Truth Magazine

By Norman Midgette

Lot had guests in his home one evening in the city of Sodom and the following happened: “Before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men that came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.”

Lot refused their demand and accused them of wickedness. Little did Lot know this was the wrong thing to say to these determined people. With force and ridicule they said, “Stand back. This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and drew near to break the door.”

Lot’s guests rescued him, secured the door and blinded the homosexuals and that still did not stop them. In their blindness they still “wearied themselves to find the door” (Gen. 19:1-11). The next morning God turned Sodom, Gomorrah and the cities of the Plain into ashes and smoke (Gen. 19:27,28).

One thing that is so interesting to me in this story is the similarity in the homosexuals in Sodom and the homosexuals of today. Observe carefully the following:

The “young and old” were involved in this lifestyle in Sodom and how the gays would like to make this teaching a part of the public educational system of today. As “Gay Families” they are already talking of adopting children.

The gays of Sodom came “from every quarter.” There was no “Red Light” district where these people lived together; no living in the “closet.” They were open and brazen with their sodomy, publicly and everywhere. Seem familiar?

In Sodom they were determined to get their way. Today it is exactly the same. Then they used force. Today they are trying to do it by law. And with the current lawmakers the majority of our voters sent to Washington, they may succeed.

Finally, Lot was severely ridiculed and threatened and for what? For passing judgment on their perverted conduct and accusing them of acting “wickedly.” How much like today!

Whether in Sodom or San Francisco; whether ancient or modern, the homosexual mind and tactics have not changed.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 12, p. 9
June 17, 1993

By By Mason Harris

One who grew up in a home with godly parents and grand-parents asked me recently, “What is grace? All I have heard about it is something you can fall from?” That started me to thinking about my own youth and first exposure to the preaching of the gospel. How much and what had I heard about this grand subject?

The preaching I heard as a youth was pretty much limited to the summer meetings when the crops were laid by. Occasionally a preacher would show up on Sunday, and by the time I reached high school I remember that we had preaching on a regular basis once a month. But even in the limited amount of preaching I heard, I remember hearing them define grace as unmerited favor and illustrating it with the grace period when a note comes due. That was when I learned my salvation was made possible by the grace of God. And I do not recall thinking my baptism nullified his grace. And, yes, I did hear them talk about being able to fall from grace, but I never thought of it as just being something you can fall from.

As I have pondered this young man’s statement I have also given consideration to my own preaching. Have I been giving the proper emphasis to the subject of God’s grace? After giving my own teaching careful consideration, I have decided that for whatever faults I have, neglecting the grace of God is not one of them. And what about other preachers? I am in no position to judge them since I do not sit at their feet for long periods of time. I do not know of any that I would charge with negligence, though it would not surprise me greatly if some fail to give it due consideration. But this question occurs to me: What determines neglect of the subject?

For the writing of this article I have pulled Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible from the shelf and it is open before me at the word “grace.” I am surprised. Of all the times the word appears in the New Testament, it appears only once in the book of Luke, three times in the book of John, and not at all in Matthew and Mark. And of these four appearances in the books that tell us about the things Jesus did and taught, not a one of them is an utterance from Jesus. Consider them.

Of Jesus it is said, “And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him” (Lk. 2:40).

Again, of Jesus it is written, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

And again, “And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” On. 1:16,17).

For the purpose of this article I am going to assume Young has given an accurate listing of the number of times this word is used in these four books of the life of Jesus. If he is right, that means we do not have one mention of the word in the Sermon on the Mount, a sermon that ended with a reference to the wise and the foolish builders saying, “Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock … And every one that heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand” (Matt. 7:24,26).

Would Jesus be called a legalist because he closed his lesson with a reference to the need of doing what he said while failing to mention the word grace? Yet, who could read the first part of that sermon without seeing the idea of grace echoing throughout the beatitudes? Furthermore, I find no mention of the word grace in his cutting remarks to the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23. Neither do I find it in his prayers nor at the performance of his miracles. Not even in his letter to the seven churches (Rev. 2,3) is it mentioned by name.

If Jesus spoke of it by name these writers did not record it. But does this mean he, or they, neglected this subject? Certainly not! His life, including his teaching, was the very epitome of grace. John said he dwelt among us, full of grace and truth, and grace and truth came by him. He said of his own purpose, “Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28).

So, does the failure to mention thy word grace always mean it is a neglected subject? Obviously not always.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 12, p. 1
June 17, 1993

By Clinton D. Hamilton

The subject of imputation has long been a topic of both general and special interest among students of the Bible. Not only is the meaning of the term itself an issue but the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believer is also an issue, which is advocated by many religious scholars and leaders in the denominational world. The question to be addressed in this column concerns the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

Question: Is there any sense in which it can be stated that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to man?

Response: The question can be answered by a single word but before this answer is given, there is the need to give context to the answer. First, the meaning of term needs consideration. Impute is from logizomai which means to reckon, to account, or metaphorically it means to be put to one’s account (Vine). Thayer defines it to mean to reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over; he goes on to state that it means to take into account, to make account of. He further states that metaphorically it means to pass to one’s ac-count, to impute. Reckon is probably as good a synonym as one could give.

If one is not careful in the reading of Scripture, he may conclude that something is reckoned or accounted which the passage does not say. In Genesis 15:6 which is quoted or referred to three times in the New Testament, it is said that Abraham believed God and it (his faith) was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Paul said exactly this (Rom. 4:3). He says later that Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him for righteousness (Rom. 4:5). In this same passage he says that the one who believes on him that justifies the ungodly has this belief or faith reckoned or counted to him for righteousness. Again in Romans 4:9, Paul asserts that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. It was a righteousness of faith that Abraham had (Rom. 4:11).

Paul pointed out the faith that Abraham had and called it a strong faith (Rom. 4:20). Abraham was fully persuaded that what God had promised he was able to perform (Rom. 4:21). On this basis, Paul then states that this faith was imputed to him for righteousness (Rom. 4:22). But what was written in Genesis 15:6 was not written for Abraham’s sake alone that faith was imputed to him for righteousness but for us also to whom righteousness shall be imputed if we believe on him that raised up Jesus from the dead for our justification (Rom. 4:24-25). In all that Paul has said, it is abundantly clear that one’s faith is imputed to him for righteousness. In all of the Romans 4 passages referred to above, the verb from which reckon and impute have been translated is logizomai.

In his great section on the subject of faith, James also quoted Genesis 15:6 to show that one is not justified by faith only but by works also. Faith was made perfect by works (Jas. 2:20-22). He then made this significant statement in amplification of his observation: “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God” (Jas. 2:23). It should be observed against that it was the faith that was reckoned to him for righteousness.

In none of the passages when the word iogizomai is used, is it ever stated that the righteousness of Christ was reckoned or imputed to the person who believes. Rather it is emphatically stated that one’s faith was reckoned or imputed to him for righteousness. Yet, one reads the denominational scholars and preachers affirm that Christ’s righteousness is reckoned or imputed to the person on the basis of his faith. Christ’s righteousness is his, not the believer’s. The believer’s faith in the righteous Christ is imputed to the believer for righteousness. There is a big difference in the concept of the righteousness of Christ being imputed to one and one’s faith being imputed to him for righteousness.

The term righteousness needs to be examined in order to help one better understand what is here under discussion. The term is translated from dikaiosune and according to Vine means the character or quality of being right or just. Thayer defines it as “the virtue or quality or state of one who is dikaios. ” In the broad sense, he says it is “the state of him who is such as he ought to be, righteousness . . .. the condition acceptable to God…. ” When one believes in the comprehensive sense that includes obedience to him whom one trusts, he is made acceptable to God on the basis of this faith. One’s faith is reckoned to him for righteousness. The preposition eis from which for is translated means with a view to or toward and in this con-text means with a view to or toward righteousness or being in a state or condition acceptable to God.

Someone might well raise this question: How then does the righteousness of Christ fit into the picture of one’s being righteous? This is a fair question. The principle enunciated in the word of God is that one is justified or made right on the ground of faith. But it is faith in the Son of God by which we are justified (Gal. 3:24). The just shall live by faith (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). When one puts his trust or faith in Jesus Christ who is righteous and on this basis he was able to return to God without a sacrifice for himself (Jn. 16:10), this faith in the righteous Son of God justifies him. One on the basis of this faith is thereby made righteous or acceptable to God. One is before God justified or right or acceptable. Faith is the ground on which this justification or acceptability is made.

One can scripturally answer the question simply “no.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 12, p. 5-6
June 17, 1993

By Robert Wayne La Caste

When most people think of the Northwest they think of beautiful mountains, rushing whitewater rivers and enormous wildlife. Surely it is all of this and more. Of all the places in the world, surely this one more than most “declares the glory of God and sheweth his handiwork” (Psa. 19:1). It is also the home of many brethren of like precious faith.

The Lord has blessed me with the privilege of holding gospel meetings there since 1976. Just about every time I do, I am destined to be asked about the condition of the church there. Often questions are asked about the congregations and their stand on the matter of marriage and divorce. In just about every meeting I have held in this state, I have preached on this subject, usually at their request. Regrettably, I have learned some have not asked me to hold a meeting for them because they don’t like what I teach about it. While it is true many of the churches have brethren believing error on this subject, it is equally true that there are brethren standing for the truth of all the gospel.

In the state of Washington, I have preached meetings at Walla Walla, Richland, Prosser, Sunnyside, Yakima, and Enumclaw. In fact I just finished two fine meetings this last October with the saints in Yakima and Sunnyside. There are several others standing for truth besides these and though the Richland church had to disband, all the others are seeing that all the truth of the gospel is preached. In just about every church there are some very sincere brethren believing error on the subject, but most I have met want to believe and do what the Lord wants.

What is most regrettable is that in more than a dozen meetings, a Pentecostal debate, and a lectureship on the errors of Realized Eschatology in the state of Washington, never has any of the preachers who differ with me on marriage, divorce and remarriage approached me and said, “Brother La Coste, you teach error on it and we need to talk to you. ” Three of these meetings, along with a lectureship I was a part of, were held with the saints at Enumclaw, Washington. These brethren are very near and dear to my heart as are all the saints in that part of the country. While some of the brethren from different churches came and we studied together on marriage, divorce and remarriage, none of the preachers from the Seattle area or any other part of the state ever approached me in any way, shape or form. Does this not seem strange to you? For years it seemed strange to me, but lo and behold, now I understand why these preachers, not only in Washington but in most other places avoid not only those who preach on it, but avoid the subject pretty much altogether!

It’s Too Controversial

Marriage, divorce and remarriage are not the only subjects many preachers are avoiding. This one must be placed at the top of the list. The mentality exists that “this is too controversial and will cause trouble if preached.” Following this earthly wisdom, it’s a wonder any of these preach anything! Most every subject in the Scriptures is controversial. Anything really controversial is pretty much off limits to the PMA (positive mental attitude) crowd. After all, how can you help people to “feel good about themselves” if you even remotely hint that they may be in an unscriptural marriage? Have those with this attitude forgotten the Lord’s statements concerning why he came the first time? His coming was not to “bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34). The Lord knew that truth would “set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law” (Matt. 10:35). Truth will always be controversial, for truth demands right and opposes wrong, condemns evil but condones good, uplifts but also, “casts down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).

There can not be peace at any price brethren. Peace with God (Phil. 4:7) comes by way of fellowship with God (1 In. 1:7), but where men refuse to walk in his ways, there is neither. When men refuse to preach the Lord’s will on such matters as marriage, divorce and remarriage, and even refuse to openly and honestly discuss such, you might have peace and fellowship with members of the church, and you may have people “feeling good” about themselves, but how does God feel about them? That’s the fellowship that really counts. When men do not stand for the purity and yes the simplicity of Jesus Christ on marriage, divorce and remarriage, churches are destined to have fellowship with people in adulterous marriages. Many already are! How I would hate to stand before the Judge of all the earth one day and have to give answer for adulterous marriages being in my spiritual family, when I took no measures to oppose and avoid such.

A gospel preacher is a man who “declares the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). When he speaks, he speaks, “as the oracles of God” (I Pet. 4:11). His message seeks to “reprove, rebuke, and exhort” and is delivered “in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2). He preaches to “please God and not man” (Gal. 1:10). This is not a popularity contest and the gospel preacher is not asking for votes to hold a political office. He therefore doesn’t want pats on the back while he scratches the patters itching ears. He is one who is “always set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:17). He “con-tends earnestly for the faith, once and for all delivered” (Jude 3).

However, this “we don’t discuss it because it will cause trouble” ideology has caused more than a few to the church? When James Bales and others wrote and preached their institutional “gospel” these Northwest preachers stood and countered such with a “thus saith the Lord.” Yet, when the same James Bales, and many others preached his heresy on “Not Under Bondage” these preachers acted like a whipped dog who runs away with his tail between his legs looking for a place to hide. Is either of these subjects less controversial than the other? No, but the fact of the matter is, that the reason they cowered is because some didn’t know how to answer, while others agreed in whole, if not in part with the error.

And what of the fence sitters? Some of our older preachers believe the truth on these matters, but they won’t come out of the closet and be heard. Little, if any of their writings, have spoken out against error on this. These are the guys who have blasted away at our younger preachers for doing what they should have done themselves early on! Brethren, the “middle of the road” was meant for yellow lines and dead animals. It is surely no place for those who love the law of the Lord Jesus. We need to stand, stand immediately and stand firm on the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Quality or Quantity?

One brother expressed to us while we were in open their eyes! Several brethren in Enumclaw, who have been there many years, tell me the story of how these long time Northwest preachers stood their ground on such matters as the work of the church, church sup-port of orphanages and the sponsoring church arrangement. Many debates were held and these Northwest preachers stood publicly and “shucked down the corn” when it came to these matters. They stood boldly and fearlessly against those who sought to teach error on the church in these respects. Without hesitation they challenged for debates and when they got them they defended the Lord’s truth admirably. Now, lo and behold . . . these same preachers have ducked their heads between their legs and are found to be playing “hide and seek” when it comes to the truth on marriage, divorce and remarriage. Some of the brethren located there couldn’t believe it! These same preachers were asked directly how they could cower on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage, wave the white flag of surrender, and fade away as though it were not even in the word of God? Where now was that same boldness, tenacity and zeal that had condemned the false teaching and evil practices of brethren on the work of

Washington this concern: “If we limit our fellowship just to those people who divorced for fornication and remarried on that basis, this would cause the church to be even that much smaller, and the Lord knows it is small enough now.” Can you believe this? Can you believe any Christian would be this ignorant of the Lord’s will? I’ve heard Elmer Moore say that “some Christians don’t know if the Lord died on Calvary or was shot at Bunker Hill.” I think this brother may be in that category. I tell you something else the Lord knows brethren. The Lord “knoweth those who are his.” But Paul doesn’t stop there. He hastens to tell Timothy, “Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (2 Tim. 2:19). Adulterous marriages are iniquity. They are “lawlessness.” Our choice is clear. We must have “no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11).

Since when is God interested in numbers? Is the Lord more concerned about the size of the church or the purity and holiness of the church? The prophet Gideon learned that God is more interested in quality over quantity. Gideon’s soldiers at the first were too many, yet even then they were not numbered. God wanted a selected and we might say “hand picked” force to do his bidding. With a smaller force, Gideon led God’s army against their enemies and was victorious (Judg. 7). It’s as though preachers are afraid they won’t be supported, or the church will just fold up if they preach and insist on what God’s word teaches. Has it dawned on these of “little faith” that God will always richly bless his people, both individually and collectively when they seek to teach and do his will? Or, is it possible some of these preachers are in unscriptural marriages and in an effort to justify themselves they have therefore embraced Bale’s or Hailey’s or someone else’s position? Is it possible they don’t want to discuss these matters, for if they do, the skeleton in some of their closets, known as a previous wife, will come creaking out? Of course, by the time you get through listening to most of the views of these and other men on marriage, there isn’t any such thing as an adulterous marriage. They redefine adultery, they twist a Scripture one way and other Scripture another way, they say that the alien sinner isn’t under God’s marriage law in the first place, and if none of that works, they try washing away unscriptural marriages down the baptismal drain! (Repentance, what is that?) So by the time they use plan A, B, or C of their human wisdom, which ever one will fit most conveniently, then an adulterous marriage doesn’t even exist, so why worry about whether you are having fellowship with it or not? God help us!

Sadness Yet Rejoicing

This trip last year to Washington state was a moving experience in more ways than one. A precious beloved sister, Lindy Henry had just died before my coming, with cancer.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 11, p. 16-18
June 3, 1993