Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

Parade Magazine in the Akron Beacon Journal (7-14-91), contained a brief article entitled “Unflattering Portrait.” The substance of the article was a statement Senator Mark 0. Hatfield (R., Ore.) recently entered into the Congressional Record regarding the current status and real-life circumstances of American children. (All of the emphasises are mine, LW).

As good as the 1980s were for the military, what has happened to the children of this country? Many of the key measures of children’s well-being dramatically indicate that the 1980s were a terrible decade. Child poverty, violent deaths among teenagers and births to unmarried teens all increased substantially.

One American child in five now lives in poverty. Another one in five lives with a single parent. By the year 2000, both numbers will be one in four. If current trends continue. . . Every day, 135,000 children take a gun to school. Every 32 seconds, a 15to 19-year-old woman becomes pregnant. Every 55 seconds, a child is born to a mother who does not even hold a high school diploma. And, finally, every 14 hours, a child the age of 5 or younger is murdered.

The information above was presented by a politician – not a preacher! I don’t know how it affected you, but it was deeply disturbing to me. The children referred to are the next generation of Americans. From these will be converted the next generation of Christians. History and Scripture say that this kind of situation does not improve – it gets worse. “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13).

We certainly should realize that 135,000 guns in the classroom means that no teacher is safe in that setting. It also means that the children in that room are not safe either. It has been alarming to hear of the violence associated with a current movie. Even an Akron teenager was shot in the stomach upon departing from the movie about gang life. Whether the movie prompted the shooting or not, the young man’s assailant had a gun at the movie where your children might have been. Two 14-year-old boys murdered a 50-year-old man in Cleveland last Sunday. They shot him! Senator Hatfield said that a child the age of 5 or younger is murdered every 14 hours in America. If that is true today, what do you suppose it might be 20 years from now? And, if it strikes terror in our hearts now, we will scarcely be able to express our terror 20 years from now. America, to its shame, has the highest incidence of crime of any nation in the world – and it gets worse every day. Parents are having to admit that “my kid” committed the crime, or was the victim of one of these crimes. Most of us are inclined to think that “it won’t happen to me and my family.” However, every day it is happening to more and more American families. It could be yours or mine next.

It is going to require a massive teaching effort to turn this situation around. We cannot expect that government, the schools or social organizations are going to do the teaching. In fact, not even the Church will succeed in doing all the teaching that needs to be done to change the direction our nation is going. The required teaching is going to have to be done on the most basic level of society -parents are going to have to accept their responsibility and both teach and discipline their children to live by the proper standards that assure success and safety in society. Of course, it is our conviction that the Bible is that standard. It is the only thing that will change America’s course.

The responsibility for this teaching is found several places in the New Testament. The “aged-women” are told to “teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Tit. 2:3-5). Paul also gave this instruction: “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bare children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully” (1 Tim. 5:14). Raising children properly is not just a woman’s responsibility – it is also a responsibility of men. Men are to provide for their own house, and if they do not, they have denied the faith, and they are worse than infidels (1 Tim. 5:8). No man has provided for his household who does not teach his children how to act. And that is true no matter what kind of house you provide for them to live in, or how good the food is you provide. Paul said, “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). When parents – both father and mother – address themselves to teaching and training their children, they will succeed in raising them as they should be raised. But it will not happen until they do what they are supposed to do.

Elders are told their children must be faithful (Tit. 1:6) and in subjection (1 Tim. 3:4). Deacons are men who are “ruling their children and their own houses well” (1 Tim. 3:12). Through the years we have recognized that these are essential qualifications of elders and deacons. However, can we not see the advantage if all of us will raise our children by the same guidelines and discipline as they are to use? If their families are better because they have been raised properly, so will ours be better if we will do the same thing. It is foolhardy to think I can neglect my parental duty and still succeed as a parent. Parents are your eyes open?

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 5, pp. 130, 151
March 5, 1992

By Fred A. Shewmaker

A short time ago a quarterly publication called The Word of Truth arrived in my mail box. It was marked Volume 32, Number 3 and dated April, 1989. Also on the masthead there is the statement, “Set for the Defense of the Gospel.” The name caught my attention because for nearly nine years I conducted a radio program which was called “The Word of Truth” program. The statement of position also was of special interest because above the space reserved for addressing on the back page of every issue of the local bulletin, which I now edit, the words “For the Defense of the Gospel” appear. As to why the April, 1989 issue was just recently in the mail, your guess is as good as mine.

While scanning the articles, it was observed that all, except two very short ones on the back page, were uncredited. However, in the publisher’s statement Given O. Blakely is listed as the author and Editor. One of the articles is entitled “The Basis for Divine Authorization. ” The second sentence of that article is “The position which I have deliberately chosen to reject states, ‘Only what is authorized may be used in the worship of God. “‘ This is not a new attitude. It is an attitude as old as Cain (Gen. 4:3; Heb. 11:4; Rom. 10:17). Nadab and Abihu displayed the same attitude (Lev. 10:1-3). Cain, Nadab and Abihu are not the kind of people with whom one would expect to find a defender of the gospel.

The third sentence of the article also is revealing: “Even matters of opinion, I am apprized, ‘must be authorized by the Bible.”‘ The thing this reveals is that the author is capable of failing to deal fairly with an issue. He does not identify his appraiser and treats the matter as though the person is typical of all who hold the position the author is disavowing. Such is not the case and treating it as though it is, falls short of fairness. If a person holds an opinion, he believes something he has not been able to prove by a proper use of the Scriptures. However, his belief may be provable by the Scriptures and, if the person who holds it ever discovers the proof, it will at that point cease to be an opinion and become a part of his faith.

“Whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). (This does not apply only to doubting, as many have contended. Doubt is specified, but the statement here quoted is a general principal/truth upon which the preceding specific argumentation is based and therefore is not limited to or by the immediate context.) This is not the only biblical example of an appeal to a general principle/truth being employed to support specific argumentation. The Bible does not authorize the use of anything in the worship of God that is only a matter of opinion. Our worship must not be based upon individual, majority or unanimous opinion, but rather must be based upon faith.

Another example of the author’s carelessness about fairly representing the position his disavows is the first sentence of paragraph three: “It became clear that this view proclaimed a perception of Godward activity that required specific Divine approval for every action directed toward him.” By this the author equates “only what is authorized” with “specific Divine approval,” but the two are not equal Holding the view that “only what is authorized may be used in the worship of God” leaves the door wide open for general authorization. To deal fairly with the matter of authorization, one must consider both its general and specific forms.

In paragraph 4 the author writes, “I suppose that what God has ‘sanctified’ is authorized – or what is declared to be ‘acceptable’ – or, what He is said to ‘receive’ – or, what is ‘approved’ by Him, or, what is ‘lawful.’ My analysis of the concept of Divine authorization shall be built around these revealed terms.” This is made very interesting when the author entitles the sixth division of his article, “Scriptures Portray Unauthorized Things Being Accepted by God.” Think about that! He supposes “what is declared to be ‘acceptable'” is authorized. Does not his supposition also demand that what is unauthorized be unacceptable? If not, why not? And does not that make the title of his sixth division mean Scriptures portray unacceptable things being accepted by God?

It does not get better. In his sixth division, regarding the woman who anointed Jesus (Matt. 26:6-13), the author asks, “Was her deed commanded by God? Was there any hint of it being commanded by Him?” Remember he supposes “what is lawful” is authorized, but now in division six he asks, regarding the woman anointing Jesus, “Is there anyone among us that would say that it was authorized?” Regarding the woman who washed the feet of Jesus with her tears (Jn. 12:3ff), he also asks, “Was this a response to the command of God? to the command of Jesus? to a principle set forth in the law? Was it authorized?” Before we deal with these questions, let it be noted, they only underline the author’s mistaken idea that the view he is disavowing requires specific authorization. Gentle reader, what those women did was either authorized or unauthorized and therefore according to the author’s supposition either lawful or unlawful. Indeed, the author in effect has said what they did was unlawful. Then he writes, “And yet it was unquestionably accepted by Him.” The author has put himself in the position of affirming that Jesus accepted unlawful acts, in the face of the fact that Jesus said he would tell those who practice lawlessness to depart (Matt. 7:23).

It is claimed that Lot “asked something that was certainly unauthorized – that he might find refuge in a little city (Gen. 19:2 1). ” This claim is a full-blown flight into fantasy. It was commonly understood by the ancients that God would grant the request of the righteous when they prayed for their welfare. Bildad told Job, “If you would earnestly seek God and make your supplication to the Almighty, If you were pure and upright, Surely now He would awake for you and prosper your rightful habitation” (Job 8:5,6).

The article asks the reader to “Take something that was specifically commanded by God – that meat be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth (1 Tim. 4:3-4).” However, a brief reading of the passage makes it plain that it is not specifically commanded. The fact that God gave meats for food does not constitute a command to utilize them for food. The author pointed out that “Jesus ‘purged’ or cleansed all meats (Mk. 7:19). ” Are we to believe this constitutes a command to eat dogs, cats and rats? There is a difference between allowing and requiring. When one believes it is a sin to participate in a thing which God allows that makes it a sin for him to participate (Rom. 14:23), but it does not render his giving thanks to God unauthorized.

The article claims, “One of the classic examples of this principle (God receives one with a faulty and unauthorized attitude) is found in the book of Exodus.” The reference is to Exodus 32:7-14. It is assumed that when God said, “let me alone,” He commanded Moses and that Moses immediately violated God’s command. As assumptions go, this one may seem more plausible than many, but it is still an assumption. Keil and Delitzsch render God’s statement as a request: “now therefore suffer Me, that My wrath may burn against them . . .”

The author’s stated objective was “to show that the human law that states what is done must first be authorized by God, does not have its source in Scripture.” As the preceding considerations show the stated objective was riot attained. The source of the idea that “what is done must first be authorized by God” is such passages as Matthew 16:18; 18:18; Colossians 3:17, etc. Calling this idea a “human law” has as its source the author’s prejudice against it.

Another appeal was made to the incident of the “woman of Canaan” (Matt. 15:21-31). First, this is an appeal to a time when the Old Testament was still in force. Second, it is assumed that Gentiles were not authorized to make requests. However, Romans 2:12-16 along with 4:15 and 1 John 3:4 indicate that, although Gentiles were not under the Mosaic law, they were under law to God and had the privilege of doing that which is right in the sight of God.

Biblical proof is based upon Bible facts. The article was too long on personal assumptions and too short on Bible facts to be seriously considered a presentation of “The Basis for Divine Authorization. ” Our faith must come from the word of God (Rom. 10:17), not from what we might like, want, suppose or assume regarding selected passages while ignoring other possible explanations of those passages. Proof simply cannot be churned out of suppositions and assumptions.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 4, pp. 103-104
February 20, 1992

By Steve Wallace

During the last full week in November Derek Chambers and I visited two of the Baltic countries, Lithuania and Latvia, to teach the gospel. The purpose of this report is to detail our experiences there and to stir brethren about the possibilities that exist.

” . . . inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide . . .” (Matt. 10:11)

We had no trouble obtaining visas at the airport (at no cost) upon our arrival in Vilnius, Lithuania. When we got to our hotel we were quoted a price that was much higher than that quoted to me over the telephone when I made our reservations. Westerners are recognized and “gouged” by some hotels and taxi drivers. We immediately set out to find other accommodations for our stay. We were not prepared for what we found. We met Kritina Mikushauskas who worked at a restaurant where we stopped. She invited us to stay with her and her husband, Ilvida. Only after we were there did we realize that they were offering us accommodations at no charge! (This in spite of our demands that we pay them.) We stayed with them during our remaining time in Vilnius. We were also helped by the fact that Ilvida’s brother, Romas, spoke almost perfect English. They also assisted us by driving us to several different destinations. Their kindness knew no bounds.

Steve Wallace (second from left) with Romas Mikushauskas (left) and the family with whom he stayed during his visit to Lithuania.

The Results of Our Efforts in Lithuania and Latvia

We spent five days in Vilnius and two days in Riga, Latvia. We cut our stay in Riga short. It was evident after a couple of hours that the response there was nothing like we had witnessed in Lithuania. We spent parts of four days set up on a square in Vilnius. We are hard pressed to estimate the number of people who stopped at our table there. It was many hundreds, and perhaps over a thousand. At almost any given time three to five people would be standing around us looking at the literature we were offering. Some even asked for directions to our assemblies! We handed out over 300 lessons in English, German, and Lithuanian. (We had one short lesson in Lithuanian.) We had a number of discussions with people. We were fortunate that a number of people happened by who were glad to put their English or German to use in translating for us. One discussion went on until after dark. As the temperature was below freezing, six of us went into a restaurant and continued our discussion there for a good while.

Our work suffered greatly due to bad advice we received here in Germany from a native Lithuanian. We were told that many Lithuanians spoke English and German, and that we should not take literature in Russian. While we did find a surprising number of people who spoke English and others who spoke German, neither language is anything near to being common to Lithuania. Almost everyone could speak Russian. Many of the programs on Lithuanian television are in Russian.

Our stay with the Mikushauskas was eventful in spiritual terms. Romas’ daughter had been attending a Pentecostal church in Vilnius for some time and he was concerned about what he had heard about this church. This led to a study with her one evening, with Romas translating. It was a rather long study and after it was finished we could see that the word had made an impression on Romas and his daughter. The last we heard she was studying the tracts we had given her. We also had a good discussion with Ilvida one evening on the existence of God, again with Romas translating. He said that they had been brought up under Communism and the only “gods” they had known were Lenin and Stalin.

A Short History of the Pentecostal Church in Vilnius, Lithuania

We attended one of the assemblies of the Pentecostal church Romas’ daughter attends. There was about an hour and a half “warm up” – tongue speaking, “gospel” music played by a rock band, exhortations – for the featured speaker’s lecture. The hall they meet in is quite large and was half full when we got there. When it was time for the lecture it was standing room only – and there were a lot of people standing. I estimate the crowd to have been somewhere around 500 people. My feelings about the success of this false religion were mixed with curiosity as to how it had come about. I asked Romas to get an idea of how this church had grown to its present state.

In late July or early August of this year, advertisements appeared in a Vilnius newspaper inviting people to come and attend Bible lectures at a specific time and place. There also seems to have been literature passed out on the streets. We do not know whether any incentives other than their version of the gospel were offered. Having met members of newly established churches there, we learned that they are zealous in asking others to attend their assemblies. When we couple this with the openness we saw in the people of Vilnius, the history of this Pentecostal church in Vilnius may be instructive in showing the potential for the true gospel there.

Logistics

The following information may be helpful for the future of the gospel in Lithuania. We made arrangements with three different people in Vilnius to have various lessons translated. We hope to have these in the coming months. The dollar is ridiculously high against the Russian Rubel (the currency in Lithuania). We ate at restaurants for the dollar equivalent of about 20 cents per meal. Reservations for two people for a sleeping car on the train from Vilnius to Riga cost us about 40 cents. A Dutch journalist I talked to said that he could live there for about $150 a month. Bibles were not available in stores in Vilnius. However, we did find them in Riga. This led us to believe that they would also be available in Lithuania in the future.

Conclusion

We are very excited about the response we saw in Lithuania. During the latter part of our stay there and our return trip to Germany much time was spent talking about going back next year. We hope this report will stir others to enter this great open door for the gospel.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 4, pp. 114-115
February 20, 1992

By Bobby R. Holmes

There is growing pressure on preachers today, especial ly the younger ones, not to preach on certain subjects and even when you do, how not to preach on them (don’t be too aggressive, etc.). This pressure is the outgrowth of a desire to please men. There seems to be a greater concern for the feelings of men than for their souls that are lost and doomed to the punishment of hell. We live in a “wishy-washy” society that attempts to speak out of both sides of the mouth at the same time. This isn’t something new. Paul warned Timothy of the same things in the following: “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 cars; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry” (2 Tim. 4:3-5). It seems that people want enough religion to make them feel good about themselves but not enough to cause a deep conviction for their failings. After all, that would then demand repentance. Let us notice some ways not to preach.

1. We are seeing and hearing a cry for more and more of the “positive” preaching. Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not against positive preaching. I do my share of it. What I have reference to is a constant diet of nothing but the kind of preaching that makes the hearer go away feeling good about himself with little or no conviction for sin that may be in his life. I am equally against a steady diet of “negative” preaching that does nothing but condemn. This would be a classical example of the pendulum of the clock swinging to the opposite extreme. Balanced preaching is seen in the following: “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). Reprove, rebuke (negative); exhort (positive). Strong, faithful preaching is exhorted by Paul (2 Tim. 2:1-7). “Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully. The husbandman that laboreth must be first partaker of the fruits. Consider what I say,- and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.”

2. Preaching should not be with a sectarian spirit. Webster defines “sectarian” as follows: “(2) devoted to, or prejudiced in favor of some sect . . . (1) originally, an apostate from an established church” (New World Dictionary, p. 1287). When men are devoted to preach and defend doctrines that are not taught in God’s precious Book, they are not preaching as they ought. It matters not whether it is in regard to the Divorce-Remarriage position that brother Homer Hailey has taken or whatever – it becomes a sectarian type of preaching that divides the body of Christ and one day it will be answered for before God’s Judgment bar. In this kind of preaching there is more loyalty to men than to the Christ who died for them and a greater desire to please men than to please the Creator of the universe. Inspiration warns against this in no uncertain terms. “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Cor. 4:6). This kind of preaching sometimes has its beginning when men begin to measure themselves by themselves instead of the source of all spiritual knowledge, the word of the living God. Note 2 Corinthians 10:12 in reference to this. “For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.” There have been many who have started off as good, sound, dedicated and faithful preachers but fell prey to the devil. Let us all beware.

3. Another kind of preaching that ought not be done is the kind that suggests compromise. This is “first cousin” to the above. When men suggest that since there are several different views on the Divorce-Remarriage question we had just better “tread lightly” lest we teach something that is not found in Scripture, they are advocating compromise! When they state that since there are several views on Divorce-Remarriage we cannot be sure which is the “right one,” they are preaching compromise! There are several views on baptism (sprinkling, pouring, because of remission of sins, in order to the remission of sins, etc.). Can one be sure which is the “right one”? I believe we all know the answer to that one. In the same light we can know which is the “right one” regarding the Divorce-Remarriage question and the one that suggests otherwise is preaching compromise! “Intellectualism” regarding church history is being used as a cloak to cover up the Bible truth on the subject. Jesus stated the bottom line clearly in the following: “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, whosoever shallput away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:4-9). There are no “if’s”, “and’s” or “but’s” about it. Why not just be satisfied with what the Lord has said. After all he will have the last word in judgment – then what? It indeed is “a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

4. Another kind of preaching that “ought not so to be” is that of binding personal conscience on others. Churches (congregations) throughout the land are divided into splinters because of this foolishness. The list is almost endless. I realize that these things of personal conscience such as hats, women wearing slacks, etc. are matters of faith to the individual, but, they are not a matter of the faith! There is a difference. I, too, have personal beliefs about certain things, and some things that are done by some brethren do not “sit well” with me; but for me (and/or others) to preach these personal convictions as doctrine would be to preach as we ought not to preach. To divide the church for which Jesus shed his precious blood over matters of opinion will be dealt with by God. Many preaching brethren have made a “hobby” of preaching on these things that divide. They remind me of the Athenians that Luke spoke of. “For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing” (Acts 17:21). While they spend their time “wrangling” over foolish things there are millions of souls being swept into eternity by death and most without the blood of Christ. Lost! Lost! Many of these could possibly have been saved if wasted time and energy had been spent to reach them. These “contenders for the faith” that argue and fuss over things that have nothing to do with salvation are swallowed up in extreminism and radicalism. May our great God help all to lift up our eyes to the fields of harvest. “Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest” (Jn. 4:35).

5. I feel compelled to mention one last thing though it may be covered by one of the other writers. I was talking to a young woman awhile back about sin in her life and she commented, “Don’t try to put me on a guilt trip.” Man doesn’t like to be told he is in sin and headed for hell! People that are lost need to be made aware of it! Preaching that does not convey that truth is not how preaching ought to be done. The people on Pentecost were told frankly that they had been party to murder! “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel arid foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” (Acts 2:22-23). The result of this “guilt trip” was repentance by some 3000 as they demonstrated their faith in obedience. “Then they that gladly receive his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41). The Jews to whom Stephen preached were put on a “guilt trip.” “When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth” (Acts 7:54). Felix was put on a “guilt trip” as Paul preached the gospel of Christ to him. “And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ. And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee” (Acts 24:24-25). The thing that was “common” in these examples and others was the gospel of Christ. When preached forcefully and without compromise it produces godly sorrow (2 Cor. 7:10). Doctors offices are filled with people looking for pills and other means of escaping the guilt of unruly and impenitent lives and they don’t want preaching that will demand godly sorrow and a changed life. Preaching that doesn’t “deliver men from the power of darkness and translate him into the kingdom of God’s dear Son” (Col. 1:13) is not the kind of preaching that God demands!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 3, pp. 89-90
February 6, 1992