel so that they might believe the gospel and be saved. It is because of this very emphasis on the preaching of the gospel to the lost world that these Baptists are called “missionaries.”

There are however other Baptists who do not believe in the necessity of faith to being saved. Called “Hard-shell” or “Primitive” Baptists, these people argue that God saves the elect apart from and without faith. Recently, while reading through some back issues of a publication called The Hard-shell Baptist, I came across this quote:

The “missionary movement” is all wrong when they say we must preach the gospel around the world in order that men might be saved for heaven and immortal glory. God saves his elect for heaven without a preacher. God is not dependent upon the preacher to save us eternally. God is not dependent upon our money to get preachers around the world to save his people (The Hard-shell Baptist, March 1984, p. 3).

Sound familiar? This is simply the same argument used by our Missionary Baptist friend being used against the necessity of faith. When confronted with the consequences of his reasoning on this point, this particular preacher stuck his head in the sand and would not address the issue. Such is typical in two ways. First of all, a false teacher will often make arguments that can be turned on him and applied to his own situation. Frequently, the trap that he will lay for someone else will ensnare him instead. Secondly, when con-fronted with the inconsistency of their position, false teachers will invariably ignore the issue rather than admit to their blunder.

The question however, is still before us: Is salvation, to some degree, dependent upon a third party? The answer is yes. This is true both of belief as well as baptism. Notice these points:

1. Paul argues that one must “call upon the name of the Lord” in order to be saved (Rom. 10:13). However, in order to call, one must first believe, and in order to believe one must hear, and in order to hear there must be a preacher (Rom. 10:14). Since faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17), one must hear the gospel preached in order to believe. The only way one can hear is to have a preacher or teacher come to tell them the “good news” of Jesus Christ.

2. Paul also states in 1 Corinthians 1:21 that God chose “by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” The gospel is God’s power to save (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18), but it can only be effectual when it is “mixed with faith” (Heb. 4:2).

3. Philip was directed by the Holy Spirit to go up and join the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-29). When he approached and heard that the eunuch was reading from the prophet Isaiah, he asked, “Understandest thou what thou readest?” The eunuch replied, “How can I except some man should guide me?” The eunuch understood the need for someone to teach him that he might understand the prophetic message.

4.Cornelius was instructed by God to “call for Simon, whose surname is Peter . . . he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do” (Acts 10:5-6). Later, after Peter had come to Cornelius’ house, Cornelius said, “Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God” (Acts 10:33). Peter later repeated the events to the Jews and told them that Cornelius had been told that Peter would “tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” (Acts 11:14). From this example it is obvious that the household of Cornelius was dependent upon Peter to hear the word of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

5. Timothy was instructed by Paul, “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save theyself, and them that hear thee” (1 Tim. 4:16).

From these and other related passages, it is easy to see that the salvation of lost souls is dependent, to a degree, on others. “But,” someone may ask, “cannot one read the Bible on his own without a preacher and believe the gospel without the involvement of a third party?” First of all, may I say from my own experience, that such rarely, if ever, hap-pens. I personally know of no one who learned the truth totally apart from any effort put forth by another individual. God’s plan is for the gospel to be committed to “faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). This is the purpose of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16; Lk. 24:46-48).

Secondly, even if a man did read the Bible on his own and believe the gospel message (and 1 am sure that such is possible and may have happened), is he not still relying on human instrumentality? Whose words are those that he is reading? Are they not the words of the apostles (men)? Is he not still relying on human instrumentality? Whose words are those that he is reading? Are they not the words of the apostles (men)? Is he not relying on their testimony and message for his faith? I realize their word is actually the word of God and not their own (I Thess. 2:13), but they are still instruments through which men believe the gospel (1 Cor. 3:5).

Thirdly, how is it that we have copies of the Bible today? Is it not true that men have copied and passed down through the ages the divine record? Again, I realize and preach that God is the one who has preserved his word through his providence (1 Pet. 1:23-25), hut we must also admit that God has used men as the instruments of his providence.

Let it be understood that I am not trying to diminish the significance of Gods work in salvation. Even when the gospel is preached and men obey the truth, it is only through Gods grace that we are able to be saved in the first place. The Lord is the one who saves, not man. However, the lord has seen fit to use men as instruments or vessels through which he saves the lost, whether by preaching and teaching or as the administrators: of baptism.

Understanding the significance of our responsibility in winning souls, let us be sure that we are using our abilities and talents as best we can to win souls. Let us strive to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all Iongsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). Let us not be persuaded by the carnal and worldly arguments of those who would seek to confuse and cloud our minds and turn us away from the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3). And let us remember to give glory, honor and praise unto our God and Savior because of the grace that has been bestowed upon us (Gal. 6:14; Rev. 5:9-10).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 14-15
July 15, 1993

By Larry Ray Halley

In his daily column, April 19, 1993, in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Billy Graham replied to a lady who stated that her ailing father “has never had anything to do with God, and when I bring up anything about turning to Christ and being prepared to die, he just laughs.” She asked, “As a Christian I am very concerned for him, but how can I get through to him and get him to face his need of salvation?”

Mr. Graham said, in part, “Only God can penetrate your father’s defenses and convict him of his need of Christ… that’s true of every person who refuses to face the truth about death and salvation and eternity.

“Only the Holy Spirit `will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment’ (Jn. 16:8).

“Pray for your father, therefore, that God would do what you cannot do  bring conviction and faith to his heart.”

Suppose the lady continues to pray, teach and admonish her father and suppose he dies impenitent, unbelieving. Whose fault will it be? If “only God can penetrate (her) father’s defenses and convict him of his need of Christ,” and if “only the Holy Spirit” can convict him, directly and immediately, apart from the agency and instrumentality of the word of God, whose fault will it be if the man dies unsaved?

Truly, the Holy Spirit does convict the world of sin, but he does so “through” the word of the apostles (Jn. 17:17, 20; Acts 2:37). Indeed, “only God” can penetrate and permeate the heart of men and bring them to Christ, but he does so through the medium of the gospel, which is his power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). If God has a power source and supply unto salvation other than the gospel, he has not made it known.

“God hath from the be-ginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto (unto salvation and sanctification) he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess. 2:13,14). God has chosen to save us through, by means of the setting apart of the Spirit and belief of the truth. The Spirit sanctifies, or sets us apart, by the truth, the gospel. At least, that is what Jesus thought and taught, “Sanctify them through thy truth: Thy word is truth” (Jn. 17:17).

So, if the lady’s ailing father is ever convicted and converted by the Spirit, it will have to be by means of the word of God (1 Cor. 1:18-21). The gospel is God’s dynamite, his Whose Fault Is It?.. power, to blast and tear down walls of opposition and unbelief (2 Cor. 10:3-5). If the unfortunate gentleman remains in adamant, defiant unbelief, it will not be God’s fault. “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine unto them” (2 Cor. 4:3,4).

Billy Graham has done, however unwittingly, a disservice to the lady inquirer. Imagine her plight if her father dies in unbelief. She must, if consistent, blame God and the Holy Spirit because Mr. Graham says it is “only God” who can turn and change his heart in a mystical, mysterious manner, above and beyond the overtures, incentives and inducements of the gospel. Hence, her father’s death in infidelity will be God’s fault, according to the consequences of Mr. Graham’s teaching. That is a serious charge to lay at God’s feet, and I would not want to meet the Lord in judgment, having made such an accusation against him!

Sobering Conclusion

This is not written to “bash the Baptists.” It has that effect, of course, but our primary purpose is to prompt us to see the need for increased, incessant efforts to preach the gospel, to sound out the word of the Lord. While we are at ease in Zion, souls sink into the abiding abyss of a never ending eternity. No, it will not be God’s fault if the lady’s father dies outside of Christ, but it may be mine (Ezek. 3:18; Acts 20:26,27)! Do I know her? Do I know her father? Have I said nothing to her or to her father about the word of the cross? Must she return to Billy Graham and drown in futility and frustration because I have said nothing? If that be so, “I exceedingly fear and tremble.” What about you?

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 15, p. 1
August 5, 1993

By Luther W. Martin

If one were to unquestioningly accept all of Rome’s assertions, she would have us believe that the Roman Church was the mother of all things good! (Like Sad-dam Hussein’s “Mother of all battles!”).

The last of the living apostles was John the beloved; though not executed as were others of the Twelve, John was exiled to the Island of Patmos, from which location he penned the Book of Revelation. One of John’s students was a man named Polycarp; who, in turn, was an instructor to Irenaeus; by whom a fellow named Hippolytus, was taught. This Hippolytus was born approximately fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.

The memory of Hippolytus and his works, was so out-standing in his day (ca. 200 A.D.), that in later centuries, as the Roman Church evolved, she belatedly canonized him as one of her “saints.” Rome’s wisdom (?) in making a “saint” out of Hippolytus, was further confirmed by the discovery in 1551, of a marble statue, with Greek inscriptions, including a calendar, showing that the statue was dated in the first year of Emperor Alexander Severus, or 222 A.D. The statue was of a figure seated in a chair, with dates and titles of his books and writings. Although the statue was in pieces, craftsmen at the Vatican reassembled it. This statue of Hippolytus was conidered to be a valuable example of Catholic history, and was placed in the Vatican under the oversight of Pope Pius IV, of Council of Trent fame.

Hippolytus was martyred and has been accorded a place in the Roman Breviary (August 22). But now, the plot thickens, as they say.

Long after the Roman Catholic Church awarded all the post-mortem honors to the memory of Hippolytus, a number of his long-lost writings were discovered. The historian Eusebius had written that Hippolytus was the author of many works, which at that time, the historian stated “you will find . . . preserved by many.” Since the time of Eusebius, these works had disappeared and none was known for centuries. However, in 1842, one of Hippolytus’ great works was re-discovered. It was “Philosophoumena” (Philosophizing) and “Refutation of All Heresies.”

Remember now, during the centuries that this writing had been lost, the Roman Church had heaped many honors upon its author. In the mid-1800’s, Dr. Philip Schaff stated that the “Refutation” was “an irrefutable witness against the claims of an infallible papacy, which was entirely unknown in the third century.” And, as another author wrote: “Refutation of All Heresies’ demonstrates the absurdity of Rome’s claim that there has been a continuous chain of in-fallible successors of Peter” (W.W. Moore, Introduction, p. 11, The Search-Light of St. Hippolytus).

Parke P. Flournoy, wrote in 1896: “Professor George T. Stokes, of Dublin University … has found the writings of St. Hippolytus to be . . . `a veritable search-light on men and affairs in the church in Rome before and after the year 200.’ In addition to this, they reveal many proofs of the genuineness of the New Testament Scriptures.”

Hippolytus uses the terms presbyter, elder or bishop interchangeably, as does the New Testament. He suggests that presbuteros referred to their dignity as rulers in the congregation, while episcopos pointed to their function as overseers in the church. He also wrote of the `assembly of prebbyters,’ speaking of the plurality of the eldership.

In another of the works of Hippolytus, a Commentary on the Book of Daniel, which was found by Dr. Basilios Georgiades on the island of Chalce, near Constantinople, in the late I800’s, the author quotes the four gospels “as being the very words and teachings of Christ,” thereby affording early evidence and confirmation of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’s gospels as existing and inspired in the late 2nd century.

Dr. Schaff also stated: “The Roman Catholic Church placed him (Hippolytus) in the number of its saints and martyrs, little suspecting that he would come forward in the nineteenth century as a witness against her.”

“Hydra-Headed Heresy”

The .Apostles Paul and John had warned about “perilous times” that would come; and that the “man of sin” would be revealed. But the “hydra-headed heresy” emphasized by alliteration, on the part of Hippolytus, also stressed the “falling away” from the New Testament pattern of the Lord’s church.

Hippolytus was especially critical of Zephryinus and Callistus, presbyters who were teaching falsehoods about the Trinity. Later, the Roman Church would assert that Zephyrinus and Calixtus I, were early popes!

“Hippolytus goes on to inform us that Callistus, by promising to forgive sins, encouraged fornication, nameless crimes of lust and uncleanness, and even abortion; allowing the rich to revel in debauchery, and yet providing rules by which they might still remain in good and regular standing in the church; allowing all to come to the communion, and wresting the Scriptures to justify his course. Hippolytus exclaims: `See to what a pitch of impiety this lawless one [anontos] proceeded, teaching fornication and murder at the same time! Yet, in the face of all these enormities, these men are lost to all sense of shame and presume to call themselves the Catholic Church.’

“Here we see plainly the beginnings of that long series of pretensions and usurpations of power on the part of a bishop of Rome which finally developed, in A.D. 607, into the full-blown papacy, when the decree of Phocas compelled the submission of other bishops to the Roman see, and the bishops of Rome became popes. But there is not the slightest indication that Hippolytus felt that it was his duty to yield obedience to Zephyrinus or Callistus” (The Search-Light of St. Hippolytus, pp. 68-69).

Besides the apostasy within the bishopric, among the many-headed heresies was that of the Ophites, so-called due to their ideas that the serpent in Eden was in reality the

Logos or Word. They were one of the heads or branches of Gnosticism. Both Irenaeus and Hippolytus wrote against them, as had the Apostle John in his letters and Revelation.

One heretic, was Heracleon, a follower of Valentinian, also a Gnostic. He wrote a Commentary on the New Testament that, though quoted by Origen, is now lost. Consider this: If the New Testament had not been authoritative, its enemies would not have bothered to write commentaries concerning it! Dr. George Salmon wrote concerning Heracleon’s view of inspiration: “His theory of inspiration is just the same as the one now popularly current in the church of Christ.”

“The rise of various phases of Gnosticism in connection with the spread of Christianity is a most interesting as well as a very saddening phenomenon. Egypt seems to have been a hotbed of these heresies. Alexandria was a center of wonderful intellectual activity. There met the advocates of the Egyptian and the Syrian Gnosis and the Greek philosophies” (Search-Light of St. Hippolytus, p. 136).

Any writings by Hippolytus will take one back to the late second century and early third century A.D., and provide historical evidence which gives the lie to modern Catholic claims!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 20-21
July 15, 1993