Truth Magazine

By Bobby L. Graham

About thirty years ago at the Holt-Wallace Debate in Florence, Alabama, brother G.A. Dunn remarked to this writer’s father that most problems that had come about among the Lord’s people related to money. Whether his judgment was -precisely correct or not, experience indicates his remark apropos. The variety of problems involving money in local churches and among different local churches has included disdain for the very idea of a local-church treasury, reluctance to use the money collected, and looseness in the use of church funds.

A Local Church Treasury

The first congregation in Jerusalem had a treasury under the control of the apostles. Acts 4:32-5:10 demonstrates that generous saints funded the physical assistance of their brethren’s daily needs. The funds likely never made it to the bank, but a fund was initiated and maintained for an indefinite period of time for the expeditious meeting of needs.

When the apostle was trying to raise funds for the physical needs of the poor among the saints in Jerusalem, Paul instructed local churches in Galatia and Achaia to do as the Christians in Macedonia were doing in this matter (I Cor. 16:14; Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:1-7). He told them to store up (“treasure up” in Greek) their money collected on the first day of every week to prevent the necessity for collecting it upon his arrival.

From these two accounts it is easy to observe that an appointed work justly belonging to a local church is the only justification needed for a local treasury, for it helps to expedite work assigned by the Head of the church. Because some works continue over a long time, it is wise to maintain a standing treasury to meet the continuing needs. When the money was collected at Corinth, it remained in a pool or fund for some time. How long that time was, makes no difference in the matter of justifying a local treasury. When a church agrees to support a preacher at home or in another area, it usually exercises prudence in making sure that it has sufficient funds to meet its commitment to the man, either through periodic contributions alone or through both contributions and money treasured up in the event of loss of income to some of the local contributors. Those who decry the scripturalness of a local treasury need to open their eyes to these Scriptures and the wisdom of conducting the Lord’s work in a predictable manner, as much as possible.

Reluctance to Use Money

To some brethren the treasury seems to be an end in itself. The sole reason for having it is to have it. Oh, some quip that the money is needed for unexpected events such as building or equipment repairs or disaster-caused needs among saints. The point that needs to be seen, however, is that they see no imperative for proclaiming the gospel in a single place to the benighted souls of earth. To such the highest calling for that money is to repair the air conditioner, replace the roof, or send $100 to brethren hit by a hurricane. (Such writing does not mean that such needs do not exist and they should not be prepared for by a church.) Evidently they have forgotten they need to sound out the gospel like Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1:8), send men to plant the gospel and strengthen the saved like Antioch (Acts 13:1-3), receive laborers in the gospel and send them forward on their journey as in 3 John 5-8, and be partners with workers in their needs (Phil.4:15,16). Is it possible they have closed their eyes to some among than who have medical needs, housing needs, or other physical needs that they are unable to meet except with a forty-year debt. Brethren, need to be more generous in seeing and meeting legitimate needs. We do not need to be loose with God’s Word, but we need to be liberal toward those described by the Lord as objects of our help.

It might be wise to remember that a brother doesn’t need to be penniless before the church can help him. When the congregation waits that long, it only increases the amount of help it must give him. Greedy church treasurers, elders land brethren who close their eyes to needs for the gospel and the needs of evangelists, and churches who disregard the needs of the poor among the saints win answer to God for their neglect. I’ll tell you frankly that the judgment will not be pleasant for such as these.

Some churches envision no more noble use for “their money” than saving it. Could they possibly be concerned about the banker’s needs? Do you think they might be saving it until Jesus returns? Just think of it: they win be able to turn over to the Lord all that money! What a joy that will be. Oh, brethren, how carnal we are. We are willing to give the Lord money, but not souls. Is such really the mission that he has given us?

To those who sincerely fear an emergency need which the local church could not meet without a sizeable fund, some remarks are addressed. Most of the emergencies that brethren anticipate never materialize. When an emergency does arise, brethren who have been taught properly will respond properly. We need to be teaching Christians to be liberal and to respond to increasing needs. Elders who truly lead will teach and challenge the people to rise to needs according to their ability and even beyond their ability (2 Cor. 8:1-6). Christians who learn that the Lord does not seek theirs but them will be better prepared to give themselves unreservedly, with the effect of considering all that they possess as belonging to the Lord (2 Cor. 8:5; 12:14). If the need arising exceeds the church’s capacity, there is always the route of borrowing, to which we resort for buildings. Why not for other needs in those very few instances where needed? There is also a lack of trust in brethren in the local church to respond favorably, as well as in brethren in other churches to assist in time of need.

In conclusion remember that every appeal to Christians to give of their financial means was accompanied with the work for which the money would be used. All giving in the New Testament was done for a work. None was ever given to accumulate and hold a large fund I May we all learn the lesson and do likewise!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 9, pp. 257, 279
May 4, 1989

By Bill Dodd

Luther Blackmon was an interesting, colorful, and in some ways a unique man. He grew up on a farm in Texas, migrating to Houston while still a very young man. Even though he quit school in the ninth grade, he could quote line after line of Shakespeare and possessed a massive English vocabulary; furthermore, his lack of formal education did not deter him from taking on some of the champions of evolution in Life Magazine, moreover, he shared the same pulpit with the illustrious Roy E. Cogdill in the 1940s.

Luther was a very effective preacher in the pulpit. He was very dynamic as well as colorful. Popular audiences, as well as preachers, enjoyed hearing Luther preach. He -was also a very effective writer. Luther’s fort6 as a writer, in my estimation, was his ability to write pithy and punchy short articles. He once said that the advantage of the short article is: “You will not come as near writing yourself into a corner and thus proving that you did not know what you were talking about in the first place.”

It has been mentioned already that Luther was a very colorful man; he possessed a delightful sense of humor. His notorious exploits of absent-mindedness gives additional color to his life. Even though he could quote massive amounts of Scripture, his capacity for forgetfulness sometimes rendered him hilarious. One such example of this hilarity surrounds the story of his borrowing an “A” model car and giving a number of young ladies a ride to a gospel meeting only to forget the car and the young ladies, catching a ride home with someone else. He also had to mount a compass in his car to keep from getting lost.

Some may raise some questions pertaining to my credentials for writing his biography. Let me say forthrightly that I don’t have any credentials. I will say that I loved and appreciated Luther Blackmon. I knew him for a short time in Northern Ohio (1967,68). Brother Blackmon was an encouragement to me when I was a struggling young preacher. He thought that he saw some things in me that others had not seen, or at least if they had, for the most part, they kept it to themselves. Perhaps someone more qualified for such an undertaking would come forth in the near future for such an undertaking. This needs to be done while some of his contemporaries are stiff living. In the meantime, I would appreciate receiving any information about the life of Luther Blackmon. Also, I would appreciate some critiquing of his abilities as a preacher and writer. Any advice would also be appreciated.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, p. 235
April 20, 1989

By Jack Rooper

Sword of the Lord (3 February 1989)

Did you ever wonder what was going on in the mind of a minister just before he begins his message to a church full of bereaved relatives?

They have finally gotten John Doe in church. Yes, they have been trying in vain for a long time to get him to start attending church. Well, the day finally has come; he is in church today.

The sad part about his presence is that he is there against his will. He can’t see, hear or talk; in fact, he can’t do anything.. He’s dead! Man, what a shame he’s already dead. Why, if he had still been alive, the preacher could preach to him about Jesus and possibly get him to trust Christ as Savior. Now it’s too late for any preaching for him; he has closed his ears for the last time.

The minister is on the spot – “between a rock and a hard place.” He knows of nothing good to say about John Doe, and if he makes up something, God will not be pleased. If he doesn’t say a lot of nice things about him, the minister will look pretty badly in the eyes of the bereaved relatives.

So he has the big question- in his mind, “Am I going to please God or man? Am I going to preach this message like God would want me to, or am I going to try to make his wife, children and friends feel better? If I don’t say some pretty words, they may never ask me to preach any more of the family’s funerals.”

The minister thinks for a moment, but now it’s time to take the stand for the message. He makes up his mind, “I am going to please God and preach this message as I feel God would if he were here.”

Dear wife, children, family and friends of John Doe:

Today I am sure is a very sad occasion for each of you. You have lost a husband, father, or friend. No doubt he was a good provider, good to the children, even maybe a pretty good moral person, but I must say you have done wrong by bringing him here for his funeral service. I am sure if John Doe could come back to life, he would jump up out of that coffin, run down that aisle and out that door and hate every one of you for bringing him here today!

I never knew John Doe very well, but one thing I did know about him was that he never would attend church. Yes, this is one place he never did want to come, and I think you have done him an injustice to bring him here today. To do right by him you should have had his services conducted some place where he would have liked to have been, say down at the beer “joint” or at one of his other favorite places. Why, one of the best friends he had was the bartender. Yes, the bartender would know a lot more to say about John Doe than 1. Even his bar buddies could serve as pallbearers. I am sure John would have liked that. Maybe they could have christened his coffin with a bottle of whiskey as it was being lowered into the grave.

Yes, dear friends, I am sure you have brought John here against his will. He used to make jokes about the church.

He even said several of the members were hypocrites. According to God’s Word, his soul is now in Hell, and there is nothing we can say or do that will change that.

You may say that a preacher would never do a thing like that. That’s right; he may not, because most preachers try to please man rather than God. By bringing your John Doe to church for the pastor to preach his funeral, you have done it against his will and made a hypocrite out of the minister.

If you are a John Doe and don’t like to attend church while you are living, for the sake of the church and the minister, please tell your family not to drag your corpse to the church when you are dead.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, p. 237
April 20, 1989

By Jady W. Copeland

When Simon tried to buy the power of God with money, the apostle told him that his heart was not right with God. “Right” according to W.E. Vine means “straight, hence, metaphorically, right, is so rendered in Acts 8:21, of the heart.” According to the same scholar “righteousness” means “the character or quality of being right or just; it was formerly spelled ‘rightwiseness,’ which clearly expresses its meaning” (Etpository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Vol. 3, p. 298). God is righteous (Rom. 3:5) meaning he is faithful, truthful and consistent with his nature. God is righteous (right) to the perfect degree. Man can be made righteous (right) by God through the blood of Christ, not of our own merits, but through faith in Christ as the redeemer (Rom. 3:21-26). Man is a sinner, and hence deserves death, but the love of God, the sacrifice of Christ and man’s faithful obedience provides the way mankind can be righteous (or right).

Being right carries the idea of a standard of right and wrong. Under the word “just” Vine says, “In the N.T. it denotes righteous, a state of being right, or right conduct, judged whether by the Divine standard, or according to human standards, of what is right” (Vine, Vol. 2, p. 283). Sometimes we say, “You are right” to which another may respond, “In whose eyes?” Insofar as our relationship to God is concerned, there is only one “right” way and that way is revealed in the Scriptures. You and I may differ on a point, and from my viewpoint, I am right and you are wrong. If we differ, one is wrong. If we are speaking of a scriptural matter, both could be wrong in the eyes of God, for neither may be right. But God is always right. If I differ with God, I am always wrong. “Let God be true.”

As noted earlier, if mankind is right in God’s eyes, God made him that way. Once man becomes a sinner, he can only be just in the sight of God by him pronouncing him righteous. We cannot be saved on meritorious works, but God pronounces us just (right) in our faith (Rom. 4:1-4; 5:1-2). Thus, if we are to be saved (right in God’s sight), it will come when God declares us just in our faith.

Depravity Is Not Inherited

Babies are not born in sin; they did not inherit the sin of Adam or their parents. Ezekiel 18 teaches clearly that one is responsible for his own sin, and will face God for what he does, not what his parents were guilty of; so in the judgment we must stand on our own life. But at some point in life, this person grows up and becomes a sinner. He becomes a sinner when he does wrong (sins) and thereby needs salvation. Since he cannot be saved by “doing good” (regardless of how long he may be a good person), he must have the only remedy that offers salvation – the blood of Christ. Sin separates man from God (Isa. 59:1-2; Rom. 6:23). I saw a bumper sticker that read something like this, “If you and God are separated, who moved?” Well it certainly was not God. Therefore to be reconciled to God, we have to “move back.” God, if he is consistent with his will and nature, cannot move away from his position.

Steps of Salvation

Sometimes we speak of the five steps of salvation. I understand what they mean, but I prefer to go a step further. When a person hears the gospel, he must have the desire to accept it, and to ream he is wrong. One of the big problems today in converting people (at least in my experience) is getting them to realize they are wrong. Until one realizes he is not a Christian, he is not going to “move” away from his present position. I have read a lot of “experts” in personal evangelism, but I have never found an easy way to make one who has been in denominationalism most of his life reafte he is lost. “Faith only” has been preached so long, and it is such an easy way that it makes it very desirable. Add that to the social gospel of our day, and you have a combination that is difficult to overcome. But there is never a place for us to stop trying. Some will still accept the simple gospel.

Note an old approach to God’s plan to save man. Three times the question (or its equivalent) was asked and the answers given. In Acts 16:30 it was asked by a pagan jailor, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” The reply, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved.” Obviously he could not believe (as was necessary for salvation) at that point, for he had not yet heard the word of God, and one cannot have saving faith without hearing the gospel (Rom. 1:16-17). After the word was preached, his faith is evidenced by his desiring baptism. Now note the reading of the American Standard translation of verse 34: “And, he brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God.” Note the tense of the verb: “having believed in God. ” This clearly teaches even from the grammar, that faith was not complete until he had obeyed the command of baptism.

Again the question was asked in Acts 2:37, “Brethren, what shall we do?” We need not bother ourselves as to what they had asked about, for the answer by an inspired man tells us about what they were asking salvation from sin. Do for what? For remission of sins, clearly as Peter’s answer tells us. His reply, “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v. 38). Faith is not specifically mentioned, but the idea is very clear in verse 36. Peter had already told them to believe in that verse. “Know assuredly” means “to believe confidently.” W.E. Vine says of this word, “(b) assuredly, Acts 2:36; the knowledge there enjoined involves freedom from fear of contradiction, with an intimation of the impossibility of escape from the effects” (v. 1, p. 85). Hence Peter preached, the people heard, believed, repented and were baptized.

A third time the question was asked was in Acts 22:10. Here Saul heard the voice as he was on the road to Damascus, and the light blinded him; thus he fell to the ground. The voice told him to so to the city and it would be told him what to do. Again, the answer he received clearly shows what he was asking. I have often thought that if ever there was a good occasion for the Lord to tell a sinner what to do to be saved in a direct manner, this would have been the time. He certainly had Saul’s attention. He was already in conversation with him, and he even had Saul asking the right question for the occasion. How could the Lord refuse to answer him? Because that is not the Lord’s way of saving people. He has never related directly to the masses of the people his plan for salvation. He lets his servants do that, so he told Saul to go to Damascus to find out. Ananias was sent by the Lord to instruct Saul, and after some hesitation, the preacher went to the street where Saul was, still blind and praying. The former persecutor was told to “arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). Why was he not told to have faith? He already had faith (v. 10). Why was he not told to repent? Isn’t that necessary? It was for those on Pentecost. It was here as well, but the evidence showed clearly that he was already penitent. In the original account of Saul’s conversion (Acts 9), we note that Saul had been smitten blind and was praying during those three days (w. 9-11) while waiting for the preacher. This certainly argues for the fact that he was penitent. In addition, in the account in Acts 26 Paul said that he “declared both to them of Damascus first, and at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance” (Acts 26:20). Would Paul immediately preach repentance to others when he himself had not done so? So, we note that Saul also heard Christ preached, believed on him, turned from his sins, and was baptized to “wash away” his sins. When faith is this active, God puts it to his account for righteousness and pronounces him righteous. Neither the jailor, the Pentecostians nor Saul of Tarsus deserved salvation. They did not merit it, but they became right -righteous. Why? Because they accepted the generous offer of salvation from God who promised it to all by the blood of Christ (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14).

Do you want to be right in the eyes of God? If so, you will have to be right in the same way these were. You may think you are right, but maybe you are judging yourself by the wrong standard. Re-read the first two paragraphs of this article and see.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, pp. 238-239
April 20, 1989