Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise (Prov. 11:30).

Every life is like some kind of tree. A righteous life is like a good tree bearing good fruit. A wicked life is like a bad tree bearing bad fruit. Jesus said, “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Matt. 7:17,18).

Fruit of a Righteous Life

A righteous person produces fruit that may be considered “a tree of life.” This includes the following:

(1) Good Influence In Word and Deed. The faithful child of God, “by his good deeds, is as a tree of life to those whose lives he sustains” (Whiteside). Many around us can be uplifted by the power of a good example. The Christian wields a wholesome influence as the “salt of the earth” and the “light of the world” (Matt. 5:13-16). Good words have added weight when backed by good deeds.

(2) Food For Souls Through Teaching. The truly righteous man is more than a “Good Samaritan.” He feeds hungry souls the bread of life. While people of the world often perform humanitarian acts that aid the temporal man, the Christian sees his main task as helping the spiritually destitute.

(3) Encouragement That Helps Weary Souls. “Tree of life” means “that tree which bears fruit that contributes to the life and happiness and good health of those who eat it” (Lanier). The righteous have the right to the tree of life, that is, access to heaven (Rev. 22:14). And each life which reaches out to help others who have grown fainthearted is lifting them from death to life.

“The effect of a righteous life on others is like that of a tree of life; and the result which flows from a life of wisdom is the winning of souls” (L. G. Thomas).

Wisdom of Winning Souls

The winning of souls is a wise thing to do, and the winning of souls requires wisdom. Where is the wisdom of winning souls?

(1) Souls Are More Precious Than Gold. Every human being is endowed with a soul which dwells in a physical body.

However, that which kills the body does not kill the soul (Matt. 10:28). The soul is one’s most priceless possession. “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” said Jesus (Matt. 16:26).

(2) Souls Won Are Saved From Death. While the soul does not die physically, it can die in the sense of being separated from God. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezek. 18:20). “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins” (Jas. 5:19,20).

(3) Winning Souls Increases The Influence of Good. Every time one soul is won to the Lord the influence of good multiplies just that much on this earth. Each soul won to the Lord becomes a potential for winning additional souls. I can think of no better way to improve conditions in this world than by turning men and women from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God.

(4) Winning Souls Brings Joy. The New Testament tells about people who rejoiced when they were baptized (Acts 8:39; 16:33,34). Sometimes people weep for joy when they obey the gospel. But there is joy in the heart of the soul winner as well as in the heart of the converted-sinner. Paul referred to his converts at Philippi as his “joy and crown” (Phil. 4:1). It is a great thrill to have a part in leading someone to the Savior.

How Souls Are Won

The New Testament teaches Christians how souls are brought to Christ. Here are some truths to consider in this connection:

(1) By The Gospel, Not A Direct Operation of the Holy Spirit. No apostle, no evangelist, no teacher in the New Testament instructed sinners to pray for God to send the Spirit to save them from their sins. In every case of conversion the gospel was presented, and by the power of God’s word sinners were drawn to the Lord. Jesus said, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 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” (Jn. 6:44,45). Indeed, the gospel of Christ “is the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16).

(2) Through Persuasion, Not Force. God does not attempt to coerce people against their wills to serve him. We should use every righteous means to convince people to accept the gospel, but we cannot force them to turn to the Lord. Paul said, “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Cor. 5:11). To “persuade” means to prevail upon or win over by bringing about a change of mind by the influence of gospel promises, warnings, and exhortations. People who are baptized because of high pressure tactics turn back as soon as the pressure is removed. To pressure a person is one thing; to win him to the Lord is another thing.

(3) Through Godly Living. Peter advised women whose husbands were not Christians that they might be won by the conduct of the wives (1 Pet. 3:1-4). Many who will not listen to the oral presentation of the gospel can be influenced when they see the gospel in action. We should live daily with the thought of winning others who may be watching our behavior.

Bearing fruit is inseparably connected with winning souls in a righteous life. God does not want us to be barren or unfruitful (2 Pet. 1:8).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 3, pp. 70-71
February 1, 1990

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote: “‘Primordial Soup’ and Beyond: How did life arise?” Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader, October 23, 1986, p. B-10.

We had decided enough was enough for these essays on the origin of life (perhaps our readers had too). Then we saw the article referenced above, which reports comments by some attending the Eighth International Conference on the Origin of Life in Berkeley, CA in July 1986. Among those quoted is Cyril Ponnamperuma, whose comments on Francis Crick’s Life Itself have been quoted here. Ponnamperuma repeats the assertion, based on the inability of science to determine how life arose here, that “the process that led to life on earth must have occurred elsewhere in the universe.”

Also quoted is Harvard University biologist George Wald, who is quoted as saying that there must be a billion billion places [in the universe] where conditions might allow life to exist. Of course, this is the same scientist who argued decades ago that “time is the hero of the plot: . . . given so much time [2 billion years], the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time performs the miracles” (in Molecular Basis of Life, 1968, p. 341).

We are reminded of the comments made a few years ago by Robert Jastrow in the conclusion to his book, God and the Astronomers. Founder and director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Professor of Astronomy and Earth Sciences at institutions such as Dartmouth and Columbia, Jastrow has hosted more than 100 CBS and BBC programs on space science. Here is how he concludes his book:

A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the explanation is. The scientist’s pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation.

This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth. . .

The development is unexpected because science has had such extraordinary success in tracing the chain of cause and effect backward in time. . .

Now we would like to pursue that inquiry farther back in time, but the barrier to further progress seems insurmountable. It is not a matter of another year, another decade of work, another measurement, or another theory; at this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries (pp. 115-116).

We do not quote these comments smugly nor intend them (as we are certain Jastrow did not) as a “put-down” of science. But when individuals palm off as “science” what is in reality simply speculation or, worse, a materialistic philosophy or religion (often wrapped in a healthy dose of smug arrogance), it ought to be exposed for what it is. It is faith, pure and simple, and ought not be thought superior to a faith that believes what Scripture says: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 3, p. 71
February 1, 1990

By Warren E. Berkley

Here is a situation that isn’t hypothetical. It is common, thus worthy of our attention.

In a local church where there is a history of objection to the sponsoring church arrangement and other unauthorized innovations, war breaks out. Brethren “bite and devour one another,” and the ugly result is “envy and self-seeking . . . confusion and every evil thing” (Gal. 5:15; Jas. 3:16). There is a division, perhaps followed by another; snide, sarcastic remarks. Preachers are fired, elders resign, members are agitated and a cold sterile atmosphere takes hold.

In the midst of this turmoil, as impatience and disgust turns into bitterness, there are some who just quit. They join a nearby liberal church, enter into the mainstream of Protestant denominationalism, or entirely give up the matter of religion. Though I’m not altogether satisfied with this description, I’m going to call this: reactionary apostasy.

Reactionary apostasy is usually accompanied by a statement something like these: “I’m fed up with conservative churches of Christ,” or “There has got to be something wrong with ‘conservative church of Christ’ religion.”

This needs to be addressed. So I beg your consideration toward these thoughts. Reactionary apostasy is fraught with at least two flaws.

(1) Rejecting teaching, merely on the basis of misbehavior. Suppose someone were pressed to define “conservative church of Christ” religion. Personally, I’m not comfortable with this label. I would rather communicate with scriptural language and deal with “the gospel,” “the truth,” “the Lord’s church,” or even New Testament Christianity. Yet, in the interest of being realistic and accommodative, and for the purpose of dealing with this matter of reactionary apostasy, .let’s formulate a definition of “conservative church of Christ” religion. Perhaps this religion would entail the following items of conviction:

a. There is “one God, and Father of all, who is above all” (Eph. 4:6).

b. The Bible is the Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16,17).

c. Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, and is the only begotten Son of God, who died for our sins, but arose and ascended to the right hand of God (Matt. 1:21; Rom. 1:1-4; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Jn. 1:14,29).

d. Man’s number one problem, and the great tragedy of all humanity is sin (Rom. 1:18-3:23).

e. The gospel is God’s power to save (Rom. 1:16,17).

f. Those who would be saved by the gospel of Christ, must hear, believe and obey that message (Rom. 6:17,18; Mk. 16:15,16; Heb. 5:9).

g. Baptism is essential unto salvation (Mk. 16:15,16; Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21; Gal. 3:26,27).

h. After baptism, God requires a life of faithfulness (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 2:42; Col. 2:6,7).

i. Jesus built his church, one body; and it came into existence on the day of Pentecost (Matt. 16:16-18; Acts 2:47; Eph. 1:22,23; 3:10,21; 4:4).

j. Local churches are charged to do the works of evangelism, edification, and benevolence for needy saints (Acts 20:28,32; 1 Thess. 1:8; Phil. 4:15; 1 Cor. 16:1-2).

k. The local church is to be financed by the voluntary giving of the members, as they respond according to their own prosperity (1 Cor. 16:1-2).

1. When fully developed, local churches are to have scripturally qualified elders, deacons and saints (Phil . 1:1; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-3).

m. We are to worship the Father “in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:24).

n. Evangelists are to preach the Word (2 Tim. 4:2).

o. As individual Christians and as collective groups (local churches), we are obligated to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 9; Phil. 4:9; Matt. 7:24-27; 28:18-20).

If you can – for the sake of this present study – regard this as a summary of those things believed and taught by “conservative churches of Christ.”

Now here is my point: when people who teach these things become embroiled in battle with one another, and manifest ungodly attitudes to the point of unjustified division, by what reasoning do we conclude that these 15 principles are faulty?

Somebody needs to explain this to me. Am I missing something? When people who teach these things turn a local church into a mess, by what reasoning are we supposed to conclude that these principles are invalid? Help me here.

If a man who believes in the existence of God throws himself into a pile of iniquity, crime and shame . . . should this cause me to question God’s existence?

If a group of people who preach that the Bible is inspired involved themselves in dishonesty, jealousy and other acts of disobedience . . . does this mean that the Bible may not be inspired?

Do we prove that what a man is teaching is false, by pointing to his foolish behavior? No, we must never reject some proposition simply because the one who advances it is inconsistent. We examine teachings; we test doctrines in one and only one way: by the light of Scripture (Acts 17:11).

I’m persuaded, a connection is being made here that doesn’t logically follow! When a group of people bite and devour one another, that doesn’t necessarily mean that everything they have been teaching should be called into question! By no means.

When a “conservative church of Christ” falls into turmoil and disorder, they fell into chaos in spite of the above principles, not because of them. When “conservative brethren” act in a manner that isn’t befitting the gospel, that misbehavior says nothing about the gospel. It says a great deal about lack of commitment, weakness in yielding to temptation, and hypocrisy. But it says nothing about the truth of the gospel, or the integrity of New Testament Christianity!

Anytime there is a big church fight or division, be assured somebody isn’t obeying God’s word! It may be just a few; it may be everybody. But when such an ugly mess arises, it does not mean that everything these folks have taught and stood for is suspect. It means: somebody isn’t obeying God’s word. (When the apostle Peter, in Galatians 2:11-16, ” played the hypocrite,” that misbehavior did not diminish the integrity of anything he had taught on the day of Pentecost!) But, reactionary apostasy faces another problem.

(2) “You can run, but you can’t hide!” When you abandon “conservative church of Christ” religion, where do you go? Liberal churches are not immune from the ugly spectacle of uproars caused by selfishness and stubborn sin. Denominational churches have internal battles, and open political warfare between parties who struggle for power. Where will you go? Paul Harvey often says, “You can run, but you can’t hide!”

Let it be granted, it is a real challenge to your attitude, perseverance and commitment to go through internal strife. And there are circumstances where, for consciences’ sake, one must leave a group and identify with another congregation. But when you find yourself in the middle of an ugly mess, consider that there is a right way and wrong way to react.

I’m saying – reactionary apostasy is not the answer. (1) It is based on an invalid connection, between what a group has taught and the way they act. Misbehavior doesn’t necessarily mean that the teachings have been invalid. (2) Reactionary apostasy takes you somewhere else, with no guarantee that you won’t meet the same ugly spectacle, sooner or later.

Don’t just react out of the subjective emotion of bitterness. Stand for the truth, support those who stand for it; live as you should; resist the devil, and remember “. . . if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another” (Gal. 5:15).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 3, pp. 67-68
February 1, 1990

By Frank Jamerson

The basic assumptions one begins with usually determine the destination he reaches. How do we see ourselves in relation to God? How do we view sin? What is our conception of the church? Is it a resort hotel for “saints,” or is it a hospital for the sick? Do we conceive of those in the church as sinners saved by grace, or as “good people” with whom we enjoy our association?

Before we moved to Lakeland, one of the men in the business meeting asked me: “What do you think is the greatest problem facing the church today?” Now, I am not an authority on such questions, and you may disagree with my answer, but my reply was that we are a “self-satisfied society.” Too many brethren look upon the church as a “social club” composed of good people with whom they enjoy affiliation. Basically, they conceive of it as a hotel for saints, not a hospital for the sick. If we do not consider ourselves as needing the “Great Physician,” we are not apt to be longsuffering and forgiving toward others who are sick.

Let us look at some characteristics of the “resort hotel concept.” You go to a hotel to get away from pressure and responsibilities. It is a place for leisure and relaxation; a place where you want to leave your troubles behind. It is a place to be served. You don’t have to make up the bed or clean the room; someone else is responsible for the work! You want to go home rested, relaxed and feeling good. Does this describe the attitude of many brethren toward the church?

The resort hotel is for those who “have it all together.” Who wants to spend time in a hotel listening to the problems of others, or even sharing his own problems with others? The “hotel Christian” has no sympathy for the suffering, because he is not sick. He is “living right,” like the elder brother who stayed home. He may be jealous, unforgiving and even gossipy, but he is not “living in the pig pen.” Have you ever wondered how the elder brother knew what his younger brother had been doing? Even if he did know, what good did it do for him to repeat the information after his brother had repented? We would have made the elder son a deacon, or maybe an elder, but Jesus ended the parable with the self-righteous son outside and the younger brother who had lived in the pig pen inside. On another occasion Jesus said: “Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you” (Matt. 21:31).

We should view the church as a hospital for those who are ill. You go to the hospital for the “big cure.” You know something is wrong and you need the good physician, maybe the specialist, working on you.

God said that we “have all sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom.- 3:23), therefore all of us need the Physician. If I have been healed of a disease, will I look condescendingly on someone else who has the disease? The only reason we would look down on another is if we think that his disease is “worse” than ours! Was the rebellion of the younger brother worse than the self-righteous, unforgiving attitude of the elder brother? (Read Matt. 21:31 again!) The fact is that the self-righteous do not consider themselves as being in real need. After all, God is fortunate that they have chosen to stay in his hotel!

What is our attitude toward sinners? How forgiving are we when those who have “wallowed in sin” repent? The answer to those questions depends upon our perception of the Lord’s church. Paul wrote the Corinthians: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Would the former thieves look down on the former sodomites? Not if they realized that their own “disease” was also terminal!

God’s call is to “all who labor and are heavy laden,” not to those who “have it all together.” It is to those who want to live, not to those who think they are living (Matt. 9:12). The elder brother’s unforgiving spirit may be considered “worse” than the “fornication” of the younger brother because it kept him from fellowship with his father. Any disease that kills us is worse than one that has been cured!

I believe that there is a desperate need for an attitude change in many. We need to look upon the church as a hospital for those who have been cured of terminal illness rather than as a hotel for “good folks” who need no physican. When I understand that the great physican extended mercy to me, and have a heart of gratitude for that cleansing, I will be more compassionate and forgiving toward others who need his healing. (A special thanks to my son Randy and to John Haley for the basic thoughts in this article.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 3, p. 69
February 1, 1990