Truth Magazine

By Walton Weaver

Jesus, as the master teacher, always fitted his teachings to the minds and hearts of his hearers. He drew his illustrations from their own
life’s experiences, and as a rule, his illustrations were simple ones because the people he addressed were mostly hard-working ordinary people. He often addressed them from concern for the basic necessities of life. He once filled the stomachs of those in his audience and he soon learned that they were a materialistic crowd (John 6:1-14). Jesus rebuked them for their materialism (v. 26), but he also used the opportunity to teach an important spiritual lesson.
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? What dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst (John 6:29-35).
To eat the “bread of life” is to believe in Jesus and receive his teachings. The one who eats this bread will soon discover that he has lost his appetite for the unholy and sensuous. He will find great delight and happiness in his new-found relationship with Jesus and his teaching.

But these people were still sense bound. When they brought Moses into the conversation by way of comparison, it became evident that they were missing the great opportunity of their life. Helen Hosier has well said, “It is not want of evidence that keeps a man away from belief in Christ, it is want of heart. Plainly these people had not lacked for signs and proofs of Christ’s Messiahship. How true it is that ‘none are so blind as those that will not see’” (Jesus: Love in Action, the Caring Jesus in the Gospel of John 59).

Faith and Reasoning

The Jews began to find fault with Jesus’ claim. How could he be that “bread of life” that had come down out of heaven? They knew his parents were Galileans, so how could he be from heaven? See John 6:41-42. Their reasoning began to get in the way of belief in him as the Messiah. This is not to say that faith is blind. It is not. It is more reasonable to believe in Jesus Christ than to disbelieve. But too often man in his unbelief reasons away all possibility of belief. Reasoning oftentimes proves to be a stumblingblock to faith.

Paul made it his practice to enter into the synagogues and “reason” with the Jews from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2; 18:4; 19:8). He persuaded some, but most of them had a veil over their faces so that they could not see Christ in those Scriptures: “But their mind was hardened,” Paul says, “for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ” ( 2 Cor. 3:14, NASB). The only way they could possibly understand the Scriptures Paul was using as he preached Christ to them was for them to come to see Christ in them.

Looked at from the human point of view alone, it was not reasonable to these Jews that one whose parents they knew to be Galileans had come down from heaven as the “bread of life.” But the “unreasonable” had in fact happened! He is the “bread of life” who has come down out of heaven — reasonable or unreasonable, believe it or not. Had he come as a conquering king, with wealth and honor, they would have willingly enough received him. But one who seemed to be nothing more than a poor, lowly, ordinary man? Never!

Does “Draw” Mean “Drag” In John 6:44?

Maybe the reason these Jews would not believe on Jesus was because they could not believe on him. When this statement is put in the form of a question, the answer to it is both a yes and a no. He can’t, but he can. In commenting on that part of verse 44 which says that “no man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him,” Alva Hovey gets it right when he says, “The inability to come to Christ, which is here affirmed of every man, left to himself, is intrinsically moral, and may be identified with unwillingness or disinclination. The sinner cannot, because he will not” (Commentary on the Gospel of John 156).

Jesus often attributed the cause of unbelief on the part of those who heard him to unwillingness on their part: “And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life” (John 5:40); “If any man will to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17); “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not” — not “could” not! (Matt. 23:37).

The extreme Calvinist of course will tell us that the word “draw” in John 6:44 means “drag” in the sense of force. R.C. Sproul, for example, rejects the meaning of “woo and entice men to Christ” for this word and insists that the word means to “drag.” He says, “The Greek word used here is elk¿. Kittle’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines it to mean to compel by irresistible       superiority. Linguistically and lexicographically, the word means ‘to compel’” (Chosen By God 71). After defining the word in this way, he then cites two examples where the word has this meaning. In James 2:6 James tells his readers that “the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts,” and in Acts 16:19, we find that Paul and Silas were “dragged” into the marketplace to the authorities. In both of these places the word used is helk¿ , the same word used by Jesus in John 6:44.

This sounds pretty impressive, but to my knowledge no one denies that the word as used in the two examples cited has a literal meaning. But what Sproul fails to point out is that almost all the lexicons also give a metaphorical or figurative meaning to this same word in both John 6:44 and 12:32. For example, Arndt and Gingrich say, “drag, draw . . . 1. trans. a. lit. . . . Acts 21:30 . . . 16:19 . . . Js 2:6 . . . b. fig. of the pull on man’s inner life . . . draw, attract J 6:44 . . . 12:32” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 251).

This same source points out that this word is also used in a figurative sense in the Septuagint version (Greek) of the Old Testament in Jeremiah 38:3 and Song of Solomon 1:4. So the lexicons recognize a difference of meaning in the word when used literally as over against a figurative use of the word. When used in a literal sense (as in Acts 16:19 and James 2:6) it means “drag, draw,” but when employed figuratively (as in John 6:44 and 12:32) it means “draw, attract.” Sproul’s statement that “linguistically and lexicographically, the word means ‘to compel’” is simply not true. By the term “compel” he means “drag” or “force,” and he is saying that this is the only meaning given to the word in the lexicons.

Why Not “Draw”?

As the reader surely knows, the only reason Sproul will not allow a figurative use of this word is that he believes in, and is defending, an “irresistible call” for all the elect, and only for the elect. He, as do all hard-core Calvinists, believes that only the elect will be saved, and all who are among the elect have from eternity already been chosen by God to be saved eternally. He ridicules the idea that God would only “woo” or “entice” men to be saved. He rejects this meaning of the word because, as he puts it, “man has the ability to resist this wooing and to refuse the enticement. The wooing, though it is necessary, is not compelling. In philosophical language that would mean that the drawing of God is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition to bring men to Christ. In simpler language it means that we cannot come to Christ without the wooing, but the wooing does not guarantee that we will, in fact, come to Christ.

We are not surprised that in his discussion of the “drawing” of God Sproul never once makes reference to John 12:32, another passage where this same word is used by Jesus. Why would he completely ignore Jesus’ use of this same word in that passage? Because he believes that God will “drag, force, compel” only the elect to come to Jesus, but in John 12:32 Jesus says, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” Now notice it: if “draw” (helk¿ ) always means “drag, force, compel,” then here Jesus states that he will “drag or force” all men to come to him! If the definition Sproul gives to this term is correct, then John 12:32 teaches the doctrine of universalism — all men will be saved. As a matter of fact, however, all who are drawn do not come to Jesus. The fear that Sproul has in giving the meaning of “woo” to the term “draw”is a justified fear, at least in view of his erroneous doctrine of election. If he were to force the literal meaning of “draw” upon John 12:32 it would destroy his theory of election. But that is exactly what he has done when he insists that only the literal meaning can be given to the term in the New Testament.

But if not by force, how does the Father “draw” men to the Son? He does it by moral persuasion, as we have already indicated. Paul was doing this very thing with Felix and Agrippa, and so was Peter with the Jews on the day of Pentecost — but with differing results. When Paul  preached of “righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come” before Felix, we are told that he “trembled” as he heard Paul’s message (Acts 24:25). Although Felix put off and waited for a more convenient time, it is obvious that God was doing some “drawing and attracting” through Paul’s preaching. The same was true with Agrippa who was “almost persuaded” (Acts 26:28). In Acts 2, however, some 3,000 of Peter’s listeners were “drawn” to the point of believing in Christ, and they also acted on their faith in repenting and being baptized as Peter had commanded (Acts 2:38, 41).

Hearing, Learning, Coming

But why would not Jesus’ statement which is recorded in the very next verse (John 6:45) show that this is what Jesus means when he says that the Father “draws” men to the Son? Read it and see: “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall be all taught of God.’ Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” I know the Calvinists apply this verse only to those who have already been drawn to Christ, but how can that be when the very last statement of this verse says, “cometh unto me.” How would one who has already been drawn to the Son still be “coming” to him? Surely the “coming” in verse 46 is the coming due to the “drawing” described in verse 44. That being the case, note how the drawing is done and the order in which it is described: The ones who “come” to the Son are those who have “learned” of the Father. But none can learn of the Father except they first be “taught,” and the one who is taught must “hear” in order that he might learn. Just as the drawing is done by the Father, so the teaching in this verse is also attributed to the Father, even though verse 46 suggests that it is the Son who is teaching for him. It seems clear that this is how the Father draws men to the Son. He draws all who will hear what the Father is making known to them through his Son. Those who hear, learn, and those who learn, come to the Son.

1820 Hairston Ave., Conway, Arkansas 72032

By Dick Blackford

“I don’t get mad, I get even.” Who hasn’t seen that bumper sticker? It reflects the thinking of many people. There is a tendency to wish bad fortune on those who mistreat us. I am reminded of an old Irish prayer that says: 

        “May those who love us, love us. 
        And those who don’t love us, may 
        the Lord turn their hearts. And if 
        he doesn’t turn their hearts may 
        he turn their ankles, that we may 
        know them by their limping.”

Funny, but not God’s way. “Vengeance belongs to me, I will repay, saith the Lord” (Rom.12:19). God settles some accounts at the judgment — others in life. He ordained government to settle those in life. 

Concerning rulers he says, “Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evil doers and for praise to them that do well” (1 Pet. 2:13).

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

In the late forties and early fifties, Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett and company opposed an evangelist locating with a church and preaching the gospel to it. They made a distinction between teaching and preaching. One could preach (herald the good news) to the world, but not to the church who already had the news. Thus, the gospel was to be preached to the world and doctrine was to be taught to the church. About a year or so before I began preaching, brother Garrett spoke at the congregation where I attended. I don’t remember whether he claimed to be preaching or teaching as he spoke, but this was my first experience with anyone who made the gospel/doctrine distinction.

In the Wallace-Ketcherside debate near Paragould, Arkansas, June 30-July 4, 1952, brother Ketcherside argued for this distinction repeatedly in his defense of the first proposition of the debate dealing with the located preacher issue.  Brother Wallace challenged brother Ketcherside several times  to teach five minutes and preach five minutes and show the audience the difference. According to their position, if he taught it would be doctrine and if he preached it would be gospel. Ketcherside and Garrett effectively narrowed their circle of fellowship by making this distinction in those days. Years later, after these fellows decided that nearly everyone was saved,  they appealed to the gospel/doctrine distinction to broaden their fellowship.

Distinction Becoming More Popular

Over the years, this distinction has become more and more popular with some brethren as a basis of broadening fellowship. The basic idea being that the gospel is the real basis of fellowship and not doctrine. One might be cursed for preaching a different gospel (Gal. 1:8, 9) but not for teaching another doctrine. So more and more brethren are calling for us to overlook our “doctrinal” differences, not only with those professing to be in churches of Christ but with all who profess to believe in Christ, and unite on the “gospel.” Though there may be some disagreement as to what constitutes the “core”  gospel, it is usually narrowed to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Some are willing to fellowship any who believe in the Christ based on these basic facts of the gospel. Others extend it a bit further and are not willing to fellowship those who merely believe these facts of the gospel, but insist that they must have “obeyed the gospel.” The idea is, while we should not tolerate a different gospel, we should and even must tolerate a different doctrine for the sake of unity.

Even if we could establish that a doctrine/gospel distinction is clearly taught in the New Testament, it would be rather arbitrary for us to decide which one should be the sole basis for fellowship. Where would we find the passage that clearly links fellowship to one and not the other? But, is there such a clear line of distinction found in the New Testament writings?

Gospel — Doctrine — Faith — Truth

We propose to show in the balance of this article that, not only is there no distinction between gospel and doctrine, there are four terms frequently used to refer to the same system. They are “the gospel,” “the doctrine,” “the truth.” and “the faith.”  Each term refers to the whole Christian system. They are all used interchangeably by the New Testament writers.

The Colossians, in the same verse, were admonished to continue in “the faith” and not be moved away from the hope of “the gospel” (Col. 1:23). Paul tells Timothy about things contrary to “sound doctrine according the glorious gospel of the blessed God” (1 Tim. 1:10, 11). Paul wrote of “the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2:5, 14).

Each term just emphasizes a different feature of the same New Testament system of Christ. Gospel emphasizes it as a system of good news. Gospel and evangelist are translated from the same root word meaning good news or glad tidings. The gospel is the good news and an evangelist is the bearer of that good news. Our English word, gospel, is a contraction of two Middle English words: god (with a long “o,” pronounced “good”) and spell (a story). The “d” was dropped from god and the last “l” from spell and the two combined became gospel — good story. The faith emphasizes it as a system of belief (in the Christ). The doctrine (meaning that which is taught) emphasizes it as a system of teaching. Anyone who causes divisions and offenses contrary the doctrine are to be marked and avoided — disfellowshipped (Rom. 16:17, 18). The truth emphasizes it as the system of spiritual truth as opposed to the false systems in the world. Any other system is a lie (2 Thess. 2:10-12).

Obedience is demanded no matter which term is used. The gospel must be obeyed (2 Thess. 1:8). The form of doctrine must be obeyed (Rom. 6:17). One must be obedient to the faith (Acts 6:7; Rom. 1:5; 16:26). One must obey the truth (1 Pet. 1:22).
Each term refers to the whole of Christianity and not a separate department of the system. Each term embraces instructions for becoming Christians and living as Christians.

“The gospel” includes the news of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and the salvation that this brings to mankind (1 Cor. 15:1-4). It also includes walking uprightly as a Christian (Gal. 2:14). Paul proposed “to preach the gospel to you that are in Rome” (Rom. 1:15), with the “you” being those “beloved of God, called to be saints” (v. 7).

“The doctrine” includes the form of doctrine one initially obeys to become free of sin (Rom. 6:17, 18). It also includes various duties in the lives of Christians (Tit. 2:1-10).  Notice that in verse one Titus was told to speak “things which become sound doctrine,” then a list of things follow that have to do with duties as Christians.

“The truth” includes what is obeyed to become a Christian (1 Pet. 1:22). It also includes what is obeyed as Christians (Gal. 1:3; 5:7).

“The faith” includes what we sometime call the fundamentals (Acts 6:7), but it also includes even a Christian’s duties such as domestic responsibilities (1 Tim. 5:8). Each term includes all the points included in any of the other terms.

The consequences of departing from or disobeying the system is the same whether it is spoken of as “the gospel,” “the doctrine,” “the faith,” or “the truth.” The Lord will take vengeance upon those who “obey not the gospel” (2 Thess. 1:8). Those who abide not in “the doctrine of Christ” and follow “another doctrine” do not have God (2 John 9-11; cf. 1 Tim. 1:3). Indignation and wrath await those who “do not obey the truth” (Rom. 2:8). Paul said one must be obedient to the faith (Rom. 1:5) and tied his assurance of eternal salvation to his having kept “the faith” (2 Tim. 4:7-8).

Conclusion

So, one needs to be very careful about trying to isolate any one of these descriptions of the system into a separate entity and making it the sole basis for fellowship. Whether the system is spoken of as “gospel,” “doctrine,” “truth,” or “faith,” it must be taught or preached, obeyed, and continued in to please God. Anyone who teaches or acts contrary to it, regardless of which term is used to describe it, should not be received into fellowship. Anyone already in our fellowship, but departs from the faith/doctrine/truth/gospel, either in teaching or practice, should not be retained in    fellowship after all proper steps have been taken to restore him have failed (see Tit. 3:10-11; Rom. 16:17, 18).

So, the gospel/doctrine distinction has no basis in Scripture. It is an artificial distinction invented by men to serve whatever agenda they might have at the time.

By John Isaac Edwards

In the last few years, Internet use has exploded. An estimated 10.1 million people are surfing the Web today. At present, one in ten households is connected and many other people use the Internet at work or as students.

The benefits of the Information Superhighway are many. As an educational tool, users can learn about virtually any topic. The Internet is also an effective outreach medium. It can be used for much good in spreading the gospel of Christ “in all the world” (Mark 16:15).

But, as with the real world, there are dangers lurking in the virtual world. This writing points out some Internet dangers, so we can avoid getting caught in the World Wide Web.

Accessability and Anonymity

One thing that makes the Internet so dangerous is that everything is so accessible, so immediate, just inches from our eyes. Sin is just a “point-and-click” away!

The anonymity of Cyberspace poses another threat. The feeling of being alone and unknown may tempt some to do things they might not otherwise do. But, you may not be as anonymous as you might think! You leave information behind every time you visit a site. Try visiting Anonymizer.com to get a glimpse of the sorts of information you present, often without knowing it, every time you surf the Net. It is also possible to check the addresses people have been visiting through history facilities on some browsers. Of course, God is aware of what we do on our computers. The Holy Spirit revealed, “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb. 4:13).

Cyberstalkers and Child Predators

In a September 16, 1999 White House press release, Vice-President Al Gore said, “Cyberstalking is a very serious new problem confronting us in the information age.” Cyberstalking is unwanted, obsessive pursuit of an individual. At its worst, it becomes real-world stalking, with potentially dangerous and even deadly consequences. The most common forums for Cyberstalking are chat rooms and e-mail. In chat rooms, predators can pose as anyone, even as other children. Predators assume the personae of other kids who share the interests of those in the room. They may lurk for awhile, getting a sense of the various participants and picking up the rhythms of conversation. When they make their move, their words and phrases will be childlike. Whatever the approach, the goals are the same: to learn the child’s interests, win the child’s confidence and ensure the child keeps it a secret. Eventually the predator will suggest a meeting, and by then, it may be too late.

Safeguards such as being careful about to whom you give your e-mail address and never giving out your real name, home address, or phone number to strangers are important. Parents, be alert to any changes in your children’s behavior regarding the computer and time spent online. Have they become hesitant to use the computer when you are nearby? Do they become evasive when you ask about their computing activities? Do you know their passwords and screen names? As President Bill Clinton said in a radio address following the deadly Columbine school shooting, “Parents must know what their children are doing on their computers.” Monitoring your children’s computer time is simply a part of “bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

The most important thing to remember is that when you’re online in any kind of public forum, anyone can read whatever you post. You should also remember that people you meet in Cyberspace may not be who they seem to be.

Cults and Hate Groups

In the wake of their mass suicide, the members of the Heaven’s Gate cult remain the focus of a great deal of speculation, commentary, and concern over the role of cults on the Web. A cult is a religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian or charismatic leader. There’s no question that cults have found homes on the Internet. We must make sure that our children can tell the difference between the Lord’s church and cults.

A host of conspiracy sites are cropping up on the Web, aimed at encouraging violence against a government portrayed as increasingly concerned with restricting our rights. New hate groups pop up every day, with new victims, new ways of demeaning and insulting familiar racial and      religious targets, and new appeals to other lonely, disenfranchised people to join in the abuse. The Web is being used as a vehicle for gathering followers. If we’re not careful, we may be lured in.

E-Porn

Pornography is a huge and growing Cyberspace draw! There are now at least 40,000 sex oriented sites on the Web, and probably thousands more. According to Nielsen Net Ratings, 17.5 million surfers visited porn sites from their homes in January, a 40 percent increase compared with four months earlier. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material is big e-business! Overall, Web surfers spent $970 million on access to adult-content sites in 1998, according to the research firm Datamonitor, and that figure could rise to more than $3 billion by 2003. A recent study by researchers at Stanford and Duquesne Universities claims at least 200,000 Americans are hopelessly addicted to E-porn.

Pornography is lasciviousness, “excess, licentiousness, absence of restraint, indecency, wantonness; . . . the prominent idea is shameless conduct” (W.E. Vine), and Paul said, “they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19, 21). Pornography also violates the principle taught by Jesus in Matthew 5:28: “That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

Time Consumption

According to National Web Demographics, 43.6% access the Web one to four times a day during a typical week and 36% spend seven or more hours on the Web during a typical week. A GVU WWW User Survey shows that 34% use their Web browsers 0-20 hours per week and 21-22% use them 21-40 hours. Some people’s online habits make it hard for them to be off-line. According to a study by Dr. Kimberly Young, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Pittsburgh at Bradford, the Internet can have the same addictive effects as gambling or drinking. We must be careful not to become Cyber-addicts.

We must remember to use our time wisely. Paul wrote, “Redeeming the time, because the days are evil” (Eph. 5:16). Spending too much time on their computers, many may neglect spiritual responsibilities such as Bible study, prayer, personal evangelism, hospitality, visiting, and the like. How much time do you spend on the Internet?

Cyberchurch

A 1998 survey from Barna Research revealed 16% of teens said that, within the next five years, they expect to use the Net as a substitute for church-based religious experiences. The report also mentioned “a Cyberchurch that will bring people together on line.”
I have some questions for those seeking to launch a Cyberchurch:

1. How would you go about observing the Lord’s supper? A reading of 1 Corinthians 11:20-34 will show the scriptural manner of observing the Lord’s supper requires the church coming together “into one place.”

2. What do you do with Hebrews 10:25? The apostle to the Hebrews penned, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” To launch a Cyberchurch, you would have to throw Hebrews 10:25 out the window! There’s just no way we could assemble on a computer and worship God acceptably. The Internet must not become a substitute for assembling with the saints.

May each of us learn to be “street smart” on the Information Superhighway.

115 N Brandywine Ct., Salem, Indiana 47167