We just received a long letter with regard to the propriety of sending a young child to a conservative denominational academy in preference to sending it to a public school where it is constantly bombarded with false doctrine, both religiously and socially corrupt. Several questions were raised, among them was this: Would an enrollment in such a denominational school constitute support of false doctrine? Our answer may provide some thoughts of value to others involved in such problems. Part of our answer was that support involves showing compliance or agreement with the false doctrine. If simply being enrolled in such a school shows support of their false doctrine, then being enrolled in a public school shows support of the ungodly things that are taught and practiced there. Surely almost every person who may be able to read this would deny that being in a public school indicates support for all the things taught and practiced there. We are allowed to show our support or lack of it in various ways, and should show our disagreement in an appropriate, loving manner. A parent who tries to shield his/her child from all contamination of any kind needs to understand that the child cannot be immunized to false doctrine or false living unless he/she is exposed to it in some fashion. Many parents have been surprised and disappointed when their child has gone away to college and been exposed to various religious, social or political theories that they had never heard discussed or refuted, and …

Are you liberal, conservative or in the middle of the road? Since none of these terms are in the Bible in the sense we are talking about, it depends on whose definition you use as to what you call yourself, or are classified by others. It would probably be amusing if it were not so confusing to realize that although I consider myself conservative, I am considered liberal by many. It long ago ceased to bother me very much, for Paul warned that we are not to measure ourselves by ourselves or compare ourselves with ourselves (2 Corinthians 10:12). The only standard that we need is God’s Word. We suppose that some who say they are neither liberal nor conservative, but in the middle of the road mean that they do not want to bind where God did not bind, or loose where God did not loose. However, “middle of the road” to others may mean that they feel that they can appeal to or appease both parties by compromising some things. They may find that they become like the soldier in the War Between the States who wore a Confederate coat and Union pants. The Union soldiers shot him in the torso, and the Confederates shot him in the pants, so he lost in any case. It is true that we can compromise in almost any area that involves merely an expediency. If enough persons want to have the “midweek” service on Tuesday or Thursday, or not at all, …

First John 4:7 says, “Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.” It is possible that some of the most liberal or radical commentators would use this passage to try to prove that homosexuals are acceptable with God, for they apparently love each other, but we have not seen that yet. It is practically impossible to conceive of an honest, sincere student of God’s Word who thinks this means that everyone who loves his wife or children, his friends, or the world is thereby made a child of God or proven to be one. The only other sensible alternative of which we can think is that he means that everyone who has the kind of love of which he is talking–the kind of love that causes a man to put God first and keep his commandments and loves the brotherhood with a sacrificial love (agape) is a child of God, for no one does that who is not a child of God. He is talking to and about children of God, not just anyone who loves anything or anybody.

In Acts 2:22, we find, “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know.” It seems evident that there is some difference in those three things, or the Holy Spirit would not have used three different words to describe them. Because the Greek words that are here translated as wonders and signs are often translated as miracles, some assume that the words are synonyms. That is not so. A simple illustration may help to clarify that. Every mule is an animal, but not every animal is a mule. Every miracle was a sign and a wonder, but not every sign or wonder was a miracle. A short and incomplete indication of the difference in the meaning or implication of the words is this: A “sign” (seemeion or seemainoo) is intended to appeal to the understanding, a “wonder” (teras) appeals to the imagination, a “power” (or “miracle”–dunamis–as the word is used in Acts 2:22) indicates its source as supernatural. Perhaps a listing of some information about those three terms would be helpful. The word here translated “miracles” is used 116 times in the New Testament. It is translated by such terms as “mighty works,” “power,” etc. In Romans 1:16, “The gospel is the power of God unto salvation” the word is used. However the word is translated “power”; it always indicates special power. The …

In Proverbs 3:5 we have some excellent advice that is applicable to every man who ever lived. It says, “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.” It is interesting to read the comments of various commentators, almost all of whom have Calvinistic opinions. They say something like this: “The advice is especially needed because of the depraved state of mankind as a result of the sin of Adam.” Even many of those who do not teach that we are totally depraved because of Adam’s sin seem to think the admonition is given because of the depravity of mankind. They often quote in this connection 1 Corinthians 2:14 which says, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” They assume this means that an unsaved person cannot understand what God says, for he is depraved and must be regenerated before he can understand what God wants. It is therefore assumed by most of them that there must be a direct operation of the Holy Spirit in order to regenerate a person, give him a holy disposition of mind and lead him to an understanding of what God wants, and then produce in him an obedient heart. Let us examine some of those false assumptions. First the admonition in Proverbs applies to all mankind, saint and sinner, and was just as applicable to …

I recently read a statement concerning the false teachers who had come down from Jerusalem teaching that one had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in order to be saved. His purpose in making the statement seems to have been to prove that a person who was baptized believing false doctrine about the purpose and nature of baptism did not need to be baptized again. That is, if a person thought he was already saved and was baptized to testify to that idea, his baptism was still valid. I think the statement wrong, and perhaps dangerous, especially since it came from a source that is generally considered to be sound in the faith. The statement was, “Men who were baptized by the apostles believed that unless one was circumcised and kept the law of Moses he could not be saved. Here were people who were in error on the matter of their salvation, and yet they were not required to be reimmersed.” The man who made that statement was an outstanding Gospel preacher, but the statement is dangerous for two reasons. First, it suggests that these false teachers who came down from Jerusalem were baptized by the apostles. One could not prove that to save his life. Second, it suggests that when those persons were baptized, they believed this false doctrine. Again, that could not be proven. When they actually formulated a belief or an opinion about who could or could not be saved is not stated …

Although we do not claim to be brilliant or scholarly, we think that a majority of brilliant and scholarly men have made a common and simple mistake in giving an exegesis of some of the parables of Jesus. Let us give a few examples. Perhaps the Parable of the Lost Sheep in Matthew 18 and Luke 15 are two of the most significant ones. Matthew 18:12-14 says, “How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.” Burton Coffman says, “The parable suggests the earthly mission of Christ, the Good Shepherd, who left the joys of heaven to wander amid the bleak scenes of earth to recover lost and sinful people.” Coffman is right in saying, “the parable suggests,” for a parable may “suggest” any number of things. But most commentaries interpret the parable as if the shepherd in the parable represents Christ. That is not so. The subtle difference in the parable teaching that the concern of a shepherd for his sheep is compared to the concern of God and Christ …

There are few subjects, if any, that are as important as the subject of salvation is. It has been my observation that most members of the Lord’s church do not properly distinguish the meaning of various terms with regard to the context in which they are used. That is, when they arrive at a definition of a term, they think they have settled the matter. It is not so. There are at least four significant ways the term “saved” and its cognates are used in the New Testament. First, there is the generic sense of being saved from whatever circumstance confronts one. In Matthew 8:25, we find, “And they came to him, and woke him, saying, Save us, Lord, we perish.” Their lives were in danger, they thought, and they wanted Jesus to save them from dying. It had nothing to do with forgiveness of sins, or what we call the salvation of their souls. In Acts 27:31, we find Paul saying, “Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.” He had no reference to being saved from sins. There are several other such references in the New Testament of this nature. Second, there is the initial salvation that one gets when the alien sinner is saved from his sins. This is what Jesus meant in Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” The various references such as in Acts 2:21, 47; 11:14; 16:31 all relate to this salvation. Many references in the letters …

Because Moses disobeyed God and failed to sanctify him in humble obedience, he was not permitted to enter the Promised Land (Numbers 20:12; 27:14). However, we find that he was allowed to enter into greater blessings than he could ever have had in Canaan (Matthew 17:4; Mark 9:5; Luke 9:33). We do not ever remember hearing or reading any logical or biblical reason why God would thus punish a person for his disobedience, and yet apparently forgive him and allow him to be saved in spite of it. We can answer very easily why God punished him for his disobedience, even if almost all denominational scholars and liberal members of the Lord’s church cannot seem to understand it. Without going into detail, it was simply because he went beyond what he was authorized to do. But we cannot answer to our complete satisfaction why repentance for that act (supposing he did repent) would not allow him to enter Canaan, supposedly a type of heaven, yet God for some reason allowed him to be saved eternally. The only answer we have at this time that makes any sense is this: God wanted them and all future generations to realize that every word and action we perform may have some consequence, either good or bad. Forgiveness for those acts or words will not remove the fleshly consequences. We can illustrate that dozens of ways. If a man strikes is wife in anger, she may forgive him, but her black eye or broken …

Recently, there have been some statements made by those who would try to banish into limbo the teachings of Jesus concerning divorce, denying that what Jesus said in the Gospel records applies today. The statement was made that “Nothing that Jesus said in the Gospel records is binding unless it was repeated by the apostles after the death of Christ.” This is, in our judgment, a dangerous doctrine, and needs attention. One of the things that makes it difficult to deal properly with this insidious and dangerous concept is the fact that, without question, much of the teaching of Jesus does deal with general principles, and not with minute and specific details. If it were otherwise, we could almost say, “The world would not contain the books necessary to the Christian Way of Life.” Let us probe the problem a little more deeply, that we might suggest some solid foundational principles to guide those who want to please God. We are convinced that there are those who, through a pernicious effort to find a way to justify their “fuzzy” thinking and/or loose living, try to shade everything to a “light gray” area. It may be true that some of us have made a mistake of trying to view everything with a two-valued orientation–talking and acting as if everything were either black or white, right or wrong, long or short, hot or cold–when in reality the situation calls for a multi-valued approach. But that does not leave us a right to …

Since I was a small child, I have heard my mother and all sorts of other wonderful persons admonish, “Abstain from the very appearance of evil.” In a good number of those occasions, if it were a preacher who gave the admonition, he would usually add, “1 Thessalonians 5:22.” My memory even tells me that I have read many times from the Bible, “Shun the very appearance of evil,” but I find no version that reads that way, so I conclude that my memory is faulty. Now, I am reasonably well convinced by what little logic I have, and what I know of the Bible, that it is a good idea to shun things that seem to be evil. Those things that are of a doubtful nature should not normally be practiced. It may be that some impelling reason may be given for doing something of a questionable nature under some circumstances. For example, I do not think it appropriate to go into a tavern or a house of ill repute, normally, but would do so if I thought a soul could be brought out and saved by my going. Almost every one of the persons whom I have heard quote or misquote 1 Thessalonians 5:22 did it with this thought in mind: “You should not only abstain from whatever is wrong, you should abstain from whatever seems or appears to be wrong.” This Scripture was then used to prove that contention. The trouble is, that is not what that Scripture says. The difficulty is partly brought about by the …

When President Bush announced (some years ago) that if Saddam Hussein did not withdraw from Kuwait by noon, the ground war would begin when he chose, I was awake at 4 a.m. as usual, and during the day kept listening from time to dime for news updates. That caused me to wonder if I was practicing what I preached. Was I worried about what probably would take place? Did the fact that my grandson was in the Marines doing infantry training change any principles? Let me emphasize that despite the fact that I may fail to do what God says, or that my precious grandson may die in battle, the Word of God still teaches what it taught last year. What does the Word of God teach about worry? First, that it is a sin, not just a constitutional weakness. It is a sin because it is disbelief in the truth and trustworthiness of God. Second, it is destructive to the temple of the Holy Spirit. Some might reply, “Yes, I know that. That is what worries me even more! What am I going to do about it?” We will try to get to that in a moment, but first we need to be convinced that worry is a sin, for if we do not believe that, we can hardly repent and try to correct it. There is another point that may need clarification. Is concern and sorrow for a situation the same as worry and anxiety? The answer is …

The March 2007 issue of Gospel Gazette Online is dedicated to the honor of brother T. Pierce Brown. He certainly must be among the most prolific writers in the Lord’s church throughout the centuries. His articles by the hundreds have graced the pages of many Gospel magazines and other similar venues. We are fortunate at Gospel Gazette Online that his graciousness extends also to the pages of GGO. We are happy to populate most of the pages of this current issue with some of the outstanding articles brother Brown has penned. Not merely the sheer number of articles, but the soundness and reflective articles that flow from his able mind make it a great pleasure to study his studies and make them available as widely as possible. T. Pierce Brown was born in a log cabin near Doyle, Tennessee on April 13, 1923. While in high school at Sparta, he preached and baptized some, but was not planning to preach fulltime. He attended T.P.I. at Cookeville as an electrical engineer until Pearl Harbor was bombed, when he enlisted in the Air Force. He flew in B-17’s as a bombardier and gunnery instructor, but started studying Greek by correspondence while in the service. He married Tomijo White of Cookeville, to which union were born two sons, Frank and Hilary. Tomijo graduated from T.P.I., majoring in business but did some advanced work for a teacher’s certificate. She taught in elementary schools in Tennessee and Florida. Her articles were published in Gospel Advocate, Firm Foundation and 21st Century Christianity. Brother Brown attended …

The prince of scholarly commentators, J. W. McGarvey, says concerning Matthew 5:48, “It is, of course, impossible for man to attain to this perfection; yet anything short of it is short of what we ought to be.” Although McGarvey may have forgotten more about the Bible than some of us will ever know, I am forced to take issue with him, and all others who have made similar comments about this passage. The implications of such a conclusion are wrong and dangerous for several reasons. First, that conclusion disregards the basic meaning of the word “perfect” and the context in which it is commanded. Second, that conclusion teaches that although God commands something, we have the right to conclude that it is too hard, yea, impossible, for us to do and thus, not only have the right to break one of God’s commandment, but must do so. This sort of conclusion is the soil from which cynicism, skepticism and frustration grows. If we have the right to say about God’s commandments, “They are too hard,” surely it takes no Solomon to see a variety of attitudes and responses that automatically follow. “God is unfair”–impugning the wisdom and righteousness of God. “I can determine which of God’s commands I need to obey”–which makes a god of ourselves and is the basis of most modernistic and denominational foolishness. Third, that conclusion teaches that although God has commanded us to do something we cannot do, we must forever feel inferior because we cannot …