Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Brother Connie W. Adams will not remember this, but a few years ago he gave me a kind admonition and some great advice. After services one evening, brethren were very generous in their remarks about a sermon I had preached, so I was feeling unduly and unjustly proud of myself. Quietly, brother Adams came to me and said something like this, “Your sermon was fine, but your invitation could have been stronger. You need to emphasize the need for folks to obey the gospel; tell them what they must do and exhort them to do it!”

Well, I thought I had I Besides, a number of people had just assured me how much they “enjoyed the lesson,” so I was,ready to dismiss his gentle reproof. However, as I reflected on it, I could see that he was correct. Rarely do I preach without brother Adams’ words echoing in my heart.

So, preacher friend, how strong is the invitation you deliver? Ladies cap off a meal with a tasty dessert. Comedians end their routines with their funniest lines. How do you conclude your sermons? Brethren, do you listen to bland, weak, feeble, half-hearted appeals for people to obey the gospel? Should not sermons conclude with agressive exhortations and direct invitations for dying men and women to believe and obey the gospel?

I recently listened to several tapes of sermons by Harold. Hazelip, president of David Lipscomb College. His invitations were not designed to tell people how to obey the gospel. He simply said, “If we may help you in your obedience, come as we stand and sing.” He said nothing about how to obey the gospel, nor did he indicate that they needed to do so. He said nothing to exhort and encourage one to obey the gospel. Is this typical? Is it practical? Is it true, scriptural gospel preaching?

I am not an authority on the preparation and delivery of sermons. I dare not set myself up as an advisor or speech instructor. Perhaps, though, there is a need to evaluate and critique the effectiveness of the invitation made to those who need to obey the gospel.

First, the answer is not to be found in eloquence or flowery oratory. One’s words may soar to the heavens, borne aloft on the tongues of angels; they may dive and descend into the fiery abyss of the demons’ den; they may charm, exult, exalt and stir the emotions; they may please the ear and entertain the heart; however, if they do not convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment, they are whispers of wind whistling through a ghost town.

Second, the solution is not to be discovered in “death bed tales and grave yard yarns.” Tears and emotional reactions may accompany gospel preaching, but they are the result of convicting truth, not the end in itself (Acts 2:37; 16:29,30). Yes, Felix trembled, but that was not Paul’s goal. It was a consequence of a reasoned appeal to righteousness, temperance and judgment to come (Acts 24:25).

Third, the success of a sermon is not determined by the “amens” it evokes nor by the applause it provokes. Compliments and commendations are not guarantees of success. If so, then Stephen stumbled and Paul was appalling (Acts 7; 13:16-50).

What, then? Consider Acts 2:36-41 and Acts 3:13-26. Peter told the audience the specific things they needed to do. He referred to faith, repentance and baptism, the process of conversion. He told them of the consequences of refusal and unbelief (Acts 3:22,23). “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. ” He urged them to be obedient. He did not simply, casually say, “If you desire to obey the Lord, let us know how we may assist you,” as’ some men do today. No, he spoke plainly and directly and exhorted them to obey certain terms or conditions in order that they might be saved. He told them they would be damned if they did not (cf. Mk. 16:16; Acts 24:25).

Sinners need to know the awesome consequences of refusing to obey the gospel. Felix knew. A lame, limp-lipped invitation will never cause a sinner to tremble, to depart in anger, nor to be truly converted. There is power and terror in the gospel. Preachers will be held accountable who do not present both with fearless faith and firm forthrightness. If the world wants to bear a mushy mouthed, tear-jerking appeal, send them to a Methodist altar call., It is not a soft, short, vague, general invitation that will lead souls to respond to God’s saving grace. Build faith in Christ and in his word. Convict men of sin and tell them of its remedy and retribution. Strongly urge them to obey the direct demands of obedience – faith, repentance, confession and baptism (Acts 8:12,35,36; 16:32,33). Tell them what awaits them if they do not obey the truth (2 Thess. 1:8; Rom. 2:6-9; 1 Pet. 4:17,18).

Could it be that thoughtless, mindless, aimless invitations are the ruin of sermons that would otherwise be good and profitable? Do not assume that everyone already knows what to do to be saved. Preach the truth. Press it into the hearts of men and lovingly insist that they obey it. God will give the increase, and you will be pure from the blood of all men.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, pp. 227-228
April 20, 1989

By Peggy Oliver

Last Wednesday started out like any other weekday. I made my way to class at the nursing school where I am a student, never suspecting what awaited me. Wednesdays are our normal days for guest speakers in my Psychiatric Nursing class, and this Wednesday was no different – but the speakers were. What sat before me was a panel of guests consisting of a gay man and two homosexual women who, as I came to discover, were “together” as a couple and “married in God’s eyes.” They each donned wedding bands, symbolic of their commitment of nearly six years.

The focus of the day, as I had guessed by that time, was homosexuality. The speakers had been invited to give us a “firsthand account” of homosexuality, and to allow us to ask any questions that we might have – all in the hopes of discrediting any rumors we had heard or fears that we might have had. We were informed of a new medical term homophobic – to describe those people “afraid” and unreasonably terrified of homosexuals, stemming from a deep-seated dissatisfaction with their own sexual identity. In other words, it was implied that if one strongly disagrees with their beliefs and practices, then that person should take a personal inventory to become more aware of his or her sexuality, realizing that such feelings arise from insecurity within one’s “sexual orientation.” To put it shortly, if you aren’t comfortable in the company of homosexuals, then you are the one with the problem.

The first to speak from the panel was one of the women. She works as a massage therapist at a health facility here in Memphis. She began by telling us her history, i.e. how and when she “knew.” She said that she had known of her feelings since she was twelve years old, but that she had only acted on them in the past six years or so. She was married twice, both times being extremely unhappy because she knew she was with a partner of the wrong sex. One marriage produced her twelve year old daughter who lives with her and her “partner.” She tells her daughter that she doesn’t care what she may decide about her sexuality – that gay or straight it makes no difference – just as long as she is true and honest with herself and doesn’t live a lie like her mother did for so many years. This seemed to me to be quite a statement in view of Romans 1:24-27. 1 thought to myself how terrible the cycle of sin is – how it takes hold of our entire being, destroying any sense of right and wrong until the two enmesh and one just does “what feels right for them.”

The other woman spoke next, and I must say that her story wasn’t any better. She, too, had been married previously, but decided after her divorce to “try” bisexuality. After all, she said, she had many lesbian friends, and they all seemed so free and comfortable. After that experience, she decided to become completely homosexual, and sought to establish a solid relationship. But, she added, if she were to become a lesbian, it would have to be openly, because her character demanded that she not hide what she was. Here is a good case against those who argue that homosexual feelings are inborn and there is nothing to be done to counteract them. This woman chose, out of the lust of her heart to do what which is completely against any law of nature, and to do it openly and shamelessly. She now insists that she is happier than she has ever been, that her relationship with this woman is true and undefiled, and that the companionship she feels with this woman could never be had with a man because men are by nature tyrannical. By the way, this woman is a counselor with the Memphis City Schools.

The male member of the panel spoke next, and began by contrasting himself with what he says is the stereotypical image of the gay man. He always ‘knew” he was gay but didn’t “come out” until he was 28 years old. Of course, that made him doubly strange in society’s eyes because, “I mean, let’s face it, here I was, a 28-year-old man who should have been sexually active for about 12 years now, and I had never had a sexual experience . . . then when I did have one it was with a man.” What kind of sickness has invaded our society that dictates that someone is abnormal if he or she is a virgin past age 16? The flippant attitude toward the sexual relationship that God ordained was more than quietly pervasive, it was blatant! I sat in stunned silence listening to the three of them toss vulgarities back and forth between themselves, and aching in my heart as I heard them proudly describe in vivid detail their perverse sexual practices. The language used was appalling and crude, and it hurt me deeply to think how these people were poisoning their children’s minds and souls. What astonished me even more was the reaction of the instructors of the class. They sat chuckling and nodding their heads as if to say, “You all are so right . . . isn’t it great that they are so open with the sexuality?” I felt nauseated.

To add insult to injury, the group proceeded to describe their home lives, emphatically stating that their relationships are no different than those of heterosexual couples – that they argue about trivial things, have trouble with their teenage children, cut the grass on Saturday afternoon, and go to church on Sunday. I couldn’t believe it! How could they, in any stretch of the imagination, sit there and claim to have any religious convictions? How could they sit there and proclaim their families are like any others when theirs are diametrically opposed to the family system that God created? The whole event was to me a gross display of gay activism and a slap in the face of Christianity.

Following this panel was a man suffering from AIDS. He, too, was and still is a practicing homosexual. He is involved with a man now who knows he has AIDS, and says that they take extreme precautions during any intimate interaction. Unfortunately, he didn’t use such gentle terms, and I was again bombarded with language too vile to repeat. He related to us how the acceptance of his disease had led him through a sort of spiritual awakening, and how he is back in touch with God now and intends to live a long, long time. He, too, is active in a local Baptist church with an “AIDS Ministry.”

Obviously, the morning’s events disturbed me greatly, and today I had opportunity to discuss my feelings with some fellow students and one of the faculty members who was present when they spoke. I found myself being challenged by the teacher who, like all the others is very “pro-choice,” if you will. As I defended my feeling from a Bible standpoint, I was met with oppositions of “You can’t make that judgment,” and “the Bible is just interpretation,” and others. When I spoke on homosexuality being wrong and sinful, I was met with, “Wrong in whose eyes?” I was told, or rather it was “suggested to me” that perhaps I should change my views and be a little more open-minded, because there are “two sides of the coin.” I felt myself becoming more anxious and I could feel the tears developing deep inside me – why should I change? If I compromise my faith in that area, I must compromise it in every area. If I give up my morals here, I must give them up everywhere. If I accept that the Bible cannot be trusted because it has been translated so many times, then I have a God who cannot be trusted to give me his word, completely as I need it for salvation. If I believe that the Bible cannot be trusted, then my life is worthless and my faith is vain – I haven’t a leg to stand on.

So how have I learned from this experience? I have been able to voice my beliefs to others, and hopefully make an impact through something that I might have said from God’s word. I have realized even more deeply and strongly how precious and dear my faith and salvation are to me. I have reflected on how fallible man is, and that there truly is “a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” And I have realized just how terribly perverted society can be when under the control of sin.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, pp. 225, 247
April 20, 1989

By Johnny Stringer

Christians who are spiritually minded and thoroughly devoted to God will assemble with the saints for spiritual activities – not just because Hebrews 10:25 demands it, but because they want to. Those who would prefer secular activities but grudgingly assemble in order to obey Hebrew 10:25 are seriously deficient in spirituality. In order to get brethren to assemble, we need to begin not with Hebrews 10:25, but with the attitudes of their hearts.

Nevertheless, Hebrews 10:25 should be taught. When considered in its context, this passage impresses us with the importance of assembling with the saints.

Assembling for Mutual Exhortation

Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians who were being pressured to renounce Christianity and return to Judaism. They were urged to hold fast the profession of their faith without wavering (v. 23). The pressures they faced, however, were strong; consequently, they needed the encouragement and help of one another. So the writer told them to provoke one another unto faithfulness (v. 24).

In the process of telling them to exhort one another, the inspired writer commanded them not to forsake the assembling of themselves as some were habitually doing (v. 25). The assembly is important as an occasion of exhortation. Verse 25 says, “not forsaking the assembling’. . . but exhorting one another.” The exhorting referred to is not exhorting brethren to assemble; rather, it is exhorting one another in the assemblies.

The reason it was ‘so important for brethren to assemble was the exhortation that took place in the assemblies. The exhortation that takes place when saints assemble is needed today as it was then. The world puts us under much pressure to forsake the Lord, and we need to assemble and encourage one another.

God recognized that Christians would need one another. He recognized the difficulties of trying to face the pressures of the world alone. Hence, he provided that local churches form and regularly assemble so that we could be encouraged to maintain our faithfulness. Those who fail to assemble not only are failing to receive the benefits it provides, but are failing to help encourage their brethren as we are taught to do.

As the Day Approaches

The Hebrew Christians were to be increasingly earnest about assembling for mutual exhortation as they saw the day approaching. What day? Some say the first day of the week, but this does not fit. It would not make sense to tell brethren to assemble for mutual exhortation as they saw the first day of the week approaching.

The context indicates that the day under discussion was a day of judgment (vv. 26-27). These brethren were being tempted to renounce Christ. If they did they would be severely judged. Therefore, as they saw judgment approaching, they needed to be especially diligent to assemble to give and receive the exhortation they needed to prevent themselves from renouncing Christ and paying the horrible price.

What judgment? I believe the judgment these Jewish Christians saw approaching was the judgment on Jerusalem of which Jesus had warned in Matthew 24. As they saw that judgment approaching, they would need to take every possible step to maintain their stedfastness. Assembling for mutual exhortation was one of those steps, so they needed to be especially diligent to assemble regularly.

The same principle applies today. We see the final judgment approaching, and in view of it, we need to do whatever we can to strengthen ourselves so that we will continue stedfast. One of these steps is assembling with the saints for mutual exhortation.

Forsaking

Some believe that one can willfully miss an assembly occasionally, yet not be guilty of forsaking the assembling. They argue that one has not forsaken the assembling until he has stopped assembling altogether – forever. They believe the term forsake indicates a complete apostasy. According to this view, one who just drops in occasionally has not violated Hebrews 10:25. Those who take this position point out that the word translated “forsake” (egkataleipo) means “to abandon, desert” (Thayer, p. 166). They say that one has not abandoned or deserted the assembling of saints until he has quit assembling forever. To illustrate their view, they point out that one might neglect his wife without abandoning her. Similarly, they argue, one may occasionally neglect the assembling without abandoning it.

One problems with this view is that according to Hebrews 10:25, some brethren made a habit of forsaking the assembling. The word rendered “manner” (ethos) denotes a habit or custom. Forsaking the assembling was a habit of some. Forsaking, therefore, was something that could be repeated as a habit. To renounce assembling forever is a one-time thing, not something one could habitually do. Vincent remarks, “Lunemann aptly says that the idea of apostasy . . . is excluded by ethos habit or custom, which implies an often recurring act on the part of the same persons” (M.R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, p. 1148). When one willfully fails to assemble one time, he has forsaken or abandoned the assembling on that one occasion. If he often fails to assemble, he has made a habit of forsaking the assembling.

It is a mistake to think that one has to renounce assembling forever in order to be guilty of forsaking the assembling. A man may forsake or abandon his wife without leaving her forever. Suppose a man takes his wife to town and then drives off without returning for her until the next day. I believe she would feel abandoned, deserted, forsaken. Suppose he pulls the same stunt a few days later and then continues doing it fairly regularly. He has made a habit of forsaking her, leaving her abandoned. One can abandon his wife on certain occasions without renouncing her forever. Similarly, one can abandon the assembling on certain occasions without renouncing assembling forever.

Assembling for mutual exhortation is an activity God has planned for our good. It will keep us from apostatizing so that we will not have to suffer the horrible punishment to which apostates are doomed. Let us be diligent not to forsake the assembling at any time – and let us surely not make a habit of it as some do.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 7, p. 211, 216
April 6, 1989

By Bill Cavender

Theme of Romans 14: A caution against making external observances, and matters of opinions and personal conscience (“faith”), the occasion of strife and division in the church.

Introduction:

A. Romans 14 deals with a situation which is not ideal. (Other examples: Slavery [Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-4: 1; Tit. 2:9-10; Philemon]; Marriage [1 Cor. 7:10-11,12-24; 1 Pet. 3:1-6]; Obedience to Civil Rulers [Rom. 13:1-7]). Would be much better if brethren obeyed 1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 2:1-4,14-15.

B. Opinions and conscientious scruples (“faith”) are always a hindrance to the work of Christ and to the church, never a help. No one converted nor strengthened by it.

C. No opinion nor matter of “personal faith” is necessary to salvation. The truth of God, plainly revealed, is necessary to salvation (Jn. 8:32; Jas. 1:21; 1 Pet. 1:22-25). All must believe the gospel, the truth, to be saved. It is sufficient (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3-4; 1 Pet. 4:11, etc.).

D. Romans 14 is not talking about congregational work and worship. It is talking about personal relationships and attitudes between brethren’ of differing degrees of spiritual maturity and understanding, how each is to love the other.

E. This is a continual problem. Much strife, alienation, division and heartache is caused by varied opinions among brethren. Opinions exalted to matters of “personal faith” and “conscience” should be avoided as much as possible. We tend to think our conscience should be the standard for another person and we tend to think a person is “not sound” or “does not believe the truth” who does not believe our opinion.

F. No one is right all the time. No man’s opinion is always right. Any man can be mistaken, and often is. The law of love, to love our brethren and to love our neighbor, demands that we be careful to form opinions slowly, to not exalt opinions to matters of conscience (“faith”) in our own mind, and certainly not to bind our opinions and matters of personal conscience on others.

Body:

I. There are “strong” brethren and there are “weak” brethren (14:1; 15:1).

A. The “strong” are those who are taught and discerning and who do not form various opinions. These were especially Gentile brethren (vv. 2,5-6).

B. The “weak” are those who form opinions and matters of scruples (personal conscience or “faith”), especially Jewish brethren at that time, refraining from certain meats or foods, and observing certain days (vv. 2,5-6). Opinionated brethren are almost always in the negative, in the opposition and not in a positive attitude toward accomplishing the revealed word of God.

C. Often, so often, brethren nowadays confuse these terms. They think the “strong” brother is the one with the most opinions, most matters of conscience, and most vocal and tenacious in his ideas, and the “weak” brother is the one who had no such opinions and does not form matters of personal conscience. Being sound is not “sounding off,” arguing and fussing, and “standing for the truth” is not opinions, matters of personal conscience, and having our way about things.

D. Often, so often, this “weak” brother thinks he is the better Bible student, and knows and understands truth that the other brethren do not understand.

II. God will judge such matters; to him we stand or fall.

A. God receives either brother (v. 3).

B. God will judge his servants and can make him stand (even when he is condemned by his brother, v. 4).

C. We are the Lord’s servants, we give thanks to him, he died and arose for us, and before him we shall be judged adequately and accurately (vv. 4,5,7-9,10-12).

D. We are not to judge (condemn) one another in such matters (v. 13).

III. The truth of the matter: the “weak” brother was wrong in his opinions (vv. 14,20).

A. Yet, in his error and wrong opinion, this weak brother considered some things to be wrong and they were wrong to him, although he was mistaken and in themselves these matters were not wrong (v. 14).

B. The weak brother was not to violate his conscience, to “eat with offence” (v. 2).

C. The weak brother who had such scruples and conscientious convictions was to keep them to himself (v. 22), and observe their convictions quietly, without doubts (v. 22).

1. This is what most opinionated brethren will not do. They will not keep their opinions and scruples to themselves, as Paul said to do. They must voice them and try to bind them on others. This is sinful and results in strife among brethren.

2. This instruction (v. 22), shows Paul is not speaking of the revealed truth, the gospel, “the faith,” for we can never keep that to ourselves. We must preach and teach that, publicly and privately, in season and out of season.

D. All must do what we do in “faith,” believing that what we do is right to do. He that doubteth is condemned (damned). Whatsoever is not of “faith” is sin (v. 23).

IV. The “strong” brother In his attitude and dealings with his weak brother.

A. He is to receive him as a brother, but not to judge his scruples (v. 1).

B. He is not to put a stumblingblock or an occasion to sin in his way (vv. 13,21).

C. He is to walk charitably toward him; do not grieve him with your liberty and understanding, and do not destroy him, for Christ died for him (v. 15).

D. Do not let your liberty and privilege be evil spoken of by causing him to do that which violates his conscience (v. 16).

E. Do not destroy the work of God in saving souls by food, etc. (v. 20).

Conclusion:

1. There are greater considerations than food, days, opinions, personal convictions, etc. The kingdom of God is “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” (v. 17).

2. We are not to please ourselves, to have our own way, to push our opinions and scruples upon others. Even Jesus pleased not himself (15:1-3).

3. These examples, such as Jesus, are given that we might learn patience in such matters, that we might be comforted in doing the Scriptures, and might have hope (15:4).

4. Brethren should realize that we must live in love and in peace with each other, each man esteeming others better than self (Phil. 2:1-4,14-15), and that we must not destroy one another with opinions, somebody’s personal conscience, and by bickering and fussing and striving over such matters. May God help us to see this and to avoid this kind of conduct, but rather to love one another and put the cause of Christ above all else.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, pp. 234-235
April 20, 1989