Truth Magazine

By Dan King

One can picture in his mind a victorious Roman general returning to his beloved capitol to present the symbols of his battlefield glories before his Emperor and his people. He rides atop a white stallion, followed by his armies, cheered by the crowds, adored by all who behold his approach. He is a Conqueror.

This image provides the background for a key text in the book of Revelation. Thus John portrays the Christ in the Apocalypse (19:11-14):

“And I saw the heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and he that sat thereon called Faithful and True; and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. And his eyes are a flame of fire, and upon his head are many diadems; and he hath a name written which no one knoweth but he himself. And he is arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and pure.”

At that moment in time it must have been most difficult for those suffering Christians of Asia Minor tohave imagined their Christ marching in such grand royal splendor. All about them suggested otherwise. The church was considered an illegal entity. Christians were oppressed and persecuted. Their possessions were being confiscated, their careers ruined, their businesses wrecked. Some of them were even tried on unfair charges and put to death. Things looked pretty dismal.

Yet John’s book of prophecy suggested that this was only what things appeared to be on the surface. In reality things were quite different. For one to get this deeper perspective, the “heavens must be opened,” as they were for the Apostle John when he received his Revelation from God. Through the eyes of divine disclosure, the church was viewed as a mighty army “upon white horses” being led on to ultimate victory by their Savior and King.

Similarly, Paul puts even the severest of life’s trials (“. . . we are killed all the day long, we are ac-counted as sheep for the slaughter”) in their proper perspective, that is, through heaven’s eyes, and describes faithful Christians as “Conquerors”:

“Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:37-39).

More Than Conquerors. Not only are we conquerors, says Paul, we are “more than conquerors.” Here the apostle uses the Greek term hupernikomen, translated by the Latin authors Tertullian and Cyprian as supervincimus. It means we are “supremely victorious” through him that loved us. This is a magnificent piece of spiritual eloquence! There is no victory like our victory. No one wins like we win. No earthly triumph can compare to our heavenly one.

2.No Power In Heaven Or Earth, Time Or Eternity, Can Separate Us From The Love Of God. What, or rather, who gives us this decisive victory? Paul answers, “Him that loved us.” And there is no thing, anytime or anywhere, that can separate us from him who grants to us the victory.

3. The Love Of God Is In Christ Jesus Our Lord. So declares the apostle. But what does he mean when he says the love of God is “in Christ Jesus our Lord”? From the remainder of Scripture (and that is how we ought always to interpret Scripture, i.e. in the light of the fullness of its teachings), we discover at least three senses in which this is meant.

First, the love of God is manifest toward us in that we are a part of the church, the spiritual body of Christ. Christ loved the church and gave himself up for it (Eph. 5:25). This is so because the church is that body of believers who have accepted him as Messiah and Lord both in word and deed: “… having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:5-6).

Second, the love of God is shown in his providential care and spiritual guidance of those who are his children. No passage in the New Testament gives more consolation to a suffering Christian than the words of Romans 8:28-32: “And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose. For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be firstborn among many brethren: and whom he foreordained, them he also called. and whom lie called, them he also justified: and whom he just if led, the,,, he also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? if God is for us, who is against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, ho iv shall lie not also with him freely give us all things?’

Third, God’s great love is extended to those who remain faithful in Christ’s service, Jesus pointed this out in his private moments with the disciples: 1-fe that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loved me: and he that love/h me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him Judas (not Iscariot.) saith unto him, Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, if a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will Come unto him, and make our abode with bin,” (in. 14:21-23). God loves those who love him back. He also withdraws his love from those who pull away from him.

But all of this — and I cannot emphasize this strongly enough — is regardless of circumstances- Outward appearances do not reveal the true spiritual situation. Early Christians were embraced in the bosom of God’s love as they saw life as they knew it destroyed, as they gave up all their earthly possessions, and even as they were dying at the hands of Jewish or Roman persecutors. Even while they suffered they were ”more than Conquerors”’

If we can only keep this in our hearts, we also can weather even the most difficult of life’s challenges and maintain our faith to the very end.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 5, p. 1
March 4, 1993

By David O. Bonner

On the nights of November 30, December 1, 3, 4, Jesse G. Jenkins of Oklahoma City, OK, met J. Marlon Cole of McKinney, TX, in a public debate on the class question. The first two nights Jenkins affirmed classes as practiced by the Eastside church in Denton, TX, are scriptural and Cole denied. This took place in the building of the LaPrada Drive church in Mesquite, TX. The last two nights J. Marlon Cole affirmed that when a congregation is taught the word of God it must remain in one assembly as practiced by the McKinney church in McKinney, TX. Jenkins denied. This took place in the building of the Main Street church in Lewisville, TX. Sam Potter moderated for Cole and I moderated for Jenkins. Good order prevailed although there were several points of order called for clarification. All who attended were of the very best behavior. Debates like this one should cause people to want to have more debates to learn and try for unity. Approximately 200 attended and some came from great distances. Every opportunity was extended Cole and those with him for future debates with any of us if they so desire.

Jenkins was asked to give up his classes for unity but Jenkins pointed out we would still be divided in belief. We know of four big areas of disagreement. We object to (1) their teaching that it is wrong for a local church to conduct Bible classes as we do, (2) they teach against what they call the “located preacher system,” (3) their practice of having social halls in their buildings and playground equipment out-side on the premises, and (4) their belief in “general benevolence” for a local church to practice. Perhaps some of these other questions may be debated with them in the future. We hope so!

An unusual agreement regulated charts which was insisted upon by Cole. No projectors were allowed and every chart introduced had to remain before the audience while that pro-position was debated. This made for a lot of paper charts hanging at all times. Some charts were copied and handed out.

In Jenkins’ affirmatives, he argued there is Bible authority for Bible classes by arguing the church must teach and some of the teaching may be done outside the assembly. He then argued our classes are an arrangement outside the assembly for teaching. He then argued that anything the church may support one to do, the church may do because the local church functions through oversight, treasury, and authorized agents. He then argued the church may support preachers to teach in the assembly and out of the assembly (Acts 20:17,20f, etc.). He concluded the church can teach in and out of the assembly. One of Jenkins’ arguments that the church can teach out of the assembly was based on 1 Peter 5:2. He argued that if elders went as elders to teach a saint, that would be the church doing it. Cole denied this and affirmed it would only be the elders going personally and doing their teaching, and not the church teaching. Jenkins could not get Cole to answer what it would be when elders teach in the assembly.

Cole tried to parallel 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 with 1 Timothy 2:11-12 to show both are assembly passages, then argued every class we have is a church assembly and should be regulated by both these passages. He claimed it would be wrong for women to even speak in our classes. Jenkins argued 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is an assembly passage and our assembly is like theirs relative to women. Jenkins then showed 1 Timothy 2:11-12 regulates women every place where there is a woman, man, and Bible study. Jenkins showed that if this passage applies only in the assembly, then it only teaches women to be modest (v. 9) in the assembly and men are to pray in every place (v. 8) in the assembly. Cole wanted to know how we classify those in our classes (age, sex, knowledge, etc.). He tried to show no way would be good but then admitted he wished classes were scriptural because he knows they do good. I’ve never heard one of them make this admission. Cole said God had specified the arrangement for teaching and had condemned classes and he would show it the last two nights in his affirmative. If he did this, we missed it. Cole argued our classes are like denominational classes but Jenkins showed similarity is not identity for a denominational local church may be like us in some ways. Our classes are not an organization like the denominational “Sunday School” but are the local church at work teaching the Bible.

Jenkins tried to get Cole to show Scripture for his practice of having certain things based upon generic authority such as the church owning a building, a radio program, a baptistry, etc. Cole would not do this. He observed the passover.

Cole did say once he would not try to find a church building in Hebrews 10:25. We still wonder where he does try to find it since he would not tell. Cole called our classes a “divided assembly” but when Jenkins showed the Eastside church in Denton (church of the proposition) has classes on Sunday AM and Wednesday PM, such classes met before the assembly of the church. Cole would not after that make his divided assembly argument. Cole asked Jenkins if we can have the Lord’s supper in the classes, but Jenkins showed no class is the assembly where the Lord’s supper is to be taken (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:20).

Cole argued anywhere a woman can teach, she can eat, and wondered why we don’t have food in our classes. Jenkins got on their large social hall and asked if women can teach in it! Cole affirmed anywhere a woman can teach, she can teach a man, and said he knew of no restrictive passage applying to women in a general way. Jenkins showed 1 Corinthians 11:3 is such a passage and then discussed 1 Timothy 2:11-12 showing it regulates women in Bible study with men anywhere. Jenkins showed anything right for both the church and a woman to do, the church may use a woman in doing. He showed teaching women the Bible is one thing both can do (Tit. 2:3-4). Jenkins also showed the word for silence in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is not an absolute silence but means a relative silence as it does elsewhere (2 Thess. 3:12; Acts 22:2), but the silence of l Corinthians 14:34-35 is an absolute silence. Cole is much looser with women than are we, believing a woman could be the teacher for a class of men at home. He tried to support it with Acts 18:26. Jenkins used 1 Timothy 2:11-12 on this situation also.

This was Cole’s first debate and perhaps (?) is the reason he did not follow Jenkins in so many points and questions he was asked. The veteran debater, Jenkins tried to answer all Cole said, and I believe he did a good job getting to it.

Debates do good. The people with Cole who furnished the building the first two nights were very gracious to us in every way. We like them. (The Main Street church which furnished the building the last two nights was gracious too!) We hope there can be more debates with them. Surely in time with enough effort unity can be arrived at. Jenkins made it plain that giving up our classes would not bring unity for we would still be divided in belief on this and other practices they have.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 5, p. 12-13
March 4, 1993

By Foy E. Wallace, Jr.

Personalities in journalism, which means naming teachers of error along with systems of error, are not any violation of courageous, dignified religious journalism. Naming the men who teach error and practice deception in religion, even in the church, “can be done in a courteous and Christian manner” — but it should be done.

To talk and write of courageous, dignified, courteous methods of religious journalism is to deal only in broad generalities. For some of our old landmarks as gospel papers to recede from former drastic policies and retreat behind the verbiage of carefully worded resolutions of editorial committees to restrain the power of pens, is a keen disappointment to many of us who have looked to these papers to take the lead in a major fight, without generalities, relentless offensives against false movements and the men who promote them.

Whether some “temptation or scheme of intimidation” has “seduced” and “provoked” the editors and publishers to modify policies we cannot say, but it is obvious that something has caused them to seek retrenchment. Our only point here is that it is no time to be saying pretty platitudes and dealing in generalities. We are in a fight for the truth and the cannon fire cannot cease until the enemies of the church stack arms.

Calling names of false teachers and their aides and sympathizers is neither undignified nor discourteous, because Paul did it — and he was courteous, dignified and educated. He said: “Demas forsook me having loved this present world.” It was hard on Demas for Paul to say that publicly. He should have taken that up with Demas privately! Again he said that Hymenaeus and Phyletus had shipwrecked their faith and were overthrowing the faith of others by their theory of the resurrection and he wrote it down in the New Testament (a rather dignified book) that he had turned those brethren of his over to Satan. He clashed with Barnabas upon one occasion and withstood Peter to his face and rebuked him publicly. Neither incident ruined the church, nor marred the dignity of the New Testament. He further said that Alexander the coppersmith did him much evil and declared that the Lord would reward him for what he did. Paul did not seem to covet the kind of reward he intimated Alexander would get. He told a perverter of the truth one time that he was full of guile and villany, called him a son of the devil, and asked him if he ever intended to quit perverting the way of the Lord. When a paper develops better manners than the New Testament and a preacher becomes more dignified than the apostles, neither is worth anything to the defense of the truth nor to the cause of Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 5, p. 3
March 4, 1993

By Connie W. Adams

A report to subscribers accompanied a renewal notice for 1993 from the editors of Christianity Magazine. This letter contains some serious charges against some unnamed brethren. If the charges are true, proof should be cited. If they are not true, then truth and fairness calls for an apology and correction.

The following statements are quoted from this report:

Doctrinal Soundness: We know that Christianity Magazine has been attacked in recent months in a manner that we con-skier reckless and irresponsible. No one of us agrees with everything that is published in the magazine, nor, for that matter, in any other magazine. On the other hand, we want to reassure our readers that the five editors of the magazine have exercised the utmost care to assure that Christianity Magazine is filled with solid, practical, and scriptural teaching. No one who reads the magazine has any reason to believe otherwise.

None of the editors of this magazine has changed his views on any doctrinal matter, nor have any of us relented in our efforts to uphold truth and oppose error. The five of us have held thousands of gospel meetings in hundreds of churches; most of you have heard us preach and teach. We stand today where we always have stood, and Christianity Magazine reflects our commitment to truth. Do not be misled by extremists who have their own cause to promote.

Purpose of Christianity Magazine: It has never been — nor is it now — the aim of Christianity Magazine to lead any sort of movement. We have no disposition to meddle in the affairs of local churches and we certainly have no desire to direct “brotherhood” affairs. We do not intend to “line up” followers or create a party. We decry the transparent efforts of others to do precisely that.

This magazine was founded to provide teaching and edification that can be useful to a wide readership, both Christians and non-Christians. We have every intention of continuing in that direction. The paper is widely read and has been useful in teaching the lost and strengthening Christians.

We want to assure our readers that we have no intention of turning the magazine into an organ of personal attack and abuse, no matter what course others may take.

One of the editors of the magazine has told me that all the editors were not in agreement about this report being sent out and he also took action to secure word that no more of them would be sent. We commend this action. Even if an error was made in the business office in sending this out without knowledge or agreement of all the editors, the fact remains that someone among them formed this letter and it was sent out to a good number of people. The charges and insinuations in it are serious and reflect the thinking of whichever man composed it. It raises the following questions for the editors of Christiantity Magazine to consider:

Who are the ones who have made “reckless and irresponsible” attacks? What did they say that falls into that category?

Who are these “extremists who have their own cause to promote” and what is that cause other than the defense of truth?

Who are the ones who are trying to “line up followers or create a party”? What are their “transparent efforts” to do so?

Who has personally attacked and abused them?

Much has been said in Christianity Magazine about brotherly love. We have been challenged to show kindness toward one another. We have been offered a positive approach. What was said in that report was neither brotherly, kind nor positive. Their editorial policy is such that they cannot respond to these matters in the magazine. They must either do so in one of the other papers which has an open editorial policy, or else in direct mail to their subscription list.

I, personally, have a deep love for all five of the editors of Christianity Magazine. I consider each one of them a friend. But I do not believe that their wide reputations exempt them from review from honest brethren when they pre-sent material which defends brethren who have sown the wind on a subject as dangerous to souls as marriage, divorce and remarriage. Are they at liberty to say whatever they want to say, open whatever Pandora’s box they wish to, and the rest of us can only smile and nod assent or else be stigmatized as “reckless and irresponsible,” “extremists” who are out to “create a party” and to indulge in “personal attack and abuse”?

We call upon these good brethren to name the offenders and offer the proof of their charges, or else apologize for their unkind, unbrotherly and negative report.

“Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:4-7, NKJV).

(Editor’s Note: Since receiving brother Adam’s reply to the Christianity Magazine mailout “A Report, ” the editors received enough criticism from brethren that they decided to quit distributing the former report and to publish a sanitized version of the same report in their January 1993 issue. That version of the report eliminated many, but not all, of the objectionable, derogatory statements made about brethren. There was no admission that sin was committed in the report and no apologies were made. This publication of the sanitized version of the report no more corrects the errors of the previous report than a person who owed $500 on his Visa Card resolving to pay cash for additional purchases would take care of his debt. The editors of Christianity Magazine need to make correction of the sinful things they said about their brethren in the first mail out. Until they do, brethren should continue to hold them responsible for the objectionable statements in the report.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 5, p. 4-5
March 4, 1993