Truth Magazine

By Harold E. Turner

It may just be my imagination (naturally I don’t think so) that all of a sudden the word “traditional” has taken on an air of something sinister or at least something for sure suspect.

If you happen to be running around the country preaching and teaching the “traditional” about a matter, you had better get back to the office, the dictionaries and brother Warren’s rules of logic. And until the time you can cipher sufficiently to come up with a new or novel way of getting the job done, it might be best for you to stay home.

If you should be one of those fellows who preaches that if a person puts his mate away for some reason other than unfaithfulness and marries another he becomes an adulterer, then shame on you for you have fallen into the old trap of “traditional” (oh, me) teaching, and having thus fallen, you should be ashamed of yourself and seek to be more original in your approach. For after all, if it takes 55 dictionaries, the help of Solomon and 13 professors from the University of Lebanon, then we’re really whizzing along, and the new and novel approach that might be forthcoming from such is to be viewed immediately as the preferred thing.

Never mind the fact that a thing just might be ‘ traditional” because it is so, and never mind the fact that if anything should be suspect (at least for a while) it is the novel and something that takes four days to explain when the Lord did it in one verse.

I find myself almost wishing (I said almost) that the view that anything that is not specifically condemned on the day of Pentecost is fine and allowable would just go ahead and become that “traditional” point of view, because it would then become automatically suspect, and we might just be able then to deal with it.

If that view is true and solid (after all, it doesn’t belong in that trashy “traditional” bucket) then we can beat our wives half to death anytime we choose, cheat on our taxes at will, crook up our business endeavors to whatever extent we desire to do so consistent with Christ. Wouldn’t you reckon there was at least one crooked business man in the three thousand? Yet not one word of condemnation in Acts 2. And, of course, this is to say nothing of “alternate lifestyles” that to my knowledge were not mentioned in Acts 2 either.

If this line of thinking can ever reach the “traditional” class of things then woe be to it, for just the reminder now and again that that’s what it is will surely do it in, or at least will cast a dark ominous cloud over that ole traditional stuff.

And need we discuss other matters? Be honest now, how many of you fellows are still preaching baptism as unto salvation? Is that pretty much “traditional” or what? And don’t you think it might be a good thing to start giving more thought to the dead man under the tree down by the creek? After all, that view is a little more novel insofar as our brethren are concerned, and to emphasize that the intent is probably sufficient to get the job done (including all the ramifications and implications of that) would tend to be considerable more non-traditional than to just run around preaching Mark 16:16, don’t you think?

Personally, I don’t give two hoots about “traditional” or non-traditional in the whole thing, and would like to make an appeal to anyone who might be feeling the pressure of the non-traditional use of the word “traditional” these days. Don’t be too quick to apologize for preaching and teaching that which has characteristically been taught, for there is at least an outside chance that the reason that bit of teaching is “traditional” is because it is so. (Reprinted from The Preceptor, April 1992.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 17, p. 516
September 3, 1992

By Larry Ray Halfey

Some are teaching that truth is subjective, relative and unobtainable. Men, it is said, cannot understand the Scriptures. Scripture is not our pattern, our guide, neither indeed can be. It is not in man that walketh to discern truth, nor is it necessary to do so, or so it is being argued.

What Shall We Say To This?

First, it is certainly true that these ideas are being advanced, It is ironic, however, that we can understand these ideas and thoughts. Scripture claims to teach with words (Eph. 3:3,4; 1 Cor. 2:13). Yet, we are told that we are not able to understand those words. Therefore, the words of the Bible cannot constitute a pattern or model for our lives. How is it, though, that we cannot reason from the words of the Bible and understand God’s will, but we can reason from the words of men and understand when they say the Bible cannot be understood? Get it, please: I can hear, reason and understand men when they say we cannot hear, reason and understand truth from the Bible, but if I can understand words which man’s wisdom teacheth, why can I not also understand words which the Holy Spirit teacheth?

Second, may I understand that Scripture says that it can be read and understood (Eph. 3:3,4; 5:17; Rev. 1: 11, 19; 2:1,7)? Ezra “read” from “the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded . . . and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law . . .So they read in the book of the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading” (Neh. 8:1-8).

Can this be done today (1 Tim. 1:3; 2:7; 3:14,15; 4:1,6,11,13-16; 6:3,14,20,21)? Can men hold fast the faithful word, the word made known through preaching (Tit. 1:3,9)? Can they hear, reason and understand the truth (Tit. 1:9-14; 2:1; 3:10,11)? If we can understand what Paul wrote, his answer is “yes” (2 Tim. 1:13; 2:2,15-19; 3:14-4:4).

If we cannot know the truth, the will of God, why were men reproved and rebuked for leaving it (Gal. 1:6-12; 2 Tim. 2:16-18), for forgetting it (2 Thess. 2:5; 3:10) and urged to hold to it (2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 3:14)? If it cannot be understood, how is it profitable for teaching, for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16, 17)? Why encourage men to “handle aright” and “rightly divide” the word of truth, if it cannot be known (2 Tim. 2:15)? These questions need answers – assuming, of course, that the questions and their answers can be understood!

Third, is it possible to know for sure that I am a sinner, that I face the judgment and hell, that I need a Savior, that Jesus is that Redeemer, that he died for me, that I can believe on him and be saved? Is it possible for me to know and understand these facts? If so, how do I learn them? Is it possible that I may read, reason and understand these items from the Bible?

Fourth, Jesus expected people to read Moses’ writings and recognize (believe) him (Jn. 1:45; 5:39,46,47) and not another (Jn. 8:24). So, why can we not read the New Testament and understand certain truth? Or did Jesus expect too much?

2 Peter

The book of 2 Peter argues our case. Those to whom Peter wrote had obtained “like precious faith” and were “established in the present truth” (1:1, 12). This “truth” was in “words” which they were expected to “have . . . always in remembrance” (1:12-15; 3:1,2). These “words” were “written” “by the holy prophets” of the Old Testament and were “the commandment of . . . the apostles of the Lord and Savior” and were described as “prophecy” and “scriptures” “spoken” “by the Holy Spirit” (1:19-21; 3:1,2,15,16).

Further, these “words” (3:2) constituted “the way of truth” (2:2), “the right way” (2:15), “the way of righteousness” and “the holy commandment” (2:21; cf. 3:2). They were to be “mindful of” these “words” and to have them always in “remembrance.” Note the contrasts:

(1) “pernicious ways” vs. “way of truth” (2:2); (2) “right way” vs. “way of Balaam” (2:15); (3) “great swelling words of vanity” vs. “holy commandment” (2:18,21); (4) “words” of “holy prophets . . . and . . . apostles,” “scriptures” vs. “error of the wicked” (3:2,15-17).

True, “some things” of Scripture were “hard to be understood” (3:16). It was not impossible to understand some of what Paul had “written,” but difficult. Those in error were not there because the truth was unobtainable (1:12), but because the “unlearned and unstable” had twisted and perverted what was “written” in “scriptures” (3:16). What was hard to be understood was, nevertheless, seen, understood and known (1:12,16; 3:11,14,17). It was “known” even by some who wrested it “unto their own destruction” (2:21; 3:16,17).

There are “false teachers among” us (2 Pet. 2:1; 1 Jn. 4:1) who speak “great swelling words of vanity” and who “wrest” the “scriptures unto their own destruction.” They say that we cannot grasp the truth and hold it as an absolute standard or pattern. This is done in order to allure us to accept every wind of doctrine, from Mormonism to Methodism, from Pentecostalism to Presbyterianism. Every issue, every subject is variable, flexible, and acceptable in the sight of God. Views on any topic, from music to marriage, from bishops to baptism, are to be received – not merely tolerated, but welcomed and embraced. This is their aim, their goal. Forget and forsake “the old paths,” the “traditional concepts” of a “well meaning” but “exclusionary mind-set. ” This is their plea; this is their cry.

As it was in the days of the apostles, so must it be now that saints must “earnestly contend for the faith once delivered,” “if so be that ye have heard him and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus” (Eph. 4:20). The “faithful word,” the “form of sound words,” must be held as “taught” and those who have “crept in privily” must be opposed.

Do not be deceived about such matters. They are even now among the people of God. Relative, fluctuating, divisive doctrines are encouraged as “free, fresh thinking” and as “loving acceptance of one another.” Meanwhile, “rigid traditionalists” are derided as Pharisaical legalists. Listen and beware. You can hear the subtle, siren song of modernism, relativism and denominationalism.

However, you can “know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:32). “It is written in the prophets, and they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (Jn. 6:45). “Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness” (2 Pet. 3:17).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 17, pp. 525-526
September 3, 1992

By Brooks Cochran

“Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priest and elders, saying I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood” (Matt. 27:3-4a).

None will doubt the importance of repentance. The Bible repeatedly states that one cannot obtain forgiveness of his sins unless he repents (Lk. 13:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:20-24; 17:30-31). The word translated “repent” or “repentance” in these verses is metanoeb. W.E. Vine defines this word as “to change one’s mind or purpose, always, in the New Testament, involving a change for the better” (Expository Dictionary of N. T. Words).

However, there is another word translated “repent” in the New Testament. It is a synonym of metanoeb. It is the word metamelomai. Vine defines this word as “to regret, to repent oneself. . . ” Though both words appear to have the same meaning, there is an important distinction between the two that should be noted.

Both words include the idea of sorrow for sin. But metamelomai stops at this point. It is not the repentance that leads to a change of one’s life. It is this word that is used by Matthew to describe Judas’ emotional reaction to his betrayal of Christ. Judas was sorry for what happened to Christ; but that is all he felt. He felt no guilt of sin! “Mere sorrow avails nothing unless it leads to change of mind and life (metanoed), the sorrow according to God (2 Cor. 7:9). This sorrow Peter had when he wept bitterly. It led Peter back to Christ. But Judas had only remorse that led to suicide” (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament Vol. 1, pp. 222-223). “Judas repented of the consequences, not of the sin itself. Already that shows the spurious nature of his repentance. Many a criminal is exceedingly sorry when the consequences of his sin catch up with him, but the sin itself does not frighten him” (R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of Matthew, pp. 107-1078).

I am afraid that many are like Judas. They are sorry that things have turned out bad; but they have no sorrow for the sin which they have committed and brought them to their sinful condition. We need to make certain that we have repented of our sins; i.e. have changed our attitude and heart, and resolved not to continue in sin and/or commit the same sin(s). It is true that we should have sorrow over sins; but be certain that such sorrow is over the sin and not the fact that we were caught and/or unhappy with the consequences of our sinful actions. If we do not genuinely repent we will not be forgiven, and if we are not forgiven, we will be lost! Let’s make certain that we do repent and bring “forth fruits worthy of repentance” (Lk. 3:8).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 17, p. 517
September 3, 1992

By Anonymous

A few years ago a preacher’s daughter won the Miss Universe bathing beauty contest. A newspaper reporter asked the girls’ mother concerning the bathing suit competition, “How do you reconcile your daughter’s being in the bathing suit contest with the religion which her father preaches?” The mother looked him straight in the eye and said, “I think that anyone who would think wrong simply has a wicked mind.”

I would not attempt for a minute to justify the lustful look, but the men are certainly not getting any help from women these days! In fact, many of the clothes are designed and worn to make men look! If you don’t believe me, just look at the descriptive phrases and adjectives used for women’s fashions today in the advertisements of your local newspaper. There’s where the story is told in plain language. It leaves no room for doubt or quibbles.

Mary Quant, London fashion designer, who designed and introduced the miniskirt in 1964, is on record as having said, “It is designed to seduce a man” (believe it or not, it didn’t take me long to figure that out). Yet, it would appear that most of the women’s fashions today are designed for similar purposes – if we can believe the advertisements!

The following phrases are taken from one issue of Butterick Patterns’ Fashion News (several years ago).

“Season of Exposure,” “The Looks Are Cool and Vampish,” “These New Skin-Showing Dresses,” “Let’s You Show Off a Long Stretch of Leg,” “Fun and Flirty,” “New Sensuous Dresses, ” ” Snug on Top, ” “New Bare Dresses, ” “Bathing Suits Are Bitsy,” Suits Are Bitsy,” “A Bit of Bra Top,” “Bare and Scooped Down to the Waist,” “Baring the Shoulders and a Lot of Back,” “Torsos Are Super Close to the Body,” “Long Lengths of Leg Dart Out From Under Short Shorts,” “Season of Sensuous, Skin Baring Looks,” “Barest Little Halter Dress,” “A Skimpy Bit of Dress That’s Scooped Out Deeply at the Neckline,” “Two Skinny Straps,” “Deeply Split Neckline,” “Shows a Lot of Skin,’ , “Brief Little Short Shorts,” “Midriff . . Bare and Bold,” “Legs Feel Long and Free,” “Skirt That Stops Short to Show off a Long Stretch of Leg.”

It doesn’t take a Solomon to see where the emphasis is in women’s fashions. But look at the definition of some of the descriptive terms that we found in these advertisements:

“Bold” – “too forward; taking undue liberties; lacking proper modesty or restraint.”

“Snug” – “tight; not loose.”

“Vampish” – from “vamp” – “one who uses her charm or wiles to gain admiration and attention from the opposite sex.”

“Frivolous” — “given to trifling; marked with unbecomed levity.”

“Exposure” – from “expose” – “to lay open to, or set out for, inspection; to exhibit, as goods for sale; to lay or leave bare.”

“Bare” – “baring” – “without clothes or covering, esp. the usual covering; naked; nude; fully revealed; unconcealed; exposed.”

If you will pardon the pun, I would say that those terms are “very revealing.” God’s terms for the dress and demeanor of Christian women are found in 1 Timothy 2:9-10 – “In like manner, also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.”

Now, notice the definition of God’s terms for the dress and demeanor of the Christian woman:

“Modest” – Gr., Kosmois, “orderly, well-arranged, decent, modest” (Vine).

“Shamefacedness” – Gr., aidos, “a sense of shame, modesty” (Vine). “Shamefastness is that modesty which is ‘fast’ or rooted in the character” (Davies, Bible English, p. 12).

Sensuous” – synonym’s t9sensual,” “pert. to, or consisting in, the gratification of the senses, or the indulgence of appetite; fleshly; devoted to the pleasures of sense of appetite; voluptuous; sometimes, lewd.”

“Sobriety” – Gr., sophrosune, “denotes soundness of mind . . . ‘sound judgment’ practically expresses the meaning” (Vine).

“Chaste” – (1 Pet. 3:21) Gr. hagnos, Signifies (a) pure from every fault, immaculate… (b) pure from carnality, modest” (Vine).

Certainly the tenor of these terms is far different from the suggestivity of the advertisements above. God’s terms teach us that the Christian woman must be different in her daily dress – she must be modest and chaste, with shamefastness and sobriety. How, before God can she do so when wearing the popular fashions as described above – which by their own assertions are bold, bare, snug, sensuous, and daring?

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 17, pp. 524-525
September 3, 1992