Truth Magazine

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

By Ronny Milliner

In the closing part of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus shows the importance of obedience. He declares that the one who enters the kingdom of heaven will be “he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matt. 7:21b).

While we can learn about obedience in this section, we can also learn what is not obedience in these verses. There are many individuals in our society today who believe they are accepted by God. But the things to which they appeal to prove this acceptability are the things that Jesus shows are no proof at all.

Praying

In verse 21 Jesus speaks of some individuals who were calling upon him as Lord, but he says to them, “I never knew you” (Matt. 7:23). I have heard individuals at funerals say that if the deceased just had a moment to call upon Jesus as Lord that the person would have been saved. But Jesus clearly shows here that there is more to it than just praying.

In Acts 9:11 Ananias was told to go to Saul who was praying at the house of Judas. When Ananias got there to tell the penitent persecutor what he “must do” (Acts 9:6), notice that he did not tell him to keep on praying. Instead he said, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Proverbs 28:9 says, “One who turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be an abomination.” God hears only those who are willing to hear him.

Performing Miracles

“I know Sister Faith Healer has to be pleasing to God- because of the miracles she does.” “Brother I.M. Spiritual has to be a true preacher because I saw him heal a man of cancer.” How many times have you heard statements like these? In Matthew 7:22 Jesus tells of some folks who said they “prophesied … cast our demons . . . and did many wonders. ” But it was to this same crowd that the Lord said, “I never knew you.” I don’t believe the modern “miracle workers” actually perform miracles. But even if they did, that fact in itself would not prove acceptability with God.

Just because someone could prophesy did not mean they taught the truth of God on every other subject. Balaam prophesied the truth on one occasion, but he also led the people of God astray (Num. 24:2-4; Rev. 2:14). Deuteronomy 13:1-5 tells of a prophet who might accurately foretell some event but who also urged the people to “go after other gods.” The people were not to listen to such a person because the Lord was using this one to test the people. John 11:49-52 records the prophecy of Caiaphas. Do you believe this high priest who sought the death of Jesus was a loyal subject of God just because he prophesied truthfully?

Just because someone could cast out demons did not mean he was accepted by God. Let’s remember that Judas Iscariot cast out demons (Mk. 3:14-15,19). Jesus asked the Jews in Matthew 112:27, “And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out?” Acts 19:13 tells “of the itinerant Jewish exorcists.”

And just because someone could perform miracles did not mean they were right with God. Balaam’s donkey spoke in an “unknown tongue” (Num. 22:27-30), but do we expect to see it in heaven? Jesus predicted, “For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Mk. 13:22). The lawless one would come “with all power, signs, and lying wonders” and some would “believe the lie” (2 Thess. 2:9-12). Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 13:1-2 that it takes more than just performing a miracle.

Practicing Lawlessness

While these individuals claimed to do things in the name of the Lord, Jesus said to them, “Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” (Matt. 7:23). Paul urged the Corinthians “not to go beyond the things which are written” (1 Cor. 4:6, ASV). When individuals act without the authority of Jesus they will be condemned. John also warns us not to support the false teacher who “transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ.” If we do we share “in his evil deeds” (2 Jn. 9-11). So you need to remember, “Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving things to God the Father through Him” (Col. 3:17).

Perceiving Only

Jesus closes this section by telling of the disaster which comes upon the man who hears only. He said, “Now everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall” (Matt. 7:26-27).

James also speaks about this type of person. He wrote, “For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was” (Jas. 1:23-24). He adds that the blessed man is one who “is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work” (Jas. 1:25).

How sad it is to see those who hear and know the truth but will not act upon it. Like the wayside soil in the Parable of the Sower they are “ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved” (Lk. 8:12). In contrast we read in Revelation 1:3, “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophesy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.”

Conclusion

Let’s not fall into the trap of believing that any of the above items can take the place of obedience. For our house to stand, we must be like the wise man who heard and did what Jesus had to say (Matt. 7:24-25). Build on the Rock.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, pp. 236-237
April 20, 1989

By James L. Sloan

An article by Michael Hall of St. Louis, Mo. is entitled, “Wine and Wineskins,” and is in essence a new interpretation of the teaching of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 9:17: “Neither do men put new wine into old wine-skins: else the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins perish: but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins, and both are preserved.” Mr. Hall’s explanation and application of Jesus’ analogy is set forth in these quotes from his article: “‘The Wine consists of the Good News of God; unchangeable, yet always new, alive, fermenting, and vital. The Wine-skins speak of the container which holds and gives the good news shape in the world. It is man-made and grows old, hence constantly must be reappraised . . . to see if it’s about to split. . . Wine and Wineskines – the good news and church structures, procedures, methods. Is that a new thought category for you? This analogy of Jesus establishes our rationale for constantly re-examining not only what we’re doing, but how we’re doing the things we do. The ever-new Wine of God’s good news demands flexible, malleable and expanding structures. Whenever procedures or traditions become inflexible . . . it’s time to make some changes.” I have several reactions to the above teaching.

1. The context of the verse will not allow us to conclude that Jesus had any such comparison in mind. Hall’s interpretation is indeed a “new thought category” for me and I am persuaded it would be for Jesus as well. The disciples of John came to Jesus and asked why his disciples did not fast often like the Pharisees (v. 14). The Lord’s first answer was that friends of the bridegroom did not mourn until the bridegroom was taken away (v. 15). So, the disciples of Jesus would not fast until he was taken away. He then tells of the new patch on the old garment (v. 16), and then the verse under discussion. All three analogies were prompted by the same question, and are offered as explanations to the querists. H. Leo Boles’ comments are helpful: “. . . this would vindicate his disciples in not following the custom of the Pharisees to fast and impress the lesson that the value of fasting was only when proper occasions demanded it” (Commentary On Matthew, p. 210). Others think that the wine refers to the, Gospel, while the wine-skins refer to the Jewish law. However, there is no supportive evidence to conclude that Jesus had procedures or methods or structures in mind.

2. Such teaching cannot be justified on the basis of extending the application of Jesus’ figure. Legitimate extension of any parabolic or allegorical literature must first be plainly taught as scriptural from other passages. There are a number of passages that obligate us to remain with the Scriptures for our concepts and practices (2 Jn. 9-11; Col. 3:17; 1 Cor. 4:6; etc.). The establishing of biblical authority cannot be done by allegorizing the figurative teaching of Jesus. In this way, the Bible can be used to prove anything. Augustine used the parable of the Good Samaritan to represent the fall of Adam, while others had an entirely different interpretation. Remember that this teaching of Jesus was spoken, not read, and that it was spoken once, and intended to be understood immediately. There certainly was not time for the mental gymnastics that would be required to arrive at the cabalistic conclusions of our contemporary expositors.

3. This interpretation of the wine and wineskins is too subjective. The article does not begin to define for us just what should be included under the wine (Gospel), and what should be considered as wineskins (Methods). Items of worship – which are they? What about mechanical instruments of music? Weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper? Unleavened bread and unfermented grape juice? Sponsoring churches? Church sponsored recreation? On the basis of the evidence given, you could make two lists with the headings of “Wine” and “Wineskins,” and then decide for yourself what should go under each. The distinction then becomes useless and worthless.

4. The article makes new methods and new structures essential to the preservation of the Gospel. Such is unscriptural and anti-scriptural! No emphasis or importance is attached in the New Testament to the methods or procedures that are incidental to the Gospel itself. We are not told, “Now, you be sure and keep up the latest methods.” Mass media approaches, mechanical visual aids, and all other illustrations of 20th Century technology cannot be so tied to the Gospel as to make them essential. Yet, the article says that the Gospel will be “spilt out upon the ground” without the new approaches. I may choose to preach the Gospel over radio and TV as long as no New Testament pattern is violated. Where does the Gospel teach that I must do so?

No wonder those who advocate the activating of the church universal, the institutionalizing of the local church, and the socializing of the work of the church are claiming that they do not need Bible authority. If “Wine and Wineskins” is the best we can do in establishing New Testament authority, I would make that claim too. Such becomes a subtle, blanket justification for any innovation that man can dream.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 9, p. 261
May 4, 1989

By Roger Shouse

Robert Ingersoll, the nineteenth century agnostic, known for his lectures and writings against religion, died in the summer of 1899. He challenged, like many of his other intellectual contemporaries (Darwin in Origins, Wellhausen in inspiration of the Bible), the accepted standards of his days. It was an age of reason. It was a time when the seen would have preeminence over the unseen. There was little room for faith. This thinking became very popular among the universities.

But Ingersoll died. One would expect that the passing of this grand champion of thinking would be with pride and courage, for he had nothing to fear. But the story is told that on his death bed, Ingersoll cried, “0, God, if there be a God; save my soul if I have a soul.”

And now we come to this interesting newspaper clipping from the summer of 1899. Found tucked away in an old dusty book, this accounts the terrible anguish and hopelessness of a family who cannot look beyond this present life. The thought of seeing their loved one no more was more than they could bear.

How sad indeed to live to this life only. How pitiful it is to not be able to see beyond the horizon. There are certainly a lot of folks who today, live and die like old Ingersoll did. They only plan for this day. They never give a thought past the present. The eternal has no meaning or concern to them. And in their death there is no hope!

“But we do not want you to be uniformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve, as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus

“Therefore comfort one another with these words” (1 Thess. 4:13,14,18).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, p. 233
April 20, 1989