Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Brother Kevin Campbell met Bobby L. Sparks, Missionary Baptist, in a four night debate at the Pruett and Lobit church in Baytown, Texas, the last week of January, 1993. Essentially, the debate was centered on the question, “What must I do to be saved?”

The first two nights, Kevin affirmed that water baptism is “for (in order to obtain) the forgiveness of sins.” The last two nights, Mr. Sparks affirmed that salvation is “by grace through faith, before and without water baptism.”

Brother Campbell’s affirmative arguments were based on the clear and concise statements of the Bible which he presented on overhead transparencies. The effect of plain, positive Scripture was overwhelming in itself, but Kevin carefully contrasted the Bible with Baptist doctrine. For example:

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16).

He that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved (Baptist doctrine).

The contrast with Baptist teaching made the words of Jesus stand out with even greater power.

Further, brother Campbell tied his questions to Mr. Sparks with his affirmative. He asked:

“Which of the following statements gives the order of occurrence?

‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.’

`He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized.”‘

This question was asked each night of the debate. Sparks hedged and dodged, refusing to answer the question directly, even though in his first debate with Kevin he had said that “He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized” was the correct order of occurrence in Mark 16:16.

One must remember that Baptists are lost. They have not obeyed the gospel. Thus, it is necessary to press and drive home the truth to the hearts of those who are blinded to things that appear so simple to us. This is part of brother Campbell’s skill as a debater. He impresses the truth on the heart and directs his efforts to the lost to help them see the contrast between what they believe and what the Bible teaches.

Naturally, Acts 2:38 figured prominently in the discussion. In answer to brother Campbell’s question, Sparks agreed that those in Acts 2:37 who inquired, “What shall we do?” were lost and unsaved. In the first debate Sparks argued that “for the remission of sins” means because of the remission of sins, but in this debate he contended that “for” has so many meanings and uses that its exact meaning is doubtful, controversial and inconclusive.

Brother Campbell then asked Sparks if the expression, “for the remission of sins,” was equally doubtful, controversial and inconclusive in Matthew 26:28, where we are told that Christ’s blood was shed “for the remission of sins”? Sparks said it was not. Kevin showed that as Christ’s blood was shed “for the remission of sins,” so repentance and baptism are “for the remission of sins.”

Grounds Vs. Conditions

A great part of the debate centered around the grounds of salvation and the conditions of salvation. Sparks stressed that baptism cannot have any part in salvation or forgiveness because it is the blood of Christ that forgives and saves. “Christ is our Savior, not baptism; the blood provides forgiveness, not water,” he contended. These declarations served to comfort the Baptists, confuse the issue and contradict the word of the cross.

Kevin correctly and consistently contended that, yes, Christ is indeed our Savior and that his blood is what washes us from our sins, and, he said, that he was not arguing to the contrary. However, those facts were not under discussion; no one dares to deny them. The issue is not: Is Christ our Savior; Or, does his blood procure pardon? The issue is when, or at what point, does Jesus save us by his blood?

The grounds of salvation include such things as mercy, grace and love, which provided the blood of Jesus. Those items are the basis of salvation, but the debate was about the terms or conditions. Time and again Kevin showed that the blood of Christ is what washes us from our sins, but that it does so when we are baptized (Rev. 1:5; Acts 22:16; Rom. 6:3-6; Col. 2:11-13). The blood of Christ is what remits our sins, but it does so when we are baptized (Matt. 26:28; Acts 2:38).

With relentless and irresistible force, brother Campbell hammered home this vital point. With great effect, he used the case of Naaman, the leper. With several clear charts, he showed that Naaman was healed by the Lord and not by the water, but that he was not healed by the Lord until he dipped seven times in the river Jordan (2 Kgs. 5). Just so, God’s power to save and Christ’s blood to save will not be applied until we have complied with the conditions of pardon as set forth in the New Testament.

“Justified By Faith”

Sparks argued that we are justified by faith, apart from baptism, citing numerous passages that attest to salvation by faith. Kevin agreed that salvation is by faith (Rom. 5:1), but “when,” he asked, are we justified by faith? Brother Campbell taught that we are justified by grace (Rom. 3:24), by faith (Rom. 5:1) and by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9), but when does this occur? “Ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:17,18).

In conjunction with this, Kevin said that the walls of Jericho fell down “by faith,” but only “after they were compassed about seven days” (Heb. 11:30). Thus, a thing may be accomplished “by faith,” even though certain acts of obedience are required. Kevin asked Sparks, “Is the following statement true or false: `The walls of Jericho fell by grace through faith, before and without marching around the city’ (Josh. 6:2; Heb. 11:30).” Mr. Sparks admitted that the statement was “false.”

He conceded, then, that an event may be done “by faith,” as a gift of God (Josh. 6:2; Heb. 11:30), yet have conditions attached to it; so, Kevin pressed, can we not see that salvation too, is “by grace through faith,” though we must be baptized?

Further, to drive the conclusion into absolute certainty, Kevin documented the salvation of the Ephesians, who had been “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” for the remission of sins (Acts 19:5; 2:38). Later, Paul wrote to them and said they were saved “by grace through faith” (Eph. 2:8,9). But to whom, brother Campbell asked, did Paul say this? He said it to those who had been baptized for the remission of sins. Hence, those who have been baptized are the ones who have been saved by grace through faith.

Quips and Quibbles

Sparks averred that Christ is in the water, if baptism is essential, so when the baptistry is drained, Christ goes down the sewer. Kevin said that, if so, then the Baptist Church must be in the water since one is baptized into the Baptist Church; so, when the baptistry is drained, the Baptist church goes down the drain. Sparks’ argument backfired, and, feeling the effects of it, he denied that baptism puts one into the Baptist Church. He said that he did not “baptize people into the Baptist church.”

Kevin said that proved once and for all that the Baptist Church is not the Lord’s church, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,” the church (I Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:22,23). One is baptized into the church of Christ, the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), but one is not baptized into the Baptist Church, therefore, the Baptist Church is not the Lord’s church! Kevin very politely and kindly thanked Mr. Sparks for this admission.

Sparks said that if one had to be baptized it negated the cross and Jesus’ death, because Jesus did it all on the cross. Kevin wondered that if one had to believe and repent, did that also negate the cross and Jesus’ death?

Sparks charged that Kevin avoided arguments and said that if Kevin played baseball, he would have to play for the “Dodgers.” Kevin replied that as afraid as Mr. Sparks was of passages with water in them, it was obvious that he (Sparks) could never play for the “Mariners!”

Isolated, these quibbles sound like childish banter, perhaps, but in the context of the overall debate, they helped to highlight and underscore the truth of the gospel. For ex-ample, Mr. Sparks had a parody of the great, old hymn, “Amazing Grace.” His satire was entitled, “Amazing Water.” As he read and reviled that grand hymn of grace, he said that this is what water baptism does to grace. It makes baptism our Savior, rather than grace, so we ought to sing, “Amazing Water.”

Kevin replied with his rendition of “Amazing Faith.” Since, he inquired, Sparks believes that one must have faith in order to be saved, does this mean that faith, and not grace, is our Savior? Of course not! Again, Sparks’ “profane and vain babblings” gave truth an opportunity to radiantly shine forth and to thereby dispel the mists of error.

Conclusion

The debate was well attended, averaging 231 per night. We had a large number of Baptists present, nearly 50 or more on one night alone. Numerous tracts were distributed, especially Grover Stevens’ invaluable work, “Why I Left the Baptist Church.”

The response to the debate has been outstanding in every way! Some who formerly expressed doubt about a debate have now expressed their whole-hearted approval of them! Two folks known to me said, “I was wrong. This debate was great!” Brother Campbell’s poise, his earnest presentation of truth and his ability to expose error in a pointed but kind manner has helped brethren to see the good that a debate, properly conducted, can do.

As this review is being written, a Baptist preacher has called brother Campbell and expressed his appreciation for Kevin’s attitude during the debate. This Baptist preacher said he was disappointed with the way Mr. Sparks handled his part of the debate, but that he appreciated Kevin’s manner. He also said that he had some questions to ask Kevin and that he needed some answers to satisfy his own mind about some things that troubled him! Is that good news or what?

Further, our young people have been strengthened. Their comments and insight into the various issues have had them talking about the Bible. They have been edified by it. For the first time in their lives, they saw their faith in Christ tested by an able opponent, and they have come away with a renewed faith in the word of the Lord. Who says that debates do not do an good? Not our young people, that is for sure!

Kevin Campbell is now a “veteran” of four debates at the ripe old age of twenty-five! His thorough preparation and his seemingly innate ability to answer error with Scripture is a source of admiration and inspiration to all who hear him. I am so thankful to God for young men like Kevin. His work is a blessing to the cause of the cross of Christ, to whom we ascribe glory and honor, both now and forever.

 

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 6, p. 10-12
March 18, 1993

By Donnie V. Rader/Tom O’Neil

On Tuesday afternoon (February 2) over 200 brethren from across the country gathered at a Luby’s Cafeteria in Tampa, FL to honor brethren H.E. Phillips and Connie Adams for their work and service to God and brethren through the pages of Searching the Scriptures. Both brethren were taken by complete surprise. They came to the restaurant thinking they were meeting Tom O’Neal and this writer for dinner. After all were seated, Tom read a piece written by Polly Phillips and then read a tribute to both men. Roses were given to Polly Phillips and Bobby Adams in appreciation for their work and supporting role with the paper. Then, plaques were given to these two former editors of Searching the Scriptures. Below are the words that were read at the appreciation dinner.

In Gratitude to Elwood and Connie Dr. Luke records in Luke 17:11-19 of Jesus healing ten lepers, but only one Samaritan leper returned to give glory to God. Jesus raised the question, “Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?”

From this text every preacher in this room has preached a sermon on the sin of ingratitude, which is one of the most common sins of our time.

You and I do not want to be guilty of this sin toward two very beloved brethren, so we have assembled here this evening in Tampa to express our thanksgiving to two brethren who have given us their time, talents, money and lives to provide us a medium through which we might be Searching the Scriptures.

For every person present this evening, there are, no doubt, thousands of others around the world who would love to be here to show in a small way their appreciation to brethren H.E. Phillips and Connie W. Adams for their “work of faith and labor of love” over the years in editing and publishing Searching the Scriptures for 33 years.

These two brethren could not have done the outstanding job they did with the paper without the help, love and sup-port of the first ladies of Searching the Scriptures. The first first lady was fighting for her life while her husband put the first issue together in motel room in northern Florida. We are happy she is here tonight, and we salute Polly Phillips for her behind the scenes contribution to the paper. The second first lady, Bobbie, came on board when her husband took over as editor and was a stablizing influence until she went home to be with her Lord. The third first lady (Bobby) appeared on the scene when she married the editor of Searching the Scriptures and was around when the paper was with dignity laid to rest at the end of last year. We also are glad she is with us tonight and salute her for her contributions to the paper.

Searching the Scriptures was given birth by H.E. Phillips and the late James P. Miller when the church of our Lord was fighting to keep the Lord’s church separated from the human institutions of men. There were many storms and many battles to be fought, but Searching the Scriptures always did so with dignity and honor. Under honorable, fair and dignified circumstances, any number of those of us who wrote for the paper over the years would meet error and use the Scriptures to put it to flight.

These two brethren provided a medium through which brethren around the world could search what the Scriptures said, discuss what the Scriptures said, and yes, even debate what the Scriptures said on any Bible subject. These brethren were not afraid of open, fair, and frank discussion of the word of God. Such earned them the respect and admiration of brethren upon the continents of earth and the islands of the seas.

I have known these two brethren well for over 30 years. The three of us met in Atlanta at the time Elwood turned the paper over to Connie. I know the feelings expressed by them in that meeting toward each other and toward me, and I toward them. These feelings have only grown stronger since then. I know the fervent prayers that were prayed those two days. With them the only thing that matters then or now is truth. And with them the only things that determines what is truth is a “thus said the Lord.”

They are not, and have never been, ashamed or afraid of plain, old fashioned book, chapter and verse preaching and writing. This is what has made Searching the Scriptures one of the most respected and largest circulated journals among us.

I want to thank each of you for giving me the opportunity to write over the years. Others, I am sure, join me in this expression on their behalf. I want to thank each of you for what you have contributed to my life. It is hard to think of life without thinking of the four men who have contributed so much to my life, and they all four were writers for Searching the Scriptures; H.E. Phillips, Connie W. Adams, James P. Miller and Roy Cogdill.

There is a host of brethren, many whom already sleep in Jesus, who started out with you as readers, that are appreciative of your sacrifices and labors. Souls have been saved, Christians edified, churches built up in the most holy faith as a result of your labors. And I expect there will be those in generations yet unborn that will find a Searching the Scriptures and will, by the lessons in it, draw other men to the Savior of men.

On behalf of brethren everywhere who would like to show you their appreciation for your labors, Donnie V. Rader has designed a plaque for each of you on which he wrote, “In appreciation for your sacrifice and labor of love to serve God and brethren through the pages of Searching the Scriptures.”

Elwood, will you and Connie please come forward at this time so Donnie can present these to you?

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 6, p. 6-7
March 18, 1993

By Robert Wayne La Coste

The Apostle Paul was willing to “suffer all things lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ” (1 Cot. 9:12). The servant of the Lord possessed this attitude about truth. He was well aware of the value of truth. Truth is in-dispensable to our salvation. Jesus said one must know it to be “made free from sin” (Jn. 8:32). Paul echoes this sentiment when he wrote how it made the Romans “free from sin and the servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:18). Therefore God desires that all men “come to a knowledge of it that they might be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4). Truly as Peter wrote, “God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).

Satan knows the value of truth and hat’s why he has many ways to hinder it and keep it from the hearts f men. We only mention a few in his brief discourse.

Lying

There appears to be a dangerous trend relative to telling the truth these days. In the past several years it has been common to hear folks talking about “one’s perception” of a mat-ter. It has even been said, “One man’s lies is another man’s reality. It just all depends on your personal perception of the matter. This type of mentality is not far abreast from Such statements as “that’s just your own interpretations” It even smacks Of the days of the judges, when every rnan “did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 11:6).is not to be able to discern (perceive) truth from error. He often judges er roneously based on very superficial and subjective evidence. Of course the definitive standard to assist us in every walk of life where judgments must be made is the gospel of God’s Son. God’s word directsas from every aspect of our living from the cradle to the grave. By it we discern the good from the evil, the false prophet from the teacher of righteousness and a lie from the truth (I Jn. 2:1; 4:6): As we sharpen our spiritual senses by the sword of the Spirit, so we may discern truth from error (Het). 5:12-14), may we never fall in-to the snare of “personal perception.” Solomon said that “whosoever trusteth in his own heart is a fool” (Prov. 28:26). Sure, it is true we will have some perception on any given matter, and from this perception we will make a judgment. Let’s just make. sure our perception and subsequent judgment coincide with the righteous judgment of God. No man is allowed his own personal private perception when it doesn’t harmonize with obvious facts. If facts are presented and you believe it a lie and I believe it the truth, either the facts are in error or we are in error. It can’t be both!

Judging “righteous judgment” (Jn. 7:24) is not an exercise perfected overnight and only with time and experience can it be our spiritual treasure. By following God’s mind as our guide, we shall not fail.

Prejudice

When one is confronted with a statement or action of another, howwe perceive it to a great degree depends on how our mind has been taught or programmed. Many hear the gospel preached constantly. They know it is the truth but prejudice; i.e a prejudgment has been existent for sometime and this hinders them from acceptance.

Therefore, if a man’s heart has not been taught right and he hears the word of God, quite often there is a changing of the Word so there will be harmony between the preconditioned mind and the word. This is a Colossaltragedy. When one recognizes that he has been taught wrong on a matter, the mind of man should be changed, not the revealed mind of

God. This is the situation in the parable of the sower, often also called the parable of the soils. As the soils (hearts of men) are under discussion, we might do well to call it that; This type of heart or soil is somewhat like the first one Jesus mentions. “When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart” (Matt. 13:19). The word of God never has a chance to be planted because the person cares not to even try to understand it. His heart is cluttered with other “seed” that has been sown there, so the pure seed is never even given a chance. “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up,” is the type of soil that hinders truth from being sown in that person’s heart. The solution is t4 treat the soil, recondition it and make it ready to receive the pure seed. Without that reconditioning, sowing is futile.

Hypocrisy

No sincere person likes one who is “two-faced.” Have you ever met an individual that was “schizophrenic”? This is one who is one person at one time and then another person on a different occasion. It is literally defined as “split-personality.” In the spiritual realm, when a person is righteous part of the time and then unrighteous, then back to righteous, we term that as being hypocritical. The “hypocrite” during Shakespeare or Moliere’s day was an actor! On the theatrical stage, one was portraying a fictitious character. Everyone knew that in “real life” this actor was not this clown or king or whatever he was pretending to be.

When people pretend to be Christians or put on an act, this manner of life is wholly detrimental to the cause of the Lord and to truth. People see in this person that truth is not really important to them and if it isn’t important to them, why should any-one else really take it seriously? Jesus wanted his disciples not to reject truth because of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. He wanted them to do as they said, but Jesus did not want them doing as they did. Jesus said the Pharisees “say, but do not” (Matt. 23:3). In that same chapter therefore Jesus calls them hypocrites no less than seven times and in closing wants to know how they shall escape the damnation of hell? (Matt. 23:33) There is no escaping God’s punishment for hindering God’s truth. Because of such hypocrisy in the early church, the apostle said that “the name of God was being blasphemed” (Rom. 2:24). You and I need to make sure that as people look at our lives, our lives “becometh (makes comely, i.e. beautifies) the gospel of Christ” (Phil. 1:27).

Division

Why does God hate division or discord? (Prov. 6:19) The same reason he hates divorce! (Mal. 2:16) In both instances, there is a separation taking place of an entity God has created. The church belongs to Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). He prayed for and died for his church (Jn. 17:20-21) “to be of the same mind and judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). A united people is a formidable foe against any would be adversary. However , “a house divided against itself will not stand” (Matt 12:25).

Satan knows the power of a united people. This is why he does all he can in his power to divide the body of Jesus Christ. Dividing means conquering! No physical family, nation or local church will be existent for long where division reigns. How the Devil loves it,

The disgruntled Christian who figures the local church would do better following his ”wisdom” than anyone else’s, places himself in the fore ground and seeks the preeminence. This ”Diotrephes” (3 Jn. 9) is going to rule or ruin. I-fe always does the latter. Such a Christian is nothing more than a “patsy” who has played into the Devil’s hands. With the tools of arrogance, pride and envy, Satan uses, of all people, the Christian, to destroy Christians! This is nothing new. Satan used Jesus’ own apostles to betray, deny and destroy the Lord Jesus! Satan yet ”sifts” the Christian as wheat (Lk. 22:31). We must determine in our own hearts that we will not be the devil’s tool. We must have a resolve that truth will not suffer because of us. “Woe unto that many by whom offences conieth” (Matt. 18:7).

Compromise

“Preacher, you need to lighten up. Give a little, just preach the gospel and leave others alone” Today, those who would dare to preach the whole counsel of God are under fire to compromise in their preaching. Many churches never hear lessons on denominational error, marriage, divorce and remarriage, social drinking and dancing or the issues that have divided brethren on the work of the church, the PMA (positive mental attitude) brethren would hinder the truth with their spirit of compromise if we let them. I understand full well we are to “preach the truth in love,” but love for whom and what? Our first love (Rev. 2:4)is the Lord and his word. His word is absolute truth and when it comes to this truth, there is no room for compromise. We should only “feel good about ourselves” when we have fully “reproved, rebuked and exhorted with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). The tickling of ears and the scratching of backs keeps from being said what needs to be said concerning many matters that relate to our soul and its salvation. Iris never an easy task, but God forbid we should ever place convenience over conviction. Maybe that’s the problem. Too many have little or no conviction and it is in this seedbed that compromise blossoms, blooms and bears!

Brethren, a watered-down, soft- soaped “positive only” gospel is not the kind of gospel Paul preached. It is “another gospel” and those who preach it have the curse of God upon them (Gal. 1:6-9). Brethren, keep your eyes and ears open. Men are parading themselves as gospel preachers, when there are many things they won’t preach which are gospel! Some of these same ones advocate “unity in diversity” and hinder truth by being more interested in the quanthy of their membership, rather than the quality! Compromise on important matters of truth may build church numbers, but it doesn’t save souls.

It is a serious matter to have a part in the cutting of the only life line that God throws to the sinking souls of men. Truth is that lifeline. Let’s help ”throw out the life line.” If a man is drowning, you don’t throw him a thread, and neither if hunting elephants do you take a B-B gun! The souls of men will need all the truth if they are to be what God expects of them. Gospel preachers will need all the truth to expose error for what it is. There should be no cost too great, no sacrifice too demanding for the cause of truth. Truth can save man here and deliver him eternally to God, but it will take all the truth to accomplish that noble task.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 6, p. 16-17
March 18, 1993

By Mike Willis

Men constantly are writing biographies about the great deeds which someone has done. A browsing of the biographical section of the library will expose a person to many biographies, sometimes extending into multiple volumes, about men unknown to us. The Holy Spirit summarized the life of Barnabas in these few words: ‘For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith” (Acts 11:24). That is a good tribute for a life well lived.

Who Was Barnabas?

Barnabas is firs; introduced to us in Acts 4:36-37 when he sold a piece of property and brought the money received from it and laid it at the apostles’ feet for distribution among the poor. Later, Barnabas is mentioned as the man who introduced Saul of Tarsus to the church in Jerusalem (Acts 9:27), When news that the church at Antioch was preaching to Grecians was received, the apostles were concerned enough to send Barnabas to Antioch to cheek out the situation. Barnabas was so well received at Antioch that, when the church decided to send money to relieve the destitute in Judea, he was one of the men selected to deliver the funds to the elders at the various churches in Judea. The Holy Spirit set Barnabas apart with Saul to go on the first missionary journey in Acts 13. He participated in the so-called Jerusalem conference (Acts IS) and later ~vent on a missionary journey with John Mark (Acts 15:37-39). We know much more about Paul than Barnabas, but we do know enough to see some lessons from his life.

The Traits of Barnabas

7. He was a good man. To say that a person is good is to affirm that his life is morally pure. Barnabas was nor a thief, drunkard, fornicator, etc. He did not habitually walk in sin. All men stumble into sin from time to time, as did Barnabas, but his general demeanor of life was to abstain from all kinds of evil. That is what being good implies.

Being good implies more than the avoidance of sin. It also implies the positive doing of that which is right. One could not say about the priest and Levite who passed by the man who fell among thieves, in Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan, that they were good (Lx. 10:25-37). They could see their fellow man suffering and do nothing to relieve that suffering. Barnabas was a good man in that he not on- Iv abstained from evil, but also did good deeds, such as that recorded in Acts 4: 36-37 when he sold his property and gave the money to relieve the suffering of the poor saints.

2. He was full of the Holy Ghost (Acts 11:24). This is not saying that Barnabas had special power from God to work miracles. Rather, it, is used in the same sense as Ephesians 5:18 “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.” A person is full of the Holy Ghost when he is led by the Spirit (Gal. 5:18). To the degree that a person’s life is full of the things of this world which root out devotion to God, he is no; ‘full of the Spirit.” Sometimes we see men who are so involved in sports, work, accumulating wealth, Barnabas: He Was a Good Mao, .and other such like things ;dint God is effectively rooted out of their lives. These men are not “roil of the Spirit.” When we say that Barnabas was Moil of the Spirit” we describe a life which is fully sin-rendered w the obedience of God.

3. He was; full of faith (Acts 11:241. In order to be described as one full of faith, Barnabas had a deep faith in God. The writer of Hebrews said, “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to Cod must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them than diligently seek him” (Heb. 11:6). We must conclude that Barnabas had a deep faith in God. Second, Barnabas had a deep faith in Christ. He believed and obeyed the gospel. He acknowledged that Jesus was his Lord and lived in obedience to him.

Thirdly. Barnabas hid a deep faith in his fellowman. When others were afraid to have anything to do with Saul of Tarsus who wished to he identified with the church in Jerusalem, Barnabas took him aside, talked to him, became convinced of his true conversion, and subsequently recommended him to the h n4 (acts -27), liana., when the work in Antioch was greaser than t could do alone, Barnabas went to Tarsus to brine Say) to assist in that work. He had faith in Saul.

On the first missionary journey Paul and Barnabas took his cousin John Mark with them. for some reason. John Mark turned back at Perga [Acts ‘ 3:13). When time came for the second journey, Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them, but Paul refused. The disagreement: was so strong that Barnabas and John Mark -cent one e ay. and Paul and Silas went another. Barnabas’ faith in John Mark was justified. He did his work well so that Patti later could write, “Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for be is profitable to me for the ministry” (2 Tin, 4:’ 1). Barnabas’ faith in his fellowman was commendable

The Fruits of His Life

I. He was a liberal giver (Acts 4:36-37). He sacrificed to give to the Lord as witnessed by his selling his property and laying the funds received at the feet of the apostles for them to use to distribute to the poor. Stingy men never accomplish much for the Lord.

He was concerned for the souls of men. Barnabas was willing to leave the comforts of his home to preach the gospel at Antioch, the various cities of the first missionary journey and in his travels with John Mark. He made sacrifices to convert the lost. He had a perception that the gospel was to he taken to the whole world and was willing to be used in disseminating the message. Consequently, he was active in bringing many souls to Christ.

He was a “son of consolation” (Acts 4:36). The text tells us that the apostles changed Joses’ name to Barnabas which means “son of consolation.” Just as Jesus changed the name of Simon to Peter because he could see the rock-like character in the man, the apostles could see the good consolation which Joses gave and called him Barnabas. He had the ability to cheer and encourage his brethren. He was not a man who discouraged any good work done in a local congregation, with such words as “It’ll never work” or “We’ve tried that before.” Barnabas had an ability to stir men to greater service.

Barnabas was free from jealousy. When Saul first began working with Barnabas, the Scriptures referred to the pair as “Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:30; 12:25; 13:2,7). After the events on the island of Cyprus, the pair were referred to as “Paul and Barnabas” (Acts 13:43,46; etc.). Commentators are generally agreed that the leadership in the group changed from Barnabas to Paul. Sometimes when strong men work together a spirit of jealousy interferes with their work. One is envious of the abilities of the other and bitter words follow. Barnabas was free from this evil spirit.

Someone has said that the most difficult chair to fill in an orchestra is “second fiddle.” The conductor has no trouble filling the chair of “first fiddle” and maybe even third and fourth fiddle. However, few people want to be second fiddle. Barnabas knew how to accept the role of second fiddle without bitterness and animosity.

Conclusion

A few years ago, a good brother and friend preached on Barnabas and said that he hoped that when he died men could say about him what was said about Barnabas — “For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith.” I have remembered his words for six years now and find myself feeling the same way. I hope that when I come to the end of my way and am lying in a coffin that my children can lean over into the coffin and say, “For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith.” I feel confident that, if these words can be truly said about me, that 1 soon shall hear these words from my Father, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34). (The idea for this lesson was taken from several sources, including Simple Sermons For A World In Crisis by W. Herschel Ford.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 7, p. 2
April 1, 1993