Truth Magazine

By Rick Duggin

Recent years have seen an epidemic of preachers who have been caught in less than honorable circumstances. Bob Harrington, Jim Bakker, and Jimmy Swaggart are notable examples of men who preached one standard as they practiced another.

The May 29 issue of The Daily News journal featured a story concerning the present problems of some men who are connected with The Sword of the Lord, a Baptist paper which is published within one-half block of my house. Robert Sumner, an editor of a rival paper, has accused The Sword of the Lords circulation manager of adultery, prompting him to resign.

Even more serious are Sumner’s charges against Jack Hyles, a member of The Sword of the Lord’s board of directors, chancellor of Hyles-Anderson College, and preacher of a church in Indiana which boasts the “largest Sunday school in the world.” Sumner alleges that Hyles has misappropriated funds and that he has carried on an improper relationship with a woman for 15 years.

Curtis Hutson, editor of The Sword of the Lord, has responded to Sumner’s allegations by denouncing him as a known liar whose motives in this matter are based on jealousy.

It is not my intention in this article to take sides with Sumner or with Hutson. I wish that both of the accused men could be proven innocent of the charges against them. The interesting part concerns Mr. Hutson’s response to Sumner’s accusations.

On April 10, 1982, I purchased a copy of Robert Sumner’s booklet, Does the Bible Teach That Water Baptism Is a Necessary Requirement for Salvation? After thoroughly studying this diatribe, I too had reached the conclusion that Mr. Sumner has difficulty in accurately representing the positions of religious opponents, not to mention his acute difficulty in properly handling the word of God. (I will provide documentation of this fact for interested readers.)

Apparently I have been more charitable with Robert Sumner than Mr. Hutson has been. I was willing to assume that Mr. Sumner had carelessly passed along inaccurate information to his readers without making an effort to verify his claims. I have never referred to him as a Har. I’m sure Mr. Hutson knows him much better than I do. If Baptist doctrine were true, however, Mr. Sumner would not need to be overly concerned with Mr. Hutson’s estimate of his character. Baptist doctrine says that once a man is saved, he cannot fall from grace. Sam Morris, whose articles are sometimes featured in The Sword of the Lord, explained the doctrine this way:

We take the position that a Christian’s sins do not damn his soul. The way a Christian lives, what he says, his character, his conduct, or his attitude toward other people have nothing whatsoever to do with the salvation of his soul. . . All the prayers a man may pray, all the Bibles he may read, all the churches he may belong to, all the services he may attend, all the sermons he may practice, all the debts he may pay, all, the benevolent acts he may perform will not make his soul one whit safer; and all the sins he may commit from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger. . . The way a man lives has nothing whatsoever to do with the salvation of his soul (Do A Christian’s Sins Damn His Soul?, pp. 1,2).

Mr. Hutson says that Robert Sumner is a known liar. But Baptist doctrine affirms that lying will not endanger the soul of the child of God. According to this teaching, Mr. Sumner will be in heaven in spite of his lies, just as every adulterous Baptist will be in heaven in spite of his adultery.

Now, contrast Revelations 21:8: “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.- which is the second death.”

How can Mr. Hutson reconcile Baptist doctrine with Revelation 21:8? Sword of the Lord writers emphatically declare that the Bible must be interpreted literally. Dear reader, does Revelation 21:8 mean that all liars will be lost or that some liars will be lost? By the time the advocates of Baptist doctrine gets through “explaining” this passage, it will say the opposite of what it really says! So much for literal interpretations!

Mr. Hutson, is Robert Sumner a saved liar or a lost liar? If saved, the Bible must be wrong in teaching that all liars will be lost. If lost, then what has become of your Baptist doctrine? Dear friends, forsake this glaring falsehood and believe the truth.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 24, p. 752
December 21, 1989

By Carolyn Cains, Supervisor

If I learn my ABCs, can read 600 words per minute, and can write with perfect penmanship, but have not been shown how to communicate with the Designer of all language, I have not been educated.

If I can deliver an eloquent speech and persuade you with my stunning logic, but have not been instructed in God’s wisdom, I have not been educated.

If I have read Shakespeare and John Locke and can discuss their writings with keen insight, but have not read the greatest of all books – the Bible – and have no knowledge of its personal importance, I have not been educated.

If I have memorized addition facts, multiplication tables, and chemical formulas, but have never been disciplined to hide God’s Word in my heart, I have not been educated.

If I can explain the law of gravity and Einstein’s theory of relativity, but have never been instructed in the unchangeable laws of the One Who orders our universe, I have not been educated.

If I can classify animals by their family, genus and species, and can write a lengthy scientific paper that wins an award, but have not been introduced to the Maker’s purpose for all creation, I have not been educated.

If I can recite the Gettysburg Address and the Preamble to the Constitution, but have not been informed of the hand of God in the history of our country, I have not been educated.

If I can play the piano, the violin, six other instruments, and can write music that moves men to tears, but have not been taught to listen to the Director of the universe and worship Him, I have not been educated.

If I can run cross-country races, star in basketball and do 100 push-ups without stopping, but have never been shown how to bend my spirit to God’s will, I have not been educated.

If I can identify a Picasso, describe the style of da Vinci, and even paint a portrait that earns an A+, but have not learned that all harmony and beauty comes from a relationship with God, I have not been educated.

If I graduate with a perfect 4.0 and am accepted at the best university with a full scholarship, but have not been guided into a career of God’s choosing for me, I have not been educated.

If I become a good citizen, voting at each election and fighting for what is moral and right, but have not been told of the sinfulness of man and his hopelessness without Christ, I have not been educated.

However, if one day I see the world as God sees it, and come to know Him, Whom to know is life eternal, and glorify God by fulfilling His purpose for me, then, I have been educated!

Be educated . . . at Florida College!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 24, p. 742
December 21, 1989

By Mike Willis

In Paul’s description of the apostasy which would occur in the last days, he said that men would come, having “a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” (2 Tim. 3:5). Godliness has both a form and a power. We need to understand what godliness is in order to see how one could have the form of godliness without its power.

What Is Godliness?

Some have defined “godliness” as “God-like-ness,” but that is a poor definition of the word. Translated from eusebeia, godliness means “piety towards God” (Thayer, p. 262). It denotes a manner of life which shows reverence and respect for God. In pagan literature, a person showed “godliness” by his participation in the public worship of the pagan gods and by his respect for sacred things.

The opposite of “godliness” is “ungodliness.” Translated from asebeia, ungodliness is “want of reverence towards God, impiety” (Thayer, p. 79). In his Synonyms of the New Testament, R.C. Trench said that “ungodliness” is “positive and active irreligion, and this is contemplated as a deliberate withholding from God of his dues of prayer and of service, a standing, so to speak, in battle array against him” (p. 242). The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines asebeia as “complete contempt for God and his will . . . it can be used for the wicked doer in the broadest sense” (Vol. VII, p. 188).

The Power of Godliness

Godliness is reverence for God, piety. It is expressed in such verses as Habakkuk 2:20 – “But the Lord is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him” (cf. Psa. 33:8). Recognition that one is in the presence of God becomes a motivating force in one’s life. B.C. Caffin expressed the idea this way:

A godly man sets God always before him; the thought of God controls his whole life; his effort to do all things in the name of the Lord Jesus, to live unto the Lord, to seek his glory only. This holy reverence for the felt presence of God can only be maintained in the life of faith and self-control; in the worldly fife of mere pleasure and business it cannot flourish. God is the center of the devout life, the life of godliness (The Pulpit Commentary. 2 Peter, pp. 13-14).

The power of godliness can be seen in Joseph’s resistance of Potiphar’s wife’s advances. He said, “How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” (Gen. 39:9) His awareness of the presence of God kept him from committing adultery. This is the power of godliness?

Some hold the forms of godliness but do not have its power. They express piety with their lips and go through the motions of reverencing God in worship, but commit deeds of ungodliness. Jim Bakker is a good example of one who manifested the forms of godliness but lacked its power. His television shows expressed love for God and men. He spoke frequently about the Holy Spirit and prayer, all the while being guilty of adultery, bribery, cover-up, fraud, and other forms of wickedness. This is the form of godliness without its power.

Applications of Godliness

1. In attendance of public worship. One should show enough reverence for God to be present in the worship assemblies (Heb. 10:25). The man who willfully absents himself from the worship assemblies manifests these attitudes: (a) lack of thankfulness toward God (we who receive go many blessings from God should feel thankful toward him for his grace toward us); (b) lack of interest in the study of God’s word; (c) lack of interest in the spiritual welfare of other Christians (Heb. 10:24). How can a man claim to be godly while withholding from God his worship?

2. In his conduct at worship services. Ethan the Ezrahite said “God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the ai , saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him” (Psa. 89-7). How much reverence is shown to God when a person disrupts the worship assembly by whispering, talking, passing notes, sleeping, playing with babies, etc.? How much reverence is shown to God by not participating in singing? How much reverence is shown to God by being present in the worship assembly but looking upon it as a burdensome chore (Mal. 1:13-14)?

3. In dress at the worship assembly. There is no standard of dress which must be worn when assembling with other saints to worship God. God does not legislate a coat and tie for men or high heels and dress for women. However, there is a degree of respect shown by how we dress. A preacher who showed up to perform a wedding wearing blue jeans, a T-shirt and tennis shoes would be condemned for his manner of dress. He would be showing a lack of respect for the occasion.

What attitude does a person show toward God when he shows up for worship wearing a shirt imprinted with an emblem of Coors beer or a picture of some rock singing group (KISS)? Has one shown a reverence for God by wearing such attire?

4. In the use of God’s name. One of the Ten Commandments was “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” (Exod. 20:7). “Holy and reverend is the name of the Lord” (Psa. 111:9). Under the law of Moses a man was stoned to death for cursing and blaspheming the name of the Lord (Lev. 24:10-16). Our society, like that of many others before, shows little regard for the name of God, using his name for cursing men and strong exclamatory remarks. The man who uses God’s name in cursing is an impious man.

Conclusion

Are you a godly person? Do you have only the form of godliness or do you also have its power? Your awareness of God’s presence and your intention to walk pleasing to him manifests godliness in your life. “Exercise thyself… unto godliness. For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come” (1 Tim. 4:7-8). “Godliness with contentment is great gain” (1 Tim 6:6).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 24, pp. 738, 751
December 21, 1989

By Harry R. Osborne

Asa was the third king of Judah after the division of the kingdom. The two kings preceding him, Rehoboam and Abijah, exemplified the way of error. The inspired writer sums up the seventeen year reign of Rehoboarn by saying, “He did that which was evil, because he set not his heart to seek Jehovah” (2 Chron. 12:14). In summing up the life of Abijah, the Bible says that he walked in “the sins of his father” and that “his heart was not perfect with Jehovah his God” (1 Kgs. 15:3). Asa, however, did not follow the path of apostasy, but “did that which was good and right in the eyes of Jehovah his God: for he took away the foreign altars, and the high places, and brake down the pillars, and hewed down the Asherim, and commanded Judah to seek Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and to do the law and the commandments” (2 Chron. 14:2-4).

In his effort to effect this time of restoration, Asa called Judah together to worship God and commit themselves unto his service. Notice the words of 2 Chronicles 15:12-13:

And they entered into the covenant to seek Jehovah, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul; and that whosoever would not seek Jehovah, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

The context goes on to show that Asa meant what he said. His own mother, Maacah, had an idolatrous image. Her sin was not tolerated. She was removed from her place of queen as Asa cut down her idol, ground it to pieces and burned the remains (2 Chron. 15:16). No preferential treatment was given, for Asa loved God more than any person, “whether small or great.”

In recent years, several events have made me think back upon this account. After all, the need for insisting upon purity in doctrine and practice by all, “whether small or great,” exists today as it did in the time of Asa. However, from time to time we hear the plea to exempt some from the close scrutiny of truth because they are “great.” Those who try to uphold and apply God’s standard of truth are often seen as the evil ones. It is often amazing to hear the objections some raise to the ones who simply try to preach the truth and call all to practice such.

I wonder if any such effort existed in Asa’s time. Just think what those opposing Asa’s efforts for God’s cause could have said:

“Who does that young fellow think he is anyway? ” Asa was probably in his late twenties or early thirties when this happened. Those who did not like the principles he upheld could have called him a “young buck” who was not “dry behind the ears” or the Hebrew equivalent thereof. They could have asked who this “Johnny-come-lately” is to challenge the way things had been for fifty years or more. If they made such put downs of Asa, would the truth he upheld be any less so?

‘That guy is just out to make a name for himself!” They could have said the whole thing was the result of “wanton glory” as Asa sought “self-promotion.” In attributing evil motives to Asa, they could have persuaded many people that Asa was the problem, thus diverting attention from the real issue. They may even have accused Asa of “manufacturing issues” so that he could attack “otherwise faithful brethren because of some difference of understanding concerning some point of Bible teaching.” The results would have been devastating to Judah if such would have caused them to accept sinful practices in their midst.

“He is just too legalist!” It would have been a little early for them to call Asa a “Pharisee,” but surely there was some comparable term of derision in that day. Some may have scoffed at Asa’s emphasis on the need for doctrinal truth. They could have claimed that “spirit is more important than truth.” One of them could have exclaimed, “I know some people in idolatry who have more spirit in their little finger than some of my conservative brethren have in their whole body!” No doubt, the fellow could have added, “I had rather err on the side of charity on such matters as these than on the side of rigidness.” Would such objections have made strict adherence to God’s commandments less necessary?

“We need to be more tolerant.” One brother might have mused, “If blackballing and ostracism were consistently applied few of us would have enough friends for a potluck supper.” They may have noted the fact that “the high places were not taken away” by Asa (1 Kings 15:14). This could have caused one to plea, “There seems to be some space for tolerance in this area. Am I overstepping the boundary of good judgment to suggest that we may need to make room for more? After all, we disagree in other areas which are surely as crucial.” One of the intellectuals could have concluded, “I confess that consistency is a formidable reason why I can work and worship with this private practicer of idolatry in spite of our differences.”

“Why can’t Asa just be positive?” After all, most of Asa’s actions recorded in the Bible would be regarded as “negative” by most people today. He tore down idols, demolished their altars, burned what remained, removed his mother as queen, and drove out the homosexuals. (Oh how we could use him as king in this country!) It is worth noting that the inspired commendation of Asa in 1 Kings 15:12-13 is composed entirely of such “negative” actions. Man’s subjective assessments of events as “positive” or “negative” do not change God’s view of them.

Who knows, some could have even tried to use Asa’s removal of his mother against him. They might have decried Asa’s action as a “personal attack” and “an unheroic assault on an old queen” who has “earned the respect and esteem of the people in Judah of our time.” Who knows, Maacah may have even been “a legend in her own day.” When they got through lauding and praising all of the past accomplishments of Maacah, would her idolatry be any better? As a matter of fact, would not her place of honor and respect have made her more dangerous in leading others into her error?

Lest one think this whole exercise in speculation is wasted space, let me note that the above statements are merely modified forms of things being said today. Take away the reference to Asa’s opposition to ancient error and replace it with some brother’s opposition to modern error and you’ve got it. Substitute the ridicule or character assassination of some faithful teacher for that of Asa and the words are identical. Instead of Maacah, use the name of some preacher of error or defender of some sinful practice and you will recognize current speech among our brethren.

If such objections would have failed to justify an acceptance or compromise with error in Asa’s time, why would they work in our time? Don’t be deceived!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 24, pp. 739-740
December 21, 1989