Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

Automobile operators know that there are two kinds of gas stations. An increasing number of self-service stations have appeared in recent years. These locations provide gas and oil, but the operator of the vehicle must pump the gas and pour the oil. An attendant is on hand to take your money. The service is so limited at some of these stations that one cannot find what he needs to wash his windshield and air the tires. Whatever is available, the customer must serve himself.

Then there are the old-fashioned full service stations. There are attendants to wait on the customer. One may purchase gas, oil, tires, batteries, and a range of accessories. If one needs a lube job, an oil change, a wash job, mechanical work, or tire repair, all such services are available. The attendant will check the oil, the radiator, and the tires; he cleans the windshield; he examines the fan belt, etc.

Some banks offer a limited range of services, but others advertise that they are “full service” banks. They provide loans, safe deposit boxes, different kinds of checking and savings accounts, certificates of deposit, money-market accounts, and numerous other financial services.

The concept has developed that churches, like gas stations and banks, may offer limited services or be of the “full service” type. Many people go church shopping, and they prefer a “full service” church.

What People Want

Terry A. Clark had an interesting article entitled In Search of the F. S. C.*” in the Christian Standard, February 9, 1992. (*F.S.C. stands for Full Service Church.) He observed that people often seek a church that meets their “needs and wants.” This raises a question that demands attention: How far may a congregation go in meeting the “wants” of people?

Younger couples with children want a church with a youth minister, family-life center, special youth activities, perhaps a youth chorus or choir, and a day-care center. Those who like sports want a church with a gymnasium, ball teams, exercise classes, tennis courts, etc. According to Clark, “If you like music you seek a church with choirs, a band, an orchestra, and a music minister.” Senior citizens may want a church with special ministries for the aged, bus trips, senior citizen socials, and game rooms for the elderly. People who enjoy drama may want a church that presents passion pageants, live manger scenes at Christmas season, outdoor sunrise services at Easter, and movies depicting Bible events.

Do the “wants” of church shoppers make it right for a congregation to supply whatever may be in demand? A lot of people want entertainment. May a church therefore provide a ministry of comedy? A comic minister could be hired to work with the youth minister and activities director. Why not?

There are people who want thrills and excitement, something more challenging than mere entertainment. May a church therefore provide a thrill ministry? The church might buy a plane and parachutes and hire someone to teach skydiving. A race track could be built for the young men who like drag racing. And a thrill minister who is worth his salary could be in charge of such activities and think up others even more daring than these!

If a full service church is going to provide whatever church shoppers “need and want,” church activities can be extended to include whatever people hanker after, yearn for, and fancy.

The Bigger-Better Argument

Terry Clark says, “Full Service churches grow. They have more people, more contacts, more workers. They are bigger and, in America, bigger is better!” That is an admission that size is a major goal. Whatever it takes to make a church bigger, go for it! I have been convinced for a long time that this is the thinking that justifies, in the minds of many liberal-minded brethren, the innovations, unscriptural programs, and digressive activities that have become so prevalant. This is America, and bigger is better!

Clark admits in his article that the temptation to compromise in areas of doctrine should be avoided. The “full service” church is itself a compromise. Where does the New Testament teach that a congregation should provide whatever the church shopper “needs and wants”? God knows our needs better than we, and too often our “wants” are confused in our minds with genuine needs.

We are told by writer Clark that the Jerusalem church grew rapidly. (This no Bible student would dispute.) Then he adds, “It became a Full Service Church, even to the point of feeding its widows.” That conclusion that Jerusalem became a full service church requires a broad leap that is not too subtle. Truly, Acts 6 discloses that the Jerusalem congregation fed its widows. Why does a congregation’s taking care of its own needy make it a “full service” church? The Jerusalem church built no orphans’ home nor old folks’ home. It supported no missionary society. It had no youth minister, no family-life center, no activities director, no daycare center, no choir, no band, no orchestra, nor music minister; it had no soccer field nor gymnasium; it had no marriage counselor, no seniors’ minister, and no chariot ministry. It requires far more for a church to be considered a “full service” group than its taking care of its own widows!

Christ-Serving Is the Answer

We need to remember that Christ is the head of his body, the church. As our spiritual head and our great shepherd, he teaches us to bow to his will as revealed in the New Testament. Growth in a congregation is to be desired, but that growth must be based on the teaching and application of the word of God. The New Testament prescribes limitations on a local church’s work. We need to study the Bible and respect those ancient landmarks that tell us how far we may go and no further. Jesus Christ, not the people, determines the service to be performed by the church.

Comparing a congregation to a gas station or a bank in the range of services provided misses the mark. The “full service” notion opens the door for whatever human wisdom may elect to allow. I doubt not that church shopping will continue, and many who have little regard for the authority of the Scriptures will go on competing for the biggest crowds. While others around us are developing and promoting whatever appeals to popular demand, we must steadfastly teach the truth. Bigger may be better in America, but in God’s sight large numbers have never been the gauge for approval. Remember Noah and the flood. Remember Joshua and Caleb.

Church shoppers need what many do not want, namely, the gospel. Instead of catering to the wishes and whims of people who go out to the religious marketplace, let us maintain the unique position of sticking with the New Testament. Let us continue preaching the gospel without compromise. May our faith in Christ our King never waver. May God help us to make the church in our community distinct from the groups around us which are molded according to modern standards * Others may “think it strange” that we run not with them in quest of bigger crowds and more imaginative schemes, but they shall give account, even as we shall, before the Judge of the living and the dead.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 7, pp. 193, 216
April 2, 1992

By Larry Ray Hafley

Writers have a purpose for writing. One may write to inform, entertain, oppose, expose, persuade or to preserve facts. Why was the Bible written? In this study, we shall seek to answer that question. Our opinion as to the Bible’s purpose is not valid or sufficient (Isa. 55:8, 9). Accordingly, we shall let God, the Holy Spirit, tell us why it was given unto man (1 Cor. 2:6-16). If we know why the Bible was written, we shall know how to use it more effectively (2 Tim. 2:15). Dr. Seuss and Mother Goose are literary works, but their purpose differs from that of Sandburg’s “Lincoln” or Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. If you doubt that, read them to a three year old at bedtime. Hence, to understand the reasons why the word of God was written will assist us in receiving its intended benefits and blessings (Cf. 2 Cor. 2:4).

The Bible Was Not Written

To better understand the Bible’s purpose and reason for existence, it may help us to see goals that it was not given to accomplish.

First, it was not written for profit. Men may make money for publishing it, but the Bible was not written for that purpose. God said, “If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine and the fulness thereof” (Psa. 50:12). Many of the apostles suffered “the loss of all things” (Phil. 3:8; 1 Cor. 4:9-13). Money was not their motivation.

Second, the Bible was not written to satisfy idle curiosity. God gave man a curious, inquisitive nature. This wondering trait is extremely useful, but the word of God was not given as a mental stick for the mind to whittle. “For the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.” The word spoken by Paul was not designed to gratify their curiosity (Acts 17:18-31). If that were the aim and intent of the Bible, perhaps God would have given us the “secret things” which he has reserved unto himself (Deut. 29:29).

Third, while the Bible often reflects the culture, beliefs and superstitions of the writer’s era, that was not its ultimate design. Many ancient customs, some of which are now lost to us, are cited (Gen. 24:2; Ruth 4:7,8). Understanding of some of these items gives us a greater appreciation of the point of certain narratives (cf. Lk. 7:44; Rom. 16:16), but it was not the author’s aim to school us in their peculiarities.

Fourth, ancient myths and legends of pagan tribes are noted in the Bible (1 Sam. 6; 1 Kgs. 20; Acts 14:11, 12), but it was not written to perpetuate them. Even among those who profess faith, the creation and flood of Genesis, along with the strength of Samson and the swallowing of Jonah are viewed as myths, as are the accounts of the works of Jesus. However, Peter said, “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16).

Fifth, the Bible was not presented to define current events. Neither is it, to use the words of James P. Needham, an eschatological road map.” Every earthquake, every stock market crash and every ruler from Nero to Napoleon and from Hitler to Hussein is to be found in the Bible, or so some would have us believe. If the Bible contained a chart of occurrences of each generation, it would be so large that one could not fit it on a semi-trailer truck. If Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation are fulfilled in our daily newspapers, what did they mean to men in the first nineteen centuries?

Sixth, though the word of God may cause hurt, grief, pain and shame, that is not its primary object. “I write not these things to shame you” (1 Cor. 4:14). “I wrote unto you. . . not that ye should be grieved” (2 Cor. 2:4; 7:8,9,12; 10:9, 10). The word of God does cut and stab the heart. It produces sorrow (Acts 2:37; 7:54; 2 Cor. 7:8-10; cf. Jer. 23:29; Hos. 6:5), but that is not its chief intention. When the word of God pricks nd sticks one’s conscience, his attitude should be, “Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head” (Psa. 141:5). “Faithful are the wounds of a friend” (Prov. 27:6).

Seventh, the Bible’s object is not to promote “self esteem” or to develop a “positive mental attitude” (PMA). It is not a “self help” book which teaches man how to lift himself up by his own proverbial boot straps. However, the “amazing secrets” to “leading a successful life,” which many PMA gurus think they have “discovered,” are to be found in the book of God (Prov. 4:23; 14:14; 23:7; Phil. 4:4-8). The Bible teaches that man is the highest, finest, noblest creation of God, but that he is “wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked,” and “in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity” apart from God. Without Christ, he has “no hope.” The treasures of wisdom and knowledge are not to be found in increasing one’s self esteem, but in Christ (Col. 2:3). Beware of the preacher who would tell you that you need to create a better “self image” through the PMA philosophy. It is a lie, a snare. Perhaps what you need is to see yourself as God sees you, lost and undone in sin (Lk. 18:9-14). “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And you are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power” (Col. 2:8-10).

Why The Bible Was Written

(1) “That Ye Might Believe” (Jn. 20:30, 31). Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17). That is why the devil does not want the word in your heart (Lk. 8:11, 12). He knows that it produces faith. A child of God is sired, fathered, begotten by the word of God (1 Cor. 4,15; Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:22-25). One trusts in Christ “after” (not before) he hears the word of truth (Eph. 1:13). Rhetorically, Paul asks, “How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?” (Rom. 10:14) Obviously, they cannot believe without hearing the word of God.

Many may think this point need not be belabored, but in an era when much of the preaching and publishing of spiritual themes is devoid of Scripture, it must be stressed. As you read and listen to essays and addresses, consider their biblical base. Are you reading and hearing the word of God, or are you being entertained and inspired by cute stories and clever narratives? An eloquent man, fervent in spirit, who speaks boldly with enthusiasm may lull you into receiving “good words and fair speeches” as gospel preaching. Faith is attained and maintained by the word of God (1 Pet. 1:22-25; 2:2), not by the congenial wit, winning smiles and personal grace of men.

“But times are changing. Men will not sit still for plain, old-fashioned preaching. We need a modern message for modern man.” Sounds like I have heard that somewhere before. “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:3,4). What was Paul’s prescription for this condition? Did he recommend an updated gospel, “new and improved”? Did he suggest a renovation of the word of reconciliation? No, but because of man’s desire for a 44contemporary message,” because of his wish to have his ears scratched, Paul said, “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2).

(2) “For Our Admonition” (1 Cor. 10:11). The Bible is given for our learning, for our warning (1 Cor. 4:14). Paul catalogs the sins of Israel in 1 Corinthians 10, citing everything from murmuring to immorality. This follows the exhortation of 9:24-27 and concludes with “these things . . . are written for our admonition.” Note the “wherefores” of verses 12 and 14. 2 Peter 2 and the book of Jude are of the same nature. Preaching that does not alert and warn with Scripture is not Bible preaching. Count the number of times the words “warn” or “warning” are used in Ezekiel 3:17-21. Surprising number, is it not? Are you hearing the Bible preached as a word of warning (Heb. 3:7-4:1)? Listen very carefully, and you may hear preaching that belittles Bible warnings against sin and damnation. It seems that the only warning some will give is a warning against preaching that warns. These men are dangerous to your soul.

(3) “How Thou Oughtest To Behave Thyself” (1 Tim. 3:14,15). God has a plan, a pattern of behavior that he expects of us. The Bible was written to tell us how we ought to behave ourselves in the church. “These things command and teach” (1 Tim. 4:11). “These things teach and exhort” (1 Tim. 6:2). The Bible is not a book of suggestions; it is a book of “ought,” “how thou oughtest to behave thyself.” Be wary of the man who decries and derides the use of what men “ought” to do. If the Bible is not used to tell men how they “ought” to live pure, holy, godly lives, it is not being applied according to its purpose. Rejection of the word of God often occurs among those who want to walk after their own lusts and not after the conduct demanded by the Lord (2 Pet. 3:3,4; Rom. 1:21-28).

(4) “That Ye Sin Not” (1 Jn. 2:1). “Sin is the transgression of the law” (God’s law – 1 Jn. 3:4). “All have sinned” (Rom. 3:23). The remedy for sin is the blood of Christ (1 Jn. 1:7; Rev. 1:5). When Jesus met the temptation of the devil, he appealed to the Bible, to the word of God, saying, “It is written” (Matt. 4:4,7,10). Jesus was tempted in all points, in all ways, as we are, “yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). He escaped the snares of the devil by relying on the word of God. But what of us? “Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word. With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments. Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee” (Psa. 119:9-11).

When I was a boy, my dear mother would say, “Don’t get in the mud.” But when I was drawn away of my own lusts and enticed, when I forgot my mother’s word, I played in the mud. Is there a parallel? Is there a lesson there? If we hate sin, if we want to overcome sin, let us hear and heed the Bible, for it was written that we sin not (1 Cor. 15:34).

(5) “That Ye May Understand” (Eph. 3:3,4). Man hag a duty to understand “what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). The Bible was given that we might see, know and understand the will of God. One must have a “desire” and “give diligence” to know the truth (1 Pet. 2:2; 2 Tim. 2:15). Faithful preaching will give the sense of Scripture and cause the eyes of understanding to be opened (Neh. 8:8). Jesus did this in his teaching (Lk. 24:25-27,45).

It has been said that man is the only creature that inquires (A) Where did I come from? (B) Why am I here? (C) Where am I going? Where would you go to have those questions answered? To whom would you turn? “Lord, to whom shall we go?” The Bible is the only book that can give man insight and understanding as to his place and purpose in creation. If one would know the will of God for his life, he must turn to the Bible for light, for guidance, for understanding (Psa. 119:105).

(6) “That Ye May Be Mindful” (2 Pet. 3:1,2). The Bible stirs and kindles the pure mind to remember the words of the “holy prophets” and apostles of our Lord and Savior. Though one may already know and be “established in the present truth,” he needs “to give the more earnest heed” unto the things which he has heard, lest they slip away (2 Pet. 1:12-15; Heb. 2:1). Preaching should stir remembrance of the word of the Lord Jesus (Acts 20:35). Peter thought it “meet” (fitting, suitable, proper) that he should put the brethren “in remembrance” of things which they already knew. All sound doctrine will draw us back to the words “which were spoken before”; that is, back to the Bible!

There is a great need today for preachers to draw men back to the word of God. Because we forget, let us go back to the gospel plan of salvation, back to Acts 2, back to Philip and the eunuch, back to the Philippian jailer. Because we let such things slip away, let us go back to the Bible to see how the church worked, worshiped and served the Lord. Because we forget, let us tell of God’s grace and mercy and love as manifested in Jesus the Christ. Because we forget, let us be mindful of apostasies, both ancient and modern. “I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not” (Jude 5; Heb. 3:7-4:11).

(7) “That Ye Might Learn . . . Not To Think Of Men Above That Which is Written” (1 Cor. 4:6). One’s faith must be rooted and grounded in Jesus and in his word. Men will disappoint us; men will fail and confound us with their sins; men will mislead us, whether they mean to do so or not. Hence, our faith must be in “that which is written,” and not in men. Guy N. Woods’ debate with the Baptist, Nunnery, was a classic. I borrow a copy (because I am unable to get one of my own) each time I am to debate a Baptist. The writings of Foy E. Wallace are classics. However, when these men departed from the truth and built the very things which once they destroyed (benevolent societies, sponsoring church arrangements, church sponsored entertainment and recreation), they had to be opposed.

Is there someone in your life whom you love, esteem and admire “for their works’ sake”? Surely, there is. What should you do when they sin? What should you do when they teach doctrines that are contrary to “that which is written”? Should you defend them in their sins? Should you excuse their teachings which, if followed, will cause souls to be lost in hell? God forbid! Should you, then, hate them, spurn them and turn against them with vicious, malicious words? Again, “God forbid!” What is the “loving” or right thing to do in such cases? See Matthew 5:23,24; 18:15-17; Galatians 2:11-14; 6:1:2 Timothy 2:24-26; 4:2; James 5:16,19,20. The Bible was written to instruct us how to act on these occasions. Whatever you do, learn not to think of men “above that which is written” (Matt. 10:37).

Assume that Hymanaeus and Philetus were aged, venerable men of sterling character who had spent their lives in service and devotion to Christ. Assume that they have played a leading role in fighting Judaism and circumcision and that their pure and holy lives have been an example for many. Now, however, they are teaching “that the resurrection is past, already and overthrow the faith of some” (2 Tim. 2:16-18). How do you react to Paul’s severe censure of their doctrine? He calls it “profane and vain babbling” and likens it to cancerous gangrene. Loving these men (Paul, Hymanaeus and Philetus) as you do, how do you respond? Do you take sides? Do you accuse Paul of playing politics, of seeking to build himself up by tearing others down? Do you charge Paul with being a “brotherhood watchdog” who “keeps a file” on people? Do you say that Paul is overreacting, that the consequences of their doctrine are not as bad as he imagines? Do you say that the teaching about the second coming is not as clear as that of circumcision and the law and so excuse it on that basis? Do you say that doctrines about the Lord’s return should be treated as the eating of meats and the observing of days in Romans 14? What should you do (1 Cor. 4:6)?

(8) “That Thou Mightest Know The Certainty Of Those Things Wherein Thou Hast Been Instructed” (Lk. 1:3,4). “Have I not written to thee . . . that I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth?” (Prov. 22:20, 21) “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them” (2 Tim. 3:14). The wisdom of this world requires constant revision. There is no certainty in it (1 Cor. 2:6). The churches and councils of men even now are debating changes in their creeds. What is true today was not true yesterday. They have no certainty, but the Bible is given that we might “know the certainty of the things wherein” we have been instructed. “Buy the truth, and sell it not” (Prov. 23:23).

(9) “That Ye Also May Have Fellowship With Us” (1 Jn. 1:3). “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. ” One may have fellowship with the “unfruitful works of darkness” and “with devils” (Eph. 5:11; 1 Cor. 10:20), but the only fellowship worth having is that which we have with God. The Bible provides us with the necessary information to achieve and acquire that blessed relationship of fellowship in Christ (Eph. 3:6,9). One cannot have fellowship with the apostles if he has not heard, believed and obeyed their word (Jn. 17:20). You may have a wonderful “church fellowship,” but unless you have accepted that which is written in the Bible, you have no fellowship “with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.” Finally, “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth” (1 Jn. 1:6).

(10) “That Your Joy May Be Full” (1 Jn. 1:4). “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). Joy is an overlooked aspect of the Bible’s purpose. It is through “comfort of the Scriptures” that we have hope (Rom. 15:4). “Wherefore comfort one another with these words” (1 Thess. 4:18). The word of God is a balm, an oil of gladness to the bowed back, the furrowed brow and the broken heart. Oh, what peace we often forfeit; oh, what needless pain we bear, all because we do not turn to the Bible for solace and consolation. In sorrow and suffering, in anguish and affliction, in trouble and torment, we have the sweet and soothing words of the Spirit to provide us help and hope. He who neglects the Bible neglects the only avenue of true peace and everlasting joy (Phil. 4:4-8).

(11) “That Ye May Know That Ye Have Eternal Life” (1 Jn. 5:13). “And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath the life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life” (1 Jn. 5:11,12). Eternal life is “in his Son.” Eternal death is out of his Son (Jn. 3:36). Grace, salvation and eternal glory “is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:1,10). Wrath, damnation and eternal misery are out of Christ Jesus. The Bible was written that we may know that redemption is ours in Christ. Do you know that you have remission of your sins? “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ. whom thou hast sent” (Jn. 17:3). “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 Jn. 2:3,4).

Do you know him? Have you obeyed him? Have you been “baptized into Jesus Christ” (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27)? “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life” (1 Jn. 5:20).

(12) “That Ye Should Earnestly Contend For The Faith” (Jude 3). Scholars have said that “earnestly contend” in the original language is the strongest expression possible to describe the intense effort that is to be made for the faith. One is to “over agonize,” to go beyond agony, for the faith.

Men will contend for their schools, their politics, their parties, their pride and their prejudices, but how many will I earnestly contend for the faith”? Christians will contend for their opinions, their favorite preacher, for a shorter service of worship, and they will contend against the elders or against their least favorite preacher, but they will lend neither money, nor time, nor effort “for the faith which was once delivered.” What does this tell us? It tells us a great deal, and none of it is very good.

In faith, with faith, by faith, let all saints resolve to stand fast in the faith and to earnestly contend for it.,Lay aside hypocrisy, pretense, pettiness, prejudice and every weight of sin. Forget past slights. Ignore personality conflicts. Avoid meddling in other men’s matters. Cease going about from house to house with gossip, backbiting and evil reports, and get on with the business of earnestly contending for the faith. The Bible was written to encourage us in this noble work. Therefore, pray for those who carry the fight in the fray for the faith. Support them; pray for them; help them; commend them; work with them.

Conclusion

Since the Bible was written for the ends and aims listed above, are we using it for those purposes? Are we using it to accomplish the goals for which it was given, or are we using it selfishly to carry out our own human schemes and hidden agendas? Use the Bible as God intended for it to be used. Only in this way can we save ourselves and them that hear us. Only in this way can we glorify its Author and Finisher.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 6, pp. 176-179
March 19, 1992

By Luther A. Bolenbarker

The most difficult command to obey is not that of baptism, nor those commands concerning our duties of giving and assembling. The command which seems to cause more folks to balk than does any other is that of “repentance.’ “Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish” (Lk. 13:3,5) was spoken to those Jews still under the first covenant. However, repentance was carried over into the New Covenant law of Christ. More souls will probably be lost because of the failure to heed this command than for any other. Consider some who fail to repent:

The Bible plainly teaches, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:15); and “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38). Why do so many refuse to be baptized for the remission of sins? I believe that the answer lies in their refusal to repent. A refusal to repent of their past and present practice of sin is a rejection of God’s simple counsel. The problem is not that the gospel is difficult to understand, but that they do not desire to repent (i.e. change) and live the life God has commanded.

Why is it that so many people choose every path except repentance when confronted with their sins? Some get angry with the preacher; others blame someone else for their sin; still others simply ignore the word. Their problem is not in the manner in which the message is presented or in the actions of others. The root is their lack of desire to truly change their hearts and deeds. What ever happened to the reaction demonstrated by David in 2 Samuel 12:13? David said, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Had he not been of this attitude he might have lashed out at Nathan for not finding the proper time or manner in which to talk with him. Or perhaps he could have been unhappy and accused Nathan of tricking him with the story of a ewe lamb. David, however, was sorry for what he had done and desired to repent of is sin. Some have tried to so wrest the meaning of repentance so far as to remove the element of a changed life. Can you imagine Jesus telling the account of the “two sons” and saying of one, “And he came to the second and said the same thing. But he answered and said, I will not; yet afterward he repented and did not go?” The Bible never teaches that a man can repent of a sin and yet not change his life. Repentance, confession and prayer are necessary for the Christian to be forgiven of his sins (Acts 8:22).

Jesus declared that “repentance for forgiveness of sins should be declared in his name to all nations” (Lk. 24:47). Repentance is a necessary part of the life of each one of us. It is not merely a change of mind or a “good heart,” but a sincere turning from sin in both mind and body changing one’s mind about sin that results in a changed life.

If you are not a Christian, and you have faith in Jesus Christ, repentance for you will result in your being immersed for the remission of your sins. Christians who then sin must likewise repent, admit their sins (as publicly as their sins were) and then pray to God for his forgiveness and strength (Acts 2:37-38,41; 8:22; Rev. 2:10).

Have you truly repented? God knows!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 7, p. 195
April 2, 1992

By Tom M. Roberts

When Luke, the inspired historian, penned the chronicles of some of the apostles in the spread of the gospel throughout “Jerusalem, and in all Judea, Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8), he provided much more than what many believe to be a simplistic telling of early church growth. That document usually referred to simply as “The Acts” bridges that era of time between the gospel accounts of the life of Christ and the letters to the established churches and individuals within those churches. Had there been no “Acts,” we would have been left to wonder where these churches came from, how they came into existence and, in many cases, who was responsible for their founding. But more importantly, “The Acts” provides a connection between the story of the Gospels and the great theme of justification, a presentation of Jesus to the world as a demonstration of the resurrection, a showcase of the power of gospel preaching, a viable means of integrating all nations into a united kingdom, and much more.

It will be the object of a series of articles (beginning with this one) to explore some of the grand themes of The Acts and to encourage a deeper and richer application of this valuable document to modern faith in Jesus Christ. This series will not pretend to be exhaustive of all the themes open to Bible students, but it will hopefully encourage others to plumb the depth of these riches for the treasure lode of knowledge supplied by the Holy Spirit through Luke.

The Witnesses

It has been suggested by some “friend” of the Bible that a seeker must turn loose of his reason and make a “blind leap of faith” in order to become a Christian. Such a rationale is foolish and harmful to the cause of Christ. It suggests that one cannot be, at the same time, both a rational person and a Christian. A “blind leap of faith” would discredit the testimony of the Scriptures and advocate an inadequate and weak approach to evidences when the opposite is true. In fact, the evidence for Jesus Christ as Savior of the world, based upon his resurrection from the dead, is one of the greatest themes, if not the “crown jewel” of Luke’s entire work.

When we use the word “evidence,” we emphasize a forensic or legal presentation as though before a court of law in which jurors must bring in a verdict. In fact, this is exactly the context which is established by our theme, “witnesses.” I do not believe it to be an accident that Jesus labeled his apostles as witnesses in Acts 1:8. He was preparing the forum for these who were “eye-witnesses” to argue their case. The apostles were to walk into the world (their court room), present the facts, provide the evidence and establish their case. The Acts establishes clearly the manner in which this was done and it agrees remarkably with our current procedures in any court of law.

The Function of Witnesses

In any court of law today, evidence upon which a verdict is rendered by a jury follows a rational and logical procedure. It should be noted that any evidence, clearly established by this procedure, is valid and cannot be rejected arbitrarily. The format which is always followed is this:

Event – Eyewitness – Testimony – Verdict

An event happens, it is seen by eyewitnesses, these witnesses present their testimony in a court of law and the jury reaches a verdict based upon the evidence presented. This method of operation is used daily in America in verdicts concerning car accidents, murders, etc., and is established law. It is my contention that this procedure was familiar to those of Luke’s day among both Jews and Romans, that it was a procedure acceptable to God, and that the testimony of the apostles qualifies on the same basis and with the same validity as any eyewitness evidence. If one is arbitrarily to reject the testimony of the apostles, one could just as easily reject any court testimony today. However, if we are to be fair and accept testimony in a court of law today, we should also be fair and accept the testimony of the apostles as to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. It was intended by God from the beginning that the story of Jesus was to be established “at the mouth of two or three witnesses” (Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1). The event of the resurrection, so established, can no more be rejected by honest people than any other matter of evidence. If one rejects Jesus’ resurrection out of hand, we could, by the same illogic, reject the existence of Napoleon or Nero, since we have never personally seen these individuals, having only others’ eyewitness testimony of them. On the other hand, if you accept that Napoleon or Nero actually lived, you should, by the same criteria, accept that Jesus rose again. The evidence is valid in both instances.

The Apostles As Witnesses

That Jesus planned for the apostles to function in their capacity as eyewitnesses from the beginning can be clearly seen. Luke even begins his gospel account by referring to those who taught him as being eyewitnesses (Lk. 1:2) and their testimony provided the basis for his narrative. In giving the Great Commission (again, Luke’s account), Jesus said, “Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things” (Lk. 24:46-48). Jesus knew that the apostles were qualified to testify to these things: “And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning” (Jn. 15:27). In replacing Judas with Matthias, the Lord required: “Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1:21,22). It might be noted here that modern “witnessing” by people who speak of their own personal faith is not the same as the eyewitness testimony of the apostles. We have their testimony, duly entered into evidence, and do not need the spurious word of latter day claimants who cloud the issue by misuing “witnessing.”

After the resurrection and prior to imparting the Holy Spirit, Jesus promised the apostles: “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost port of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

Did the apostles understand this? Perhaps not fully until Pentecost, but surely then, for they (the twelve) asserted, “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are witnesses” (2:32) . . . “we are witnesses” (3:15) . . . “And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus” (4:33) . . . “And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost” (5:32) . . . “But unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead” (10:41) . . .”And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people” (13:31).

Even Paul, the apostle born “out of due season” (1 Cor. 15:8), was made an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ so that he might enter his voice into the evidence. On the road to Damascus, Jesus told Saul, “But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou has t seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee” (Acts 26:16). Ananias also told him, “For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou has seen and heard” (22:15). He later asserted that if Christ was not raised, then all the apostles had been false witnesses (1 Cor. 15:15).

Peter added his own voice by claiming to be an apostle, an elder and a witness (1 Pet. 5:2), having been privy to his transfiguration (2 Pet. 1:16).

John, the apostle whom Jesus loved, said, “For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us” (1 Jn. 1:2).

Using the Testimony

Brethren, our faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead does not depend on a blind leap, secular history or less than rational testimony. Indeed, the biblical record is entered into evidence on the same basis and with the same credibility as any testimony in any court of law. We should present the case for the resurrection (and, consequently, the Lordship of Christ) as a reasonable (Rom. 12:1) conclusion, based upon valid proof. Christians need not take a back seat to anyone when it comes to demonstrable verification of what we affirm.

Jesus Christ lived, died and rose from the dead. The substantiation of this is one of the great themes of the Book of Acts.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 6, pp. 174-175
March 19, 1992