Truth Magazine

By Billy Ashworth

Recently, Vanderbilt University sponsored a “Dialogue” on the subject of “The Truth About Jesus.” Attractive brochures were sent out to various churches here in Nashville, including the Hillview church where I preach. A panel of “distinguished” scholars, according to liberal religionists, was to discuss such subjects as “The Truth About Jesus,” “Portraits of Jesus in Cultural Context,” I ‘Can We Tell The Truth About Jesus?” For the full week of September 17-23, the blasphemous movie, “The Last Temptation of Christ,” was shown twice daily – a total of 14 times!

This “Dialogue” is a classic example of extreme liberalism in religious matters. I dare affirm that not one single panelist believes the Bible to be the Living Word of the Living God (Heb. 4:12). 1 also affirm that probably not a single panelist believes in the virgin birth of Christ, his bodily resurrection and ascension, and/or the miracles of Christ being reality.

Although I did not, of course, attend the “Dialogue,” I have several news articles about it taken from the Nashville Tennessean. On September 20, 1989, an article appeared written by Ray Waddle, religion news editor of the Tennessean. I quote:

“Jesus would have refused to join the Christian throng who protested The Last Temptation of Christ, author Will Campbell argued last night at a forum on ‘the Truth about Jesus!’ It behooves me to remind those brethren that, in my judgment, Jesus wouldn’t have been with them, I Campbell, the Mount Juliet-based preacher, told about 200 people at Vanderbilt University as a guest panelist. If they are going to hold up signs, they ought to say, He was against killing and war and wanton destruction of the earth. We love our Jesus so please don’t tell lies about him.’

“The question of the truth about Jesus – was he the God-man or the man nobody knows? – was taken up by Campbell and seven other panelists last night, hoping to make sense of the furor over the film, Last Temptation of Christ, which opened on campus this week. Based on a work of fiction, the movie explores the painful temptations Jesus was likely to face. (Notice, they admit the movie was based on fiction! Subsequent articles about the discussions seem to place the fictional movie on a par with, or a notch above the New Testament which reveals the only truth man can know about Jesus, and all one needs to know.)

“Some panelists expressed confidence that the real Jesus can be known with reasonable certainty though the scriptures. (This is the only sound statement made in the entire reviews I can recall. I suspect such statements were ignored by the writer while he emphasized the liberal garbage. BA) Others argued more pessimistically that the truth and message of Jesus were distorted beyond recognition almost immediately by the church that sprang up after his death and resurrection as recorded in the New Testament.

“Theologian Thomas Altizer (of “God is dead” infamy, BA) defended Nikos Kazantzakis, the Greek author of the 1955 book on which the movie was based, as a man firmly in the mold of radical prophet who constantly offends most deeply held religious doctrines of the day. ‘One must negate our traditions about Jesus in order to open oneself to Jesus,’ said Altizer, an influential thinker who teaches at the State University of New York. Altizer asserted that no religious figure in history has inspired more resistance and controversy than Jesus, whose revolutionary use of parables was soon lost or rejected by the church, which turned his message into alien philosophical doctrines of ‘infinite distance from the original event.’

“Campbell similarly argued that the church replaced Jesus’ dangerous message about the Kingdom of God being at hand with safer dogmas that require loyalty and assent. (I would like for these “wise and prudent” theologians to tell how they learned the truth about the “revolutionary use of parables of Jesus being lost or rejected by the church” or that the church “replaced Jesus’ dangerous message about the Kingdom of God being at hand with safer dogmas that require loyalty and assent.” After nearly four decades of diligent study of the New Testament, I have failed to find any such foolish and rotten doctrines. Since we have over forty parables of Jesus in the New Testament, I wonder how many parables of Jesus were rejected. And Campbell’s assertion about Jesus’ “dangerous message about the Kingdom of God being at hand being replaced by the church with safer dogmas that require loyalty and assent,” is totally unfounded in the Word of God which is all Truth. It would be interesting to hear Campbell tell what the “dangerous message about the Kingdom of God being at hand” was. Oh, how I wish I had been there and had a chance to ask him!)

In the Tennessean (September 26, 1989, Section B-1), an article by Ray Waddle was headed “Panel says Jesus, Scriptures conflict. ” I quote:

“The historical Jesus of Nazareth will always be an elusive figure who bears little or no resemblance to the Scriptures Christians use in worshipping him, a panel asserted last night. But modem liberal pessimism about the possibility that people can know anything about the real Jesus does nothing to invalidate his mysterious, inspirational hold on millions, one of the panelists added.

“He is a figure around whom people gather – and revelation happens, Walter Harrelson, Old Testament professor at Vanderbilt Divinity School, said near the end of a panel discussion on ‘The Truth about Jesus’ at Vanderbilt University. ‘I don’t want to say that questions about his history have no relation to these affirmations of faith. They must intersect in some strange way.’

“Harrelson appeared with Jean Elshtain, Vanderbilt political science professor, and Robert Funk, director of the Westar Institute in Pomona, Cal., in the final panel capping a week of campus discussions centered around questions of Jesus raised by the movie The Last Temptation of Christ. Funk’s Wester Institute sponsors an ongoing study group of mainstream liberatsabplars called the Jesus Seminar, which has won notoriety by concluding that most of the various written sayings of Jesus in the New Testament and Other sources are not likely authentic.

“‘He seems to have been a wanderer, which puts him in the category of living on the margins of society,’ Funk said. ‘He seems to have flunked the Fifth Commandment, to honor your father and mother. To say, Unless you hate your father and mother you’re not ready for the kingdom of God What does that mean? Was he ready for the funny farm? Did he mean it literally?’ (Consider the blasphemous, irreverent statements here. How could such a person direct an “ongoing study group of mainstream liberal biblical scholars called the Jesus Seminar” with any objectivity? Also, why do they continue such liberal activity based on infidelity, unless it is to destroy faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? BA)

“The ‘vulnerable, perplexed’ Jesus of the movie Last Temptation says much more about director Martin Scorcese’s view than it can about the historical Jesus, Elshtain said. During a question-and-answer period, some students questioned Funk’s assumptions about the historical unreliability of the New Testament.

“One argued that scholars impose a double standard if they question the New Testament, but accept the veracity of surviving accounts about Roman emperors such as Tiberias.”

I believe these accounts adequately expose this whole “Dialogue” as a sham as far as the theme “The Truth about Jesus” is concerned.

To the question, “Can We Know the Truth about JesusT I can answer for myself with an emphatic yes! The reason for my answer is that the New Testament reveals the truth about Jesus. For the majority of the participants and panelists I can the answer the question for them with an emphatic no! Why? Because they have rejected the only source that reveals the truth about Jesus – the New Testament. Of course, these way-out liberals apparently think that such uninspired and biased men such as the author of the book from which the movie, The Last Temptation of Jemis, was made, can shed some truth about Jesus.

The wonderful statement that Jesus made and has been recorded in the gospel according to Matthew 11:25, “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent (intelligent, NASB), and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight” is so appropriate for the infidels of our day.

Several years ago, brother Harris Dark told me concerning the infidelity that emanates from Vanderbilt School of Divinity: “They don’t come out and say that the Bible isn’t true, they just ask leading questions of doubt.” That is the same tactic used by the devil since the seduction of Eve in the garden – asking leading questions of doubt that lead people into agnosticism. The fledging theology students who come under such influence leave and go out and make other infidels.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, pp. 707-708
December 7, 1989

By Lewis Willis

When we in the Lord’s Church attempt to teach our friends the truth about the worship of the Church, most of them find that truth to be unbelievable. They cannot imagine that they can’t worship like the Jews worshiped. They run to David and his instruments of music which he used in his worship and they try to justify their instruments with his. All too frequently, and sadly, it is impossible to get people to see the truth about worship. The design of this article is to examine why a change in worship should seem so strange.

The Bible shows us three great periods or dispensations of time: Patriarchal, Jewish or Mosaic, and Christian. Just as there is a requirement for worship by those of us living in the Christian Age, those people who lived in the Patriarchal and Jewish ages also had a requirement for worship. And, there were differences in the worship God required of the people who lived in each age. It is my view that we will never understand the worship of the New Testament Church until we acknowledge this fact.

During the Patriarchal Age, religion was confined to the family. God conducted religious “business” through the heads of those families like Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc. God required that animal sacrifices be offered on altars built by these families. Thus, we read of Abel offering his sacrifice to God (Gen. 4:4). After the flood, Noah built an altar and offered animal sacrifices (Gen. 8:20). Lest his children fail to sacrifice as they should, Job continually offered sacrifices for them (Job 1:5). The practice of sacrifices being offered by the heads of the patriarchs of those great families was acceptable with God.

However, the practice of the Patriarchs, which was acceptable with God, would have condemned a Jew. Why? Because God changed the law of animal sacrifices. In the Jewish Age God did not permit heads of families to offer their own sacrifices. He assigned this responsibility to Moses’ brother Aaron and to the men of the tribe of Levi (Exod. 28:1; Num. 18:1-7; 25:11-13). They were the only ones who could offer sacrifices which God would accept. On one occasion King Saul offered a sacrifice which he was not authorized to offer and he was reproved by Samuel, the prophet (1 Sam. 13:8-14). If Saul had been like the denominationalist of our day, he would argue: “If Noah and Abraham could offer animal sacrifices, I feel it is alright if I do the same. ” Obviously, there is a difference with God. He gave Noah and Abraham authority to offer sacrifices. He did not give that authority to Saul. I believe anyone wanting to see, can see that the change in the Law governing these people also changed what was acceptable with God. Because it was right under the Patriarchy did not make it right for the Jews. Because it was worship to God, he had the right to change it if he pleased. And, that is exactly what he did!

It is essential that we understand that we do not live in the Patriarchal or the Jewish Age. We live in the Christian Age. And, guess what? God has changed the worship again! That’s right, God changed the worship which now is acceptable with him. In fact, we can no longer offer animal sacrifices like the people used to offer. Such were acceptable for them, but not for us. We are to offer up sacrifices alright, only we offer our “bodies” as “living sacrifices” (Rom. 12:1). We are taught to offer “the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name” (Heb. 13:15). Suppose I said, “I don’t want to do it that way. I like it better and get more out of it the other way. I want to continue to offer animal sacrifices.” Never mind that the blood of animals could not perfect men (Heb. 10:1-4). You would be trying to correct my error, wouldn’t you?

Not only did God change the kind of sacrifices, he even changed who could offer them. Under the Patriarchy, the head of the family offered the sacrifice. Under the Jewish economy, the Levitical priesthood offered the sacrifices. But, not any more! Now, we who live in the Christian Age are authorized to offer our own sacrifices – all of us! Christians (each of us) are “an holy priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:5). We are called “a royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9). We are the royal priesthood because God, through Christ, has made us “kings and priests” (Rev. 1:6; 5:10). The distinction between clergy and laity and arrogance of Catholicism’s priesthood ignores this fundamental Bible truth. But, they argue, “They had a priesthood in the Old Testament, why can’t we have one now?” Why? Because God authorized them to have a special priesthood then but he does not authorize us to have one now. We must learn this lesson.

So I ask, “Why does it seem so strange that we cannot worship like God’s people used to worship?” Why can’t we have Dad build an altar and offer animal sacrifices? Or, why can’t we have a special priesthood to handle our sacrifices? Abraham and David had these things, didn’t they? Yes, and David had his instruments of music. But, God changed the law – the rules – and what they did is no longer acceptable with him. That is all we need to know to learn the truth about worship today. We have a new and better covenant. We now offer living, spiritual sacrifices, which includes our worship in which God specified that we “sing and make melody in (our) heart” (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Patriarchal or Jewish worship will not be accepted – only the worship appointed for us in this Christian Age. Will you allow yourself to learn this lesson?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, pp. 705, 728
December 7, 1989

By Steve Moseley

“Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well” (1 Tim. 3:11-12). A wife and children are prerequisites for appointment to the office of deacon. The need for this requirement was explained under the qualifications of bishops in verse 5, “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”

We have an example of part of the work of deacons in Acts 6. Some believe that those appointed in Acts 6:1-7 were not true deacons. Their conclusion is based on the assumption that the office of deacon had not yet been established. Others assume that the office of deacon did exist but there were no deacons assigned with the duties of caring for the Grecian widows. They conclude that the seven men appointed in Acts 6 represented the first deacons assigned to care for the foreigners (McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, and Ecclesiastical Literature, p. 705). One does not have to make any assumptions about the work these men were given. They ministered by making sure that the needs of the Grecian widows were not neglected. Who could be better suited for such service than men who had proven their ability by providing well for their own families?

Marriage is a divine institution, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Husbands and wives are to become one (Matt. 19:6). There is no closer relationship that can exist between a man and a woman. The experiences of one will have an effect on the other, because to a degree all experiences are joint experiences. They share one another’s joys, sorrows and responsibilities. A man can not take on the major task of serving as a deacon without the support and encouragement of his wife. Therefore, we should not be surprised to find some qualifications for the wife and family listed among those of the man who might serve as a deacon.

The Qualifications of the Deacon’s Wife

First, she must be a Christian. This is understood from the statement, “faithful in all things.” Would God give qualification for service in his kingdom to someone not in his kingdom? How could he expect an unbeliever to accept and maintain them? He would not! By the very fact that he has stated qualifications that must be met by the deacon’s wife, we must conclude that she must first be a child of God. She could not understand her husband’s sacrifice and service, if she were not a faithful Christian. How else could she be expected to encourage him; contribute the sympathy; and make the sacrifices that will be required of her? God has not called to “special service” those who have never answered the gospel call to service!

The mates that people choose say something about their Christian maturity. What does it say about a Christian who takes as his lifelong companion one who is not a Christian? At best it demonstrates poor judgment and at worst that he is not “grave,” but lack genuineness in his faith. It says that he doesn’t fully understand the relationship of a man and a wife and perhaps not even the relationship of Christ and the church (Eph. 5:22-33).

Second, she must be “grave” (1 Tim. 3:11). This is the same positive qualification that deacons must possess (1 Tim. 3:8). She has a, sense of conduct worthy of respect and honor. It’s seen in a character that is noble and dignified. The genuineness and stability of her faith generates this respect.

Third, she must not be “slanderous. ” This is from the Greek word diabolos. This verse (1 Tim. 3:11) is the only place it is translated “slanderer” in the KJV. It is translated ” false accuser” twice and “devil” thirty-five times. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, “. . . is used as a noun, translated ‘slanderers’ in 1 Tim. 3:11, where the reference is to those who are given to finding fault with the demeanour and conduct of others, and spreading their innuendos and criticisms in the church.” A deacon’s wife should not be a ” she-devil, ” one who goes about making false accusations.

Most congregations have enough real problems and shortcomings to keep the elders and deacons busy. A deacon doesn’t need added discouragement from his wife. Such a “she-devil” is like Job’s wife who encouraged him to “curse God, and die” (Job 2:9). The real problems of the church she blows out of proportion. If there aren’t enough problems she’ll fabricate some. This type wife would soon drain the zeal and energy of a good man.

Fourth, she must be “sober. ” To limit the meaning to simply the abstinence from alcohol would be a mistake. In Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich’s Greek-English Lexicon (2nd ed.), it defines naphalos as, “. . temperate in the use of alcoholic beverages, sober, clear-headed, self-controlled.” It describes a person with a well balanced life. She abstains from those things that would be harmful and uses the things that are good in moderation. She is not extravagant or excessive in dress or speech. Her life shows common sense and she practices self-restraint with the strength that comes from a clear mind.

The Qualifications of Deacons’ Children

The Scriptures tell us that elders are to have “children in subjection with all gravity” (1 Tim. 3:4) and “having faithful children not accused or riot or unruly” (Tit. 1:6). Yet of the deacons we are told only that they should be men, “ruling their children and their own houses well.” This is a positive command directed toward the deacons and not toward their children. Unlike the children of elders there are no qualifications for the deacon’s children. Because of this a young man with very small children might qualify as a deacon. However, as his children grow, a deacon may have to use his physical strength and will have to use his spiritual strength to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). In so doing he will continue to prove himself one who rules his house well.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, pp. 681, 687
November 16, 1989

By Harry E. Osborne

In the last couple of weeks, I have received several notices of “Christian concerts” in the area. Of course, this kind of thing is very common in a denominational world caught up in the “social gospel” methods of getting attention and members. However, the notices of these concerts are, in my estimation, especially worthy of some comment. Some thought needs to be given to the statements made and ideas left by some of these things.

One of these notices came in with a full color brochure picturing six guys, I think, called “Mylon and Broken Heart.” All of them had hair past their shoulders (cf. 1 Cor. 11:14). The concert is advertised as an “action packed event” with an “explosive light show” and “58,000 watts of state of the art digital sound reinforcement by Peavey.” That ought to be enough for anyone to hear them even should a nuclear war break out during the concert. They must be a rock group – nobody else can stand that much noise.

All of this is necessary, I am sure, to reach their stated goal. They say, “This is more than a concert – it’s a ministry opportunity!” In the brochure, one member of the group is quoted as saying, “Our desire is to share the Lord with you and your friends.” He signs it, “Love, Mylon.” They say those coming to the concert will “hear the Gospel.” By the way, if you would like to “hear the Gospel,” these fellows will “share” it with you for $9.50, $10.50, or $11.50 depending on how close you want to be while you “hear the Gospel.”

As I read this flyer, several questions came to my mind:

(1) Does the Gospel of the crucified Christ need the hype of exploding lights to make it “action packed” enough for this society? If exploding lights are necessary to attract someone, their interest will be in exploding lights, not the Gospel. They will leave with the lights. Jesus said the same thing in principle to those seeking physical food rather than his message during his ministry (Jn. 6:26-45). If the fact that Jesus died on the cross so that they could be free from the penalty of sin and have a hope of heaven does not interest them, how are exploding lights going to make them change their minds?

(2) Just how do these guys plan to “share” the Gospel with their audience? Jesus instructed his apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature (Mk. 16:15). That task was achieved when the apostles revealed the message in words chosen by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:10-13). Paul says he was appointed “a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher” of that Gospel (2 Tim. 1:8-11). What is the point? The Gospel is a message which must be communicated in words. You don’t convey the message of that Gospel by strumming a C-chord, bashing the drums, and strutting across the stage. It is that message in words that can bring men to be purified and born again (1 Pet. 1:22-25).

(3) Can you imagine Jesus charging admission? The commercialism of selling seats so that people can “hear the Gospel” is totally foreign to the examples of Jesus and his apostles recorded in the Bible. It smacks of the commercial practices of the Catholic church in medieval times as they sold indulgences. How serious can the sinner take one who offers salvation only after receipt of admission amount? The world has seen “business world religion” in charlatans like Jim and Tammy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts, and others who will save you for a buck. How seriously are they taken by the undeluded?

Another announcement bears the picture of a “Christian hard-rock” group called Stryper. Maybe I should say it bares the picture of this group because that is what one of the four is from the waist up (except for his suspenders). They look like Alice Cooper, KISS, or the hairy monster from your most horrible nightmare. Charles Darwin may be right about these guys. Their announcement makes no promise of teaching one the Gospel, but they do promise to charge $16.75 for each ticket. I doubt seriously if anyone will hear these fellows talking about the Bible teaching on modest apparel.

A third notice came from the First Baptist Church here in Alvin. Their building and Family Life Center, a kind of church playground for all ages, sets just around the corner from our building. They have invited all in the area to a “Christian concert” featuring a saxophonist. His list of concerts is given and I am impressed. This fellow has perform, ed before the Ambassador of Poland, the President of Liberia, and the King and Queen of the Zoolu tribe. The New York Times is quoted as saying this saxophonist’s New York concert was “almost exhaustingly cathartic.” In fact, this notice says he is acclaimed by critics as the “World’s Greatest Gospel Saxophonist.”

Now this is where I have a bit of trouble with terms. What exactly is a “Gospel Saxophonist”? If the Gospel is Christ’s message revealed in words chosen by the Spirit (as we have previously shown), how can anyone teach the Gospel by means of a saxophone? Don’t get me wrong, I love the sound of a saxophone. It is a beautiful instrument and the one who can play it well has my highest regard. But how do those notes cause one to hear the verbal message of Jesus necessary to produce faith (Rom. 10:17)? I must confess total ignorance as to how a saxophone can do this.

The notice also says that this saxophonist has performed C don virtually every major Christian television broadcast in America” where he “played for Jesus.” Included in that list was one show, The Church of God in Christ Telecast, that teaches there is only one person in the Godhead. In other words, this program denies the Jesus our “Gospel Saxophonist” is supposed to play for. I certainly hope his saxophone spoke clearly there. He also played on “Trinity Broadcasting” which maintains that there are three persons in the Godhead. I wonder what differences there were in the two performances.

The claim is repeatedly made that this saxophonist “plays for Jesus.” He is said to have had asthma so bad he could hardly breathe as a young man. He says that he asked Jesus to heal him of his asthma. When did this happen? As he was walking home after playing his saxophone at a Kansas City night spot. He then relates the answer to his prayer as follows: “A few days later I was upstairs in our home sitting alone and thinking extemporaneously. (One wonders how you could think non-extemporaneously – H.O.) I remember blowing a song on my horn for Jesus and then taking one deep breath, and everything was gone! Gone! Gone out of my lungs! Jesus had touched me and now I blow for Him!”

Just think, this can start a whole series for our Baptist friends. They can get a “Gospel Cook” who can “fry for Jesus.” Following that can be the “Gospel Glider” who will “fly for Jesus.” Then there can be the “Gospel Barber” who can “clip for Jesus.” Wouldn’t that be sheerly divine? They might even conclude the series with the woman in the Unitarian church who calls herself the “Gospel Stripper” and have a “strip for Jesus.” Lest anyone take me seriously, let me hasten to add that I do not recommend such.

The letter sent with this notice concludes by asking local churches to cancel Sunday evening worship services so that all can listen to this saxophonist. Is listening to a saxophone concert more important than worshiping God? Again, I love the saxophone, but should I love it more than worshiping, adoring and learning about my God? God forbid! A social gospel which depends upon entertainment to reach people is not what Jesus or his apostles taught. We must look to the Bible to find what Jesus would have us teach and practice. We need not depend on entertainment, hype, or gimmicks – just the power of his message of truth (Rom. 1:16). Let us never take the first step in the path of social gospelism which leads to such a mess!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 21, p. 660
November 2, 1989