Truth Magazine

He that deviseth to do evil shall be called a mischievous person (Prov. 24:8).

There are people who make mischief their business. They ponder, plan, and plot wicked deeds. They are “inventors of

evil things” (Rom. 1:30).

The burglar studies how he may break into a house undetected. The murderer carefully devises a scheme for killing someone without leaving a trail of evidence. The con artist deliberates on ways to milk some trusting soul. The rapist reflects on plans for locating and attacking his victims without getting caught. The common thief figures a variety of angles and approaches by which to steal. Big operators in such fields as prostitution and pornography hire expensive attorneys to research legal loopholes and study avenues of evading prosecution.

“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thought of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). That which was true of mankind in general in Noah’s time is all too true of so many in our own time. Not all sin is premeditated, but so often the wicked person “deviseth mischief continually” (Prov. 6:14).

Bible Examples

1. King Saul. Motivated largely by envy, Saul concentrated on harming David (1 Sam. 18:6-9). He offered David his daughter Michal in marriage, asking for one hundred foreskins of the Philistines as payment in place of dowry. “But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.” The plan failed, for David and his men slew two hundred Philistines rather than one hundred (1 Sam. 18:20-27). Saul sought to smite David with a javelin, but David escaped. He sent messengers to watch David’s house and slay him in the morning. Michal helped David to escape (1 Sam. 19:10-17). Fleeing from place to place to stay out of the reach of Saul, “David knew that Saul secretly practiced mischief against him” (1 Sam. 23:9). Saul’s evil designs against David failed because God was with David.

2. Haman. An Agagite and enemy of the Jews, Haman became prime minister of the Persian rule. Haman devised a wicked plot for exterminating the whole Jewish race. Esther, a lovely Jewish woman who had become the queen of Persia, risked her life to expose Haman’s wicked plan. Esther approached the king “and fell down at his feet, and besought him with tears to put away the mischief of Haman the Agagite, and his device that he had devised against the Jews” (Esth. 8:3). The decree enacted under Haman’s influence was offset by another royal decree.

3. Greedy Leaders. The prophet Micah addressed certain nobles or leaders among the Israelites who devised mischief to enrich themselves, “Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! when the morning is light, they practice it, because it is in the power of their hand. And they covet fields, and. take them by violence, and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage” (Micah 2:1,2).

These covetous men lay awake at night pondering evil plans. “Their wickedness is planned and deliberate . . . for instead of retiring at night to sleep, they lie awake scheming and devising evil plans” (H. Hailey).

4. Sanballet, Tobiah, and Gesham. These men were foreigners residing in the vicinity of Jerusalem at the time that Nehemiah arrived to rebuild the wall of the city. They thought up every scheme they could to stop the work on the wall. “. . . It grieved them exceedingly that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the children of Israel” (Neh. 2:10). They scoffed at the effort and insinuated that the Jews were making plans to rebel against the Persians (2:19). They resorted to mockery (4:1,2) and threatened to fight against Jerusalem (4:8). Later, as the work on the wall progressed, these enemies of the Jews urged Nehemiah to meet with them in the plains of Ono. Nehemiah knew their wicked design and refused to go. He said, “They thought to do me mischief” (6:2).

5. Chief Priests and Scribes. These leaders among the Jews during the days of Christ’s ministry studied and consulted with each other about plans for slaying Jesus. “Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priests . . . And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him” (Matt. 26:3,4). The chief priests agreed to pay Judas thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus (Matt. 26:14-16). These same leaders later “sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death” (Matt. 26:59).

These are few of the many examples in the Bible of people who could be called mischief-makers. God considers as abominable a “heart that deviseth wicked imaginations” (Prov. 6:18).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 6, p. 181
March 19, 1992

By Bobby L. Graham

Has there ever been a time when more diverse thinking existed on the subject of marriage? It would appear that the once nearly unanimous teaching of brethren on this subject has been disrupted by concepts and theories conceived in the womb of necessity and born under conditions of convenience. The lack of genuine conviction of the reality of those ideas expressed is often seen in the posture of some in raising doubts and promoting questions about biblical teaching relative to marriage. They seem content to raise questions and elicit doubts and then back off with the excuse that they are merely studying the matter and their convictions are not yet formulated. The testing of the winds of thought and opinion seems to be the purpose of such operations. Brethren, it is far past the time for men of courage to stand up for what is right on these matters by calling in question the weaknesses in the positions of error.

Because of the extensive review superbly done by brother Weldon Warnock in this very journal, this writer shall not attempt to deal with all details identified by him. Some errors remain so glaring, however, as to demand the spotlight of truth be once again focused thereon. Such is the limited design of this article.

Marriage in God’s Moral Scheme

In some instances God’s original intent for marriage, set forth in Genesis 2:24, has been described as the divine ideal; in others, as merely the first installment of teaching about marriage. Remember, however, that the principle stated in the passage was given to regulate those made by the Lord for each other in that relationship appointed by him. Recall also that every later reference to the same arrangement conformed to the same ideal (Mal. 2; Matt. 19; Rom. 7; 1 Cor. 7; and others). The statements in praise of the marital relationship as the source of one’s fulfillment of those desires implanted by God must also be kept in mind (Prov. 5). Paul’s insistence on marriage as God’s means to prevent fornication in 1 Corinthians 7 places it squarely in the moral government/law originating with God and rooted in his character. Fornication, whether committed by a married person or an unmarried one, is an undermining of the moral teaching of Scriptures regarding marriage and its purpose. Marriage is God’s moral solution to the problem of sexual desire. Marriage then becomes part of God’s moral law, to which all moral beings are amenable. That all – those accepting God’s will and those refusing his covenant – are subject there to is easily seen in those indictments of Scripture against both classes respecting the sins here identified – fornication and adultery (Rom. 1:29,31 – covenant breakers and fornicators; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). While it is difficult to know precisely all that God told mankind about his moral law from the beginning, it can be discerned that marriage was a part of it by his condemnations of marital perversions. If this be not the case, by what authority does any alien marry? How could God recognize marriage between the alien and the believer?

The Role of Deuteronomy 24 in Christ’s Will

Some have recently asserted that the details of Deuteronomy 24 must be given a place in the teaching of Jesus, just as the principle of Genesis 2:24, for both were used by him in explanation of his will. Closer examination of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19, however, reveals that Jesus did not cite Moses, but the Pharisees did. When Jesus explained Moses, he presented him as permitting putting away, not directing it, and regulating it as a practice already existing for the protection of the woman involved. He further demonstrated the correct procedure for us to follow in his reaffirmation of the ideal of Genesis 2, what had been true from the beginning (what Moses permitted was not then, nor had it ever been, the divine ideal) and giving it weight over the Mosiac permission/limitation. By following Jesus’ procedure, we too will conclude correctly: one woman and one man for life. Only when the correct procedure is used will one conclude the correct position.

Invented Definitions

When people have something to prove, they will find a way to do so. One wanting to show that people cannot “live in adultery” and that adultery need not prevent future marriages has to deny what relevant passages say or use different definitions for the words used. The meaning of the word for “adultery” has been woefully changed in recent years by people who ought to know better. There is not a standard reference work in existence, to this writer’s knowledge, that will undergird their change. Instead of letting it mean the sexual activity involving one who is the spouse of another, some have changed it to mean breaking the covenant of marriage, whether in mind, in bed, or at the courthouse. There is not a shred of evidence that such is the meaning of the word. Word etymology will not suffice to determine meanings of words at a particular time in linguistic history, as has been attempted by some of the proponents of the new definition of “adultery.”

Brethren, when a person has to carry his own glossary with him to prove his idea, it becomes evident that the idea is his, not the Bible’s.

Jesus presented the will of God in his teaching on marriage. He never referred to the operation of civil law as such in his teaching, but the operation of divine law, in regard to marriage, putting away, fornication, or adultery. Additional error is taught when the legal intricacies of civil law are imposed on the teaching of Jesus. While people should abide by civil law in this field if divine law permits, the procedures and operations of civil law do not determine what marriage is, what putting away is, what adultery is, or when any one of these has taken place. Only God’s will is decisive in any of these matters.

May God’s will always determine our every attitude and action in this area of life, as in all areas. It is to him that all shall give account, by him that the faithful shall be blessed, and by him that the wicked shall be punished.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 6, pp. 180-181
March 19, 1992

By S.K. Milton 

Believer’s Baptism	Infant Sprinkling
Believer’s baptism is commanded – Matt.	Infant sprinkling has not a single command.
Believer’s baptism has examples.	Infant sprinkling has no example.
Believer’s baptism is from heaven – Matt. 21	Infant sprinkling is from men.
Believer’s baptism is the counsel of God.	Infant sprinkling has the counsel of men.
Believer’s baptism has been sealed from heaven.	Infant sprinkling never was sealed of God.
In believer’s baptism the person submits in acts of obedience to the gospel.	Infant sprinkling the infant put forth no acts of obedience to the gospel, but to men.
Believers are buried with Christ by baptism – Rom. 6:4	Infants are not buried, but only sprinkled.
All believers that are baptized are thereby brought into Christ – Gal. 3:27.	Infants are not thus brought into Christ.
All believers baptized receive the remission of sins. – Acts 2:37,38	Infants do not receive remission of sins. They have no sins to be remitted.
God has promised that all who believe and are baptized shall be saved – Mk. 16:16	God has not promised that all sprinkled infants shall be saved.
Believers rejoice when they are baptized – Acts 8:37; 16:34	Infants cannot rejoice.
All the world may undeniably affirm that believers were baptized by the Apostles – Acts 8:12	But none can affirm that any infant was sprinkled by the apostles.
Those who practice infant sprinkling are compelled to confess believer’s baptism.	But all baptized believers do not acknowledge, but deny infant baptism.
All baptized believers are living stones, fit for God’s building – 1 Pet. 2:5	But all sprinkled infants are not living stones, fit for God’s building.
Baptized believers build on Christ by their own faith.	Sprinkled infants are built on the faith of others.
They that receive Christ upon their own faith, shall never perish – Jn. 10:28	But such as are sprinkled upon another’s faith, have no such assurance.
Baptized believers know Christ to be precious – 2 Pet. 2:7	Sprinkled infants have no such knowledge
Baptized believers love Christ and keep his commandments – Jn. 14:15	Sprinkled infants do not love Christ nor keep his commandments, for they are incapable.
Baptized believers may repel Satan as Christ did, saying, “It is written, They believed and were baptized.”	But infant sprinklers cannot say, ‘It is written, Infants were baptized;’ for it is not written.

The foregoing contrast is enough, I would think, to convince every mind, which is not so shackled and trammeled by prejudice, prepossession, and parental education, as to be rendered invulnerable to the truth, though strongly enforced by the infallible word of God, reason, and every thing that merits the name of evidence. But the time is evidently near at hand, when, I awfully fear, they will lament their folly. I tremble when I consider the near approach of the time when every thing of human policy, invented in place of the pure religion of Jesus Christ, must be lost in one universal wreck of irreparable ruin. My apprehensions proportionably increase as I view (as to me appears evident), that by far the greater part of the world is in an unprepared state; nay, the greater part of professors of Christianity, are not prepared to say, “Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly”; nor the societies, to which they belong, ready to respond, “Amen; come, Lord Jesus” (Reprinted from Millennial Harbinger, IV, XI, [Nov. 1833]: 547-548).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 7, p. 197
April 2, 1992

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