Truth Magazine

By Dan Walters

Romans 2:7-16, especially verse 14, has been used by James Bales and other brethren to prove that alien sinners are not under law to Christ and are thus exempt from the marriage law contained in the Gospel. This verse says that “when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.” Other brethren have taken this further and are teaching that these “Gentiles,” alien sinners who have not heard the Gospel, will be judged by this “law unto themselves” and will then be saved, if obedient to this law, without the Gospel.

It is noted that Paul speaks, in the present tense, and so if is assumed that what is said here of Jews and Gentiles still applies in the Gospel age. But remember that Paul here speaks of both Jews and Gentiles in a parallel sense. He writes in verse 12: “For as many as have sinned without law shall be judged by the law.” If it is true that Gentiles may be saved by obedience to their unwritten law, then it is also true that Jews may be saved by obedience to the law of Moses. “For there is no respect of persons with God” (v. 11). This argument proves too much; it proves that the law of Moses is still in effect for Jews and that they may be saved under its provisions if they have not heard the Gospel. Since Paul speaks of Jews who were responsible to the law, he has to be speaking of those who lived under that law before it was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). The same is true for the Gentiles; he speaks of those who lived before the Gospel came into effect.

Men are taking Paul’s argument and reversing it. Paul was establishing the fact that both Jews and Gentiles were in an equally lost condition and were equally in need of the gospel of Christ. The modern reasoning is that both can be saved without it. There is a difference between the way God judges people today and the way he judged them before the cross. This is seen in Paul’s words to the men of Athens: “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent (Acts 17:30).

Is forgiveness of sins promised today to those who obey the moral law, but have not heard the Gospel? If so, where in the Scriptures is this clearly taught? Cornelius was a Gentile and a good moral man (Acts 10:1,2). If Peter had never gone to him with the Gospel, would he have been saved anyway due to his obedience to the unwritten law? The angel told Cornelius that Peter would “tell these words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” (Acts If: 14). Some brethren have said that the ignorant are already in a saved condition, and that the reason we should preach the Gospel to them is the same reason we cultivate a crop of corn, to make it a better crop. But if Peter’s words would save Cornelius, this clearly implies that Cornelius was lost before he heard the words. If Cornelius, as upright a man as he was, was lost, does this leave us much room to hope for the salvation of those today who have never heard the Gospel?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 580, 594
October 5, 1989

By Dr. Fred Schwarz

Otis Galewood was a prime mover in foisting the centralized sponsoring church digression upon churches of Christ in the 1940s-50s. In recent years, he has been hailed as a hero among brethren who are plummeting deeper and deeper into the abyss of apostasy. He is a promoter par excellence and speaks “great swelling words” with much enthusiasm (Jude 16). His work was aimed at defeated Nazi Germany in earlier years, but later he spearheaded an effort based in Austria to reach into communist countries. Alas, brother Gatewood appears to be as ignorant of the real doctrines of communism as he is about the true doctrine of Christ! While arousing liberal brethren to support his programs designed to convert people from communism to Christ, brother Gatewood needs to study both more carefully himself. We are reminded that enthusiasm and good intentions are not enough. The following is by Dr. Fred Schwarz, Christian Anti-Communism Crusade (bulletin), 15 May 1989, P. 0. Box 890, Long Beach, CA 90801-0890. Schwarz is a Baptist.

Evangelical Misinformation Concerning Communism

If a prize were to be awarded to the individual who could compress the greatest amount of false information into a single paragraph, the author of the following statement would be the likely winner.

Communists Are Advocates of Practical Christianity

The communists themselves are in some ways advocates of Christianity. They teach truthfulness, honesty, thrift, industry, dedication, equality of all, monogamy, chastity, sobriety, diligence, obedience, humility, patience, love and honor in the family, productivity, fruitfulness and erect great schools and hospitals, and give support to their aged. All these things are fruits of Christianity. The communists, in practice cannot be said to be heathen. They are in many respects, practicing Christians, even though with their mouths they deny Christianity. One communist guide in Kiev pointed with pride to the statue of prince Vladimir, on the banks of the Dreiper River, who brought Christianity to the Soviet Union. I asked: “Have things been better since Christianity was brought to the Soviet Union?” She replied: “Very definitely because before Christianity came here our people worshipped stones. Now we worship God.” They deny God, yet they confess him, not only in action, but also in words.

This statement is contained in an article entitled, “The Communists As Ministers of God,” which is authorized by Otis Gatewood and published in the magazine, World- Wide Contact, Vol. XXIII, No. 3. The masthead of the magazine proclaimed that it is “Communicating Worldwide Evangelism in the 20th Century. ” Dr. Otis Gatewood is listed as one of the editors, and his address is given as: Box 15, A-1235, Vienna, Austria. The other editor listed is David Gatewood with the address: Christian Counseling Center, 424 No. Lake Avenue, Pasadena, California 91101.

The statement that the Communists teach the qualities listed is egregiously false. The truth is that the Communist leaders teach the exact opposite of what the statement alleges concerning most of the qualities.

Since it would require a book to present what the Communists teach on each of the qualities listed, I will select “equality for all” and document what the Communist leaders, such as Marx, Lenin and Gorbachev have taught concerning it.

People Are Unequal – Basic Communist Doctrine

Karl Marx taught that people are fundamentally unequal. They are divided into two unequal classes by the circumstances of their birth and upbringing. One class is good, the other evil; one is destined for life, the other for extermination.

These two classes are the proletariat or working class, and the bourgeoisie, the middleclass owners of property.

In the famous “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” Karl Marx states:

Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and proletariat (p. 41, Progress Publishers, Moscow edition).

You must, therefore confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible (p. 66).

When the Communists have conquered power, their practice has been guided by these statements of Marx. Under Lenin, “justice” was administered by considering the class to which the defendant belonged. As an official of the security apparatus, the Cheka stated:

We are not carrying out war against individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. We are not lookingfor evidence or witnesses to reveal deeds or words against the Sovietpower. Thefirst question we ask is: to what class does he belong, what are his origins, upbringing, education, or profession? These questions define thefate of the accused (Destructive Generation, p. 289).

One recent example of the extermination of the “unequal” class, the bourgeoisie, by the Communists, is the hideous slaughter of all who could read and write, or who had soft hands, by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. To have been a doctor before Communist conquest was punished by death.

Every Communist leader, from Marx to Gorbachev, has repeatedly stressed the inequality of people and classes. Let us skip over Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Mao Tse-tung, and come to Gorbachev. He states:

On this point we want to be perfectly clear., socialism has nothing to do with equalizing. Socialism cannot ensure conditions of life and consumption in accordance with the principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (Perestroika, p. 100).

It needs to be noted that Gorbachev defines socialism as the first stage of Communism. The Soviet Union is ruled by Communists, but these rulers impose Socialism, not “Communism.” The USSR is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Overwhelming evidence could also be presented that the Communists do not teach or practice most of the other qualities attributed to them in the article.

Attention to the instruction of 2 Peter 1:5 is indicated:

“Add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge.

Ignorance opens the door to deception and may prove to be as deadly as treason.

(One of our readers sent me the copy of Contact magazine. It is postmarked Mar. 30, 1989. I found no date on the magazine, only the numbers – Vol. XXIII, No. 3. I assumed it was a recent publication, but a careful reading of the contents suggests it was published a decade ago. This rebuttal is 10 years overdue, but the delusions exposed still exist today in many minds.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 18, pp. 564-565
September 21, 1989

By Dr. Fred Schwarz

Sin and suffering are satanic Siamese twins; the latter always accompanies the former.

The evil genius of Abbie Hoffman enabled him to make sin appear glamorous, and he lured countless young people into a life of pain and misery through drugs and disease.

Hoffman was an “activist” in the New Left that ranted and raged in the 1960’s. He founded an amorphous organization called the Youth International Party, commonly known as the Yippies. The members of this “party” sought to employ sex and drugs to de-energize and destroy American society. Hoffman practiced what Herbert Marcuse preached.

He wrote the book Revolution for the Hell of It in which he promoted the use of sex and drugs. He commended girls who ran away from home in their early teens and joined the promiscuous hordes of “street people.” He promoted theft by another book entitled, Steal This Book.

He captivated the news media by promoting the “Theatre of the Absurd,” casting dollar bills over the brokers in the New York Stock Exchange, and claiming to levitate, or lift from the ground, the pentagon, during a protest demonstration against the Vietnam War.

His true character was revealed when he fled to escape arrest for selling a large quantity of Cocaine. When he finally surrendered to the authorities after spending years underground, he was treated as a hero by many in the news media.

In one sense, Hoffman serves as a mirror in which the true character of much of the news media is revealed. I first learned of his death from a program on CNN Television. Judging by the adulation given him by the announcer, it might be thought he was worthy of sainthood. His co-conspirators, Jerry Rubin and William Kuntsler, were presented to eulogize him. Rubin, brushing away crocodile tears, claimed Hoffman had changed the world.

In a sense, Rubin was right. As a pusher of drugs, Hoffman increased drug abuse and its associated disease in the U.SA. and Europe.

Shakespeare states in the play, Julius Caesar: “The evil men do lives after them. ” This is certainly true of Hoffman Many will continue to sin and suffer from the evil which he did. Drugs will destroy lives and children will suffer abuse.

During much of his life he wore the uniform of a clown. While making others laugh, his own misery must have been intense. I am reminded of the story of the man who consulted a doctor because of severe suicidal depression. The doctor prescribed tranquilizers and anti-depressants without success. Finally in desperation he said: “Recently I attended an entertainment which featured a brilliant clown. He provoked roars of laughter from the audience. I have never laughed so much in my life. Go and watch him.”

Sadly the man replied: “Sir, I am that clown.”

The suicide of Abbie Hoffman, in the prime of his life, proclaims to all the world, “I was that clown.”

(This article was written by Dr. Fred Schwarz and appeared in the 15 May 1989 issue of his bulletin, Christian Anti-Communism Crusade, P. 0. Box 890, Long Beach, CA 90801-0890. Many of us remember the rebellion and mayhem promoted by Hoffman. He hated every standard and symbol of authority, both civil and religious. “Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities” [Jude 81. Hoffman’s tragic suicide confirms what the Bible says of such people: “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption ” [2 Pet. 2:19]. Ron Halbrook, 654 Gray St., W. Columbia, TX 77486.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, p. 585
October 5, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

Controversy and argument among the Lord’s people is not new. Much of the New Testament reveals doctrinal division among brethren (Acts 15; Gal.; 2 Thess.). This article is not written to criticize and condemn examination and investigation of issues that are matters of dispute. Perhaps, though, there is a need to reflect on another aspect of texts, passages and subjects that are under study.

For Example

It is easy to get “caught up” in a discussion with a Baptist on the purpose of baptism. Is it “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38)? What does the word “for” mean? Run to the lexicons and cite the translations of the phrase, “for the remission of sins.” Compare the related verses (Mk. 16:16; Acts 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). The smell of blood fills the air; my opponent is withering and writhing! I am right I He is wrong! I have slain another foe! How clever I was! How penetrating were my unanswerable questions! I tied him up! He was made to look like an idiot; he did not know what to say or which way to turn! I nailed him good – another victory for truth!

Sound familiar? These disputes occur, and they are necessary. But is it possible that I am exterminating error without regenerating souls? Is it a lust for triumph, for display of debating skills, or is it a genuine love for truth and lost souls that motivates me? The Ephesian church was doctrinally sound. They ran false teachers out of town -“Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars” (Rev. 2:2). However, they had left their “first love” (Rev. 2:4). In today’s conflicts, “Lord, is it l?”

Apply the same thoughts to instrumental music, the work and organization of the church, Pentecostalism (Holy Spirit baptism, miracles, tongues), marriage, divorce and remarriage, and such like. Is it possible to win argument; but not souls? Again, the arguments and discussions are essential. Not every exchange of views will result in conversion (Acts 28:22-28). Still, the battles must be fought on these topics. Fight them with vigor. Cry aloud and spare not. Read, study, write and teach the truth “with much contention” (1 Thess. 2:2), but remember what your goal and purpose is.

Let us study the meaning and application of Scriptures like 1 John 1:6-2:2. But if I understand and handle aright every Greek tense, yet, fail to gently lead an erring brother to repent, confess and pray, what have I gained? If I prove “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that no piano or organ is justified in Ephesians 5:19, but never teach brethren to sing and make melody in their hearts to the Lord, what have I achieved? If I convince brethren that the Lord’s supper is to be taken only on the first day of the week, but never cause them to discern the Lord’s body, remembering and showing his death, what have I accomplish ed? If I can show the truth in marriage and divorce and rout every false argument, but neglect to teach my children the basis of a loving home, what have I gained?

“These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 18, p. 552
September 21, 1989