Truth Magazine

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

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