Truth Magazine

By F.B. Srygley (1859-1940)

I have been requested to write something on the above subject not because the one who made the request thought he did not understand the subject, but because he thought others needed to know more about the love of God and because it would do me good to write on the subject. The brother may be right in both these reasons, and, therefore, I will do my best for his benefit and mine.

The expression, “the love of God,” may be used in two senses — (1) the love that God has for mankind and for his children, and (2) the love that man and God’s children should have for God. In the former sense “the love of God” is found in Romans 8:38,39: “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.” This passage evidently means not our love for God, but God’s love for us. No one of the things mentioned, nor all of them, can cause God to cease loving his children. This passage does not say that a child of God cannot cease to love God, neither does it mean this. God’s children have ceased to love him in the past, and they may do so in the future. They should not have done so in the past, and they should not do so in the future. God’s people can become so neglectful of God as to actually forget him. “Can a virgin forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? Yet my people have forgotten me days without number” (Jer. 2:32).

While the passage first quoted does not say that a Christian cannot separate himself from the love of God, yet if he could not, this fact would not prove that God would save him for many that God loves will be lost. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life” On. 3:16). If some one is not lost whom God loves, then no one will be lost, for God loves the world — all mankind. This passage leads us to another fact, and that is that the love of God for man did not benefit man till it had manifested itself in an act of love. The act of love here was sending his Son into the world that the world through him might be saved. If the love of God had not taken the form of an act, it could not have benefited the object of love. It was the love of God for man that caused him to send his Son and all the Son did for man’s salvation was a manifestation or an expression of the love of God for man. “Herein was the love of God manifested in us [“In our case”], that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him” (I Jn. 4:9).

Since God has manifested his love to the world in giving Jesus to die for the human family, man should manifest his love to God by accepting Christ in obedience to his truth. I am unable to see why any one should claim to love God or to be benefited by the love of God while knowingly living in disobedience to the gospel. Some seem to think that they really love God while rejecting his word. A lawyer asked Jesus, “Which is the great commandment in the law?” and his answer was: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments the whole law hangeth and the prophets” (Matt. 22:36-40). In a very important sense the gospel also hangs upon these two commandments. The one who loves God as he should will obey him if he knows what he commands him to do; and if he does not know what he commands him to do, he will not stop till he learns what the will of the Lord is; and likewise the one who loves his neighbor as he should will treat his neighbor right and will thus discharge his duty to his neighbor and to himself. Therefore, the gospel as well as the law hangs upon these two commandments.

Love for God and for mankind is not simply a sentiment or a feeling, but a principle which leads one to discharge his duty to God and to his fellow man. Simply talking love and preaching and writing about love does not fulfill the demands of love. “Let us not love in word, neither with the tongue; but in deed and truth” (1 Jn. 3:18). Loving in word and with the tongue means talking about love, preaching about love, and writing about love, which is not wrong unless our love for our fellow man stops here. To love “in deed” means to love by doing a good deed, and to love in “truth” means to love in reality. “Whoso hath the world’s goods, and beholdeth his brother in need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how cloth the love of God abide in him?” (v. 17) Not only do we love our fellow man by being faithful to him but by not doing so we prove that we do not love God.

I have never been able to understand why it is that so many men, when they go to preaching on love, seem to think that they ought to oppose controversy and debating as though all discussion over religious questions were opposed to love for God and man. I know that Paul loved God and man, yet he frankly, freely, and fully preached man’s duty, and was constantly engaged in debate or discussion. He loved his kindred after the flesh, the Jews; but he never failed to contend with them for the right. I know that Stephen understood the question of love, and yet he lost his life because he contended with the Jews over their doctrine and pointed out their errors to them. The apostles and evangelists of the early church certainly understood this question, and yet they went to and fro over the country debating and discussing with the sectarian Jews.

Frequently at this day when men preach on the love of God and man, instead of sticking to the subject they feel that is necessary to oppose faithfulness in contending for the truth. When did any one learn that a Christian loves his fellow man when he is not anxious to show him his error? If one proves that the love of God is not in him by with-holding bread from the needy, does he not also show that that love of God is not in him when he withholds from his fellow man the bread of life? I dislike to see gospel preachers catering to this sickly sentimentalism which will not allow a man the right to preach the full gospel freely, even to the point of controversy when it is necessary.

Perhaps I can do not better just here than quote from David Lipscomb:

I have noticed it in men, I have noticed it in papers. When one starts out to be over-sweet-tempered, to keep out all humanity, he or it becomes one-sided, unfair, and the bitterest and most intolerant of man and papers. They do not show goodness in all honest, open, human brave way. A paper that starts out to have no controversies, to be overly peaceable, is as sure to be filled with unjust, insinuations and innuendoes as that tomorrow’s sun will rise. You can-not crush the humanity out of men. Do not look for perfection in human beings.

Sweetness may be a virtue until it reaches that point that it begins to oppose the faithful proclamation of the full gospel of Jesus Christ. As brother Lipscomb pointed out, these sweet-spirited brethren are liable to become “one-sided, unfair, and the bitterest and most intolerant of men and papers.” We may be warned by these words from the pen of David Lipscomb, now stopped by death. I had rather see the Gospel Advocate filled with controversy than “to be filled with unjust insinuations and innuendos.” Let us be frank with each other and with mankind and not become nervous over the criticism of some frail man or woman who has never stood in the thickest part of the battle. God for-bid that I should ever compromise the truth with any sectarian or errorist, whatever may be his standing in the community.

We should not console ourselves with the false notion that error is dead or that the devil sleeps. We need to hew to the line today as carefully as ever before, or even more so. It is needless to tell me that I must wait till I have no faults of my own before I can point out the faults of others. I want to do the best that I can with my practice, but I must con-tend for the truth. The apostles themselves were not faultless in conduct, but they did fearlessly proclaim a faultless gospel. “I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saint” (Jude 3). (Reprinted from Gospel Advocate, 10 Jan. 1929, p. 37.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 5, p. 6-7
March 4, 1993

By Robert F. Turner

Open your Bibles to 2 Corinthians 8 and read carefully the first twelve verses. Paul is urging the Corinthians to per-form that which they had promised a year ago (vv. 10-11, 2 Cor. 9:1 f): viz., a generous contribution to the needy saints in Jerusalem. This pas-sage is often used to urge larger church contributions, but in this article we call your attention to an element apart from, yet most essential to, the gift itself.

V. 1, Paul wants the Corinthians to know “of this grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia. ” This “grace” is identified in v. 2 as “the riches of their liberality.” It was remarkable that churches in “affliction” and “great poverty” would give generously. V. 3, they gave “beyond their power;” and v. 5, “not as . . . hoped.” Paul “expected” churches to give of their abundance to relieve churches in want (v. 14), but these churches gave of their living (cf. Mk. 12:44).

However the amount of their gift is not the chief point here. The “grace” bestowed on them was the attitude or disposition that prompted generosity. The Greek word translated “liberality” in verse 2, is translated “simplicity” in 2 Corinthians 1:12, and “singleness” (of heart) in Ephesians 6:5. When Paul wrote of liberality he had a disposition or inclination of heart in mind, rather than certain amounts of money. They were “willing of them-selves” (v. 3), and “prayed us with much entreaty” to take the gift (v. 4). The key to such an attitude is that they “first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God” (v. 5).

Then in v. 6, Paul asked Titus to “finish in you (the Corinthians, rt) the same grace also.” It is the “grace” that Paul wants to abound. Notice v. 7, “as ye abound” in faith, utterance, knowledge, diligence and love to us, “see that ye abound in this grace also. ” Some questions come to mind: why is this called “grace,” and how does God “bestow” such grace upon us?

A brief definition of “grace” is “unmerited favor”; and this disposition, like “love,” is inherent in the very nature of God. With respect to our justification, it expresses itself in God’s gift of his Son (2 Tim. 1:9). The term is also applied to the revelation of God’s will (Eph. 3:2f), various gifts (Rom. 12:6f), and blessings from God. But man is expected to partake of the divine nature. God is love, and to truly know and be known of God we must imbibe the spirit of agape love that is seen in God (1 Jn. 4:70. In our 2 Corinthians text God is gracious. The “grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 9) is cited as our example, when Paul calls on saints to “abound in this grace also.” He wants us to partake of this disposition — looking with favor upon the needy (physical or spiritual), and expressing our grace by our actions. God “bestows” this grace upon us by example and teaching (as in our text).

Why is it that Paul speaks “not by commandment” (v. 8)? “This grace,” while bestowed by God through teaching and example, must find its expression in actions that come from our hearts. The gift itself must be “as a matter of bounty, and not of covetousness” (2 Cor. 9:5). We accept the instructions of God in our hearts, partake of the divine nature, then act upon the urgings from within. Every man “as he purposeth in his heart,” “not grudgingly, or of necessity,” but “cheerful” (v. 7). There is no expression of grace in the gift that is wrung from us by pressure from without. There is no way to force genuine righteousness. Yet, we have not proven the sincerity of our love (v. 8) until there is a performance out of that which we have (v. 11).

Brethren, this is a great text. We must cease to lie to God every time we make a stingy half-hearted offering as though it was “according to our ability.” We must learn the meaning of gracious giving (first, giving ourselves), and then “see that ye abound in this grace also.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 5, p. 11
March 4, 1993

By Keith Watson

Recently Colorado residents voted on “Amendment two” which was defeated by a “yes” vote, if that makes any sense. It was designed to keep from discriminating against “gays.” Because the amendment was voted down the “gays” are in an uproar and threatening to leave Colorado. Sounds to me like they have a guilty conscience. The real questions are, “What is going to happen to our nation?” and “Is homosexuality wrong in God’s eyes?”

Through the centuries God has used many nations to accomplish his will. Such was the case with Assyria, when the northern kingdom of Israel became so wicked. Assyria conquered Israel in 721 B.C. God used Babylon to conquer Assyria and Judah when their wickedness became so great. Among the afore mentioned nations, lying, stealing, bribery, murder, adultery, divorce and homosexuality, are just some wickedness that was rampant.

David wrote these words through the Spirit, “The wicked shall be turned back unto Sheol, Even all the nations that forget God” (Psa.9:17). Solomon had warned humanity of the consequences of such wickedness, many years before the fall of the different nations. “Righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).

In our nation today we see many such like sins. It should cause one to stop and think. How long will God allow those of the United States to continue to mock him? God allows the iniquity of a nation to rise to its fill, then he brings it down (Gen. 15:16). How much more will it take before God allows the United States to be taken over?

Among the previously mentioned sins, perhaps none is more disgusting to God or man than that of homosexuality. God destroyed two cities in the plains of the Jordan (Gen.13:10), called Sodom and Gomorrah, because their wickedness was so great (Gen.13:13). Our English word, “sodomy” is a derivative of the word “Sodom,” for the cities were full of the sins of sodomy.

To gain a full appreciation, the reader is urged to read Genesis 19:1-25. These cities were filled with homosexuality and many other sins were committed within their borders. Note the language of Genesis 19:4-5. “But 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.” Notice the language, “that we may know them.” It had been used earlier to describe sexual relations in Genesis 4:1. “And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain.” As the result of sin the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed; only Lot and his two daughters were saved.

All this occurred well before the giving of the law on Sinai (Exod. 20). Did God’s attitude change toward homosexuality after the giving of the law? If the reader will turn to Leviticus 18:22,29, he will note that God’s attitude did not change. God condemns homosexuality and gives the consequence for such in Leviticus 20:13, “And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

What about today under the New Testament, has God’s attitude changed? God describes the Gentiles’ attitude toward morality in Romans 1:24-32. Notice verses 26 and 27, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.” Paul says that what they were doing was against nature itself. He goes on to say that, “they that practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practice them” (1:32). If homosexuality is natural, then why are not the animals practicing such? It is not natural! It is against nature and more important it is against God. Homosexuality is not a disease or an abnormality of the brain. It is learned behavior, much like lying, stealing, fornication, etc. Those that learn and practice such, must stop. It is also condemned in 1 Corinthians 6:9, “Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men.” They will not inherit the kingdom in this life or the next, unless they bring forth fruits worthy of repentance. God loves the person that is involved in homosexuality. He hates homosexuality! It is an abomination before God.

God condemns homosexuality from the beginning of the Bible to the end. But it is not popular to talk about what “God wants” today. For man is too busy doing only what “he wants.” What will it take to cause people to wake up to the fact that God rules in the nations of men (Dan. 4:25,32)?

God will not be mocked! Paul writes in Galatians 6:7-8, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal life.” Must we be made the fool before we learn the all important lesson, God is over all (Eph.4:6).

We will all stand before him and give account (Rom. 14:11-12; 2 Cor. 5:10), whether in this life by turning (repenting) and accepting his terms, or in the next. May our God and Father help us to reach the lost and the lost to turn to him through his Son.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 4, p. 16-17
February 18, 1993

By Harry R. Osborne

Over the past few months, my articles in our local newspaper column have discussed the degenerating morality evident in American culture today. As one steps down the slop of dissipation is taken, the next step seems easier and less perverse. When a society accepts promiscuity, it is not so hard to accept homosexuality. When it accepts that, other perverted behavior seem less horrifying.

That process has been underway in our society. One corrupt practice has led to the next until it seems difficult anymore for many in our world to see anything as wrong. Whether it be the popularization of promiscuity, homosexuality, sadomasochism, violence, or one of the other topics of smut, the road to debauchery in our time is frequently traveled.

No where is this fact more evident than in the sordid world of popular music stars. Rock and rap celebrities have been in the front of the procession of profligacy. Even their names show the trend. A recent survey of rock and rap publications showed “at least 13 bands named after the male genitals, 6 after female genitals, 4 after sperm, 8 after abortion and one after a vaginal infection.” An article by John Leo reviewing the survey also showed “at least 10 bands named for various sex acts, 8 including the F-word” and a host of other perverted examples (U.S. News & World Report, 19 March 90, p. 17).

Newsweek (20 May 91) commented on another example of the same problem. They noted, “MTV’s two favorite passions remain the environment and young women in exotic undergarments. After Madonna, no one is pushing the undergarment envelope as hard as Christina Amphlett of the Australian band Divinyls, whose hit, `I Touch Myself,’ raises pop vulgarity to a new low.” The article went on to say, “When it comes to smut, Amphlett is obsessed. . . .” Billboard magazine, a music trade standard, devoted an en-tire section in the publication to what they termed the trend towards open “autoeroticism” being displayed by Amphlett and Madonna. The magazine noted the display of such pro-vocative behavior on their album covers, in their videos, and during their concerts.

Without a doubt, the most noted example of open vulgarity is the popular music star, Madonna. Her stage name and early work seemed designed to satire that held sacred. Her attire popularized undergarments worn without anything else leaving little to the imagination. Her lyrics endorse one vulgar theme after another from promiscuity to homosexuality and other degeneracy.

Madonna is at the forefront of “gay and lesbian rights” activity especially in conjunction with the so-called “National Organization for Women” (NOW). Madonna is also a vocal advocate of “abortion rights,” the euphemistic term for the movement seeking the freedom to murder babies in the womb with impunity. In short, Madonna has sunk about as far into the gutter of ungodliness as possible and actively seeks others to join her.

In a 1990 article entitled “Rock, Roll and Raunch,” People magazine reviewed Madonna’s “Blond Ambition” tour. The stage performance described in the article sounded more like an X-rated peep show than a music concert. The most tame thing they say about her material is that “the star sings coyly of the joys of sexual spanking. . . .” The rest of the content cannot be reprinted here. Her movie “Truth or Dare” was reviewed by the same magazine and said to go further still into the quagmire of sleaze.

Having read of Madonna’s antics in the past, I did not think it possible for her conduct to get any more disgusting. I was wrong. A few weeks ago, the following appeared in an article entitled “Too Hot for Tokyo” in the Houston Chronicle (4 Sept. 92, p. 2A):

A Tokyo publishing house is so horrified by the photos of Madonna in her new book, Sex, that it has refused to publish it in Japan. Kadokawa, a major Japanese publisher, had agreed to pay $1 million for Japanese rights to Sex, but when the owner saw the red-hot pix (taken by fashion photographer Steven Meisel) the deal was kaput. The New York post reports that photos being considered for the book include one showing Madonna having sex with a dog. The editors at Warner Books are not as uncomfortable with the photos as their Japanese counterparts.

How far will it go before our society stands up and shouts, “enough!”? If Madonna’s actions have not sunk to the bottom of the gutter, I do not know what else it would take. Even a pagan society like Japan’s is caused to balk at such depravity. However, the “entertainment industry” in our country is ready to push the filth to make a buck, the Bible speaks of such depravity and its ungodly progression. Paul warned, “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). Never be misled, there is a degenerating influence of evil.

In the recent newspaper articles, I have written on the perversion of homosexuality (Rom. 1:26-28; 1 Cor. 6:9-10). Some of the readers have wondered aloud whether homosexuality was all that bad. I have been asked why I could not just leave the homosexuals alone and learn to accept their practice. I have been told that it is their right to choose an “alternate lifestyle.”

After reading the article about Madonna’s new book, I thought about how far these “open-minded” folks are willing to go. Would they leave Madonna and her dog alone and learn to accept their practice? Do Madonna and her dog have a right to choose this “alternate lifestyle”? Would they apply the same reasoning to an incestuous practice? A child molester? How far would they go? The same Bible that condemns a relationship with an animal or a child condemns such with one of the same sex. In fact, two places in the Bible associate the perversions by condemning them in ad-joining verses:

Lev. 18:22-23 — “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any beast, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before a beast to mate with it. It is perversion.”

Lev. 20:13-16 — “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you. If a man mates with a beast, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast and mates with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 4, p. 21-22
February 18, 1993