Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

The “Jesus Only” doctrine affirms that there is but one person in the Godhead; namely, Jesus Christ. They believe that Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Son and Jesus is the Holy Spirit. The United Pentecostal Church is the largest exporter and exponent of this teaching. Occasionally, it is called “Oneness” doctrine, and the people are known as Pentecostal Oneness.

At any rate, that serves to identify what we are talking about in this article. A number of passages give the Oneness people a great deal of difficulty. Hebrews 5:4,5 gives them a problem. At least, I have never met a Pentecostal debater who could even blink his eyes or clear his throat like he thought he could answer an argument that can be made from that text. Note the Scripture. “And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.”

First, what is the honor that no man takes unto himself? It is the honor or the office of being an High Priest. No one takes this position upon his own authority. It is bestowed by another. Take Aaron for an example. He did not make himself an High Priest. God selected and elected him to that place. Hence, God, one person, chose Aaron, another person, to be the High Priest. If another person was not involved, Aaron made himself to be the High Priest. There is no escape from that conclusion. So, two parties, two persons were involved, for “no man taketh this honor unto himself.”

Second, underline the words, “so, also, ” which introduce verse 5. 6′ So also” means “in like manner,” or “in the same way.” Just as Aaron did not glorify himself to be made an High Priest, “So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest.”

Third, if Christ did not glorify himself to be made an High Priest, who did it? Who glorified him to be made an High Priest? It was not Aaron. It was not Jesus. It was God the Father. But if God the Father is not a separate and distinct person from Jesus, then Jesus did glorify himself and that contradicts what the passage says.

The Oneness Pentecostal may reply that Jesus was made an High Priest by his manifestation as the Father. Well, did a “manifestation” make Aaron an High Priest, or did another person make him an High Priest? Remember, as Aaron was made an High Priest, “so also” was Christ. If another person made Aaron an High Priest, then another person made Christ an High Priest.

Fourth and finally, no matter how you look at it, another person was included in installing Christ as High Priest. And that stubborn fact is a death blow to the “Jesus Only” persuasion.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, p. 228
April 21, 1988

By W. Curtis Porter

I cannot conceive of there having ever been a time in all of the history of the church that distinctive preaching was not needed. Perhaps there have been periods of that history in which such preaching was more sorely needed than at other times; but if so, the failure of some to preach a distinctive gospel was responsible for the increase of the need for it. And it may be that there was never a time when the need for distinctive preaching was more imperative than now. We have entirely too much preaching that means nothing, and the need of the hour is fo men who have the courage to preach a distinctive message.

To me it is no compliment to a speaker for the audience to be unable to place him. I have heard it said of preachers: “He has preached in our community for two weeks, but people could not tell by his preaching to what church he belonged; he was an orthodox preacher.” While such things have been said by way of compliment, to me they shout their criticism and are not complimentary words at all. Whenever a man is so vague, indefinite, or general in his preaching that his auditors cannot place him, or identify him, there is something seriously wrong. A preacher is certainly not filling his mission as a preacher when his pulpit proclamations are characterized by such vagueness. I am talking, of course, about a preacher who stands identified with the church of the Lord. I am not so much concerned about how other preachers preach. If they are preaching the doctrines of men, there is nothing vital to the soul lost if they never become definite about it.

And yet if I were a member of some human church,,l would want my preacher to preach the things for which the church stands. If I were the member of the Baptist Church, I would want my preacher to preach a Baptist doctrine; and if I belonged to the Methodist Church, I would want my preacher to preach a doctrine that would be distinctively Methodist; and the same goes for any other denomination. In any case I would expect my preacher to preach definitely the doctrines of that denomination. Then since I am a member of the church of Christ, should I expect less of the preachers of that institution? The world will lose nothing of importance if denominationalism is not distinctively preached; but if the gospel of Jesus Christ is not preached in a distinctive manner, a great loss is incurred.

Who Preaches What?

There is a vast difference between the truth of the gospel and the theories of denominationalism, and that difference ought to be held up to the people who hear. Jesus said: “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up” (Matt. 15:13). Why, then, make any compromise with such plants? Or why fail to show that human institutions are not growths from a heavenly planting? I am just certain of the fact that it often becomes necessary to tell who preaches what. This would not be so necessary if denominational preachers would preach the doctrines of their churches, but they are like some of my brethren would be if they listened to the clamor of the audience for “soft preaching.” They have no distinctive message to proclaim. Consequently the average member of denominations does not know the doctrines of his church. You may preach ever so strongly upon some point of error, but he does not know you are talking about his doctrine, for his preacher has not preached it; such things have been kept from him. To this there are some exceptions, but the condition is very general.

In order for a member of the Baptist Church to know that you are contrasting the truth with Baptist error it becomes necessary to state that the error is taught by the Baptist Church. Otherwise he may not discover that you have taken his doctrine apart. The need of this was very forcibly impressed upon me as a result of one of my own sermons. I was engaged in a mission meeting near where I was laboring for the church. At one service I preached on the subject, “What Must I Do To Be Saved?” I contrasted truth with error and showed plainly what the Bible teaches about that subject. When the service had been concluded, a stranger came to me, took me by the hand, and complimented very highly that sermon, stating that he believed every bit of it. Upon later inquiry I found that he was the main leader of the Baptist Church of that community. And yet I had been preaching things that were in direct conflict with the doctrines of the church to which he belonged! The next day a conversation was heard over the telephone in which one lady told another that she should have been at the meeting last night, for she would have heard one of the best Baptist sermons that she ever heard. And yet I had not failed to preach the truth! However, they did not know the teaching of the Baptist Church; and if I had told who preaches what, they would have seen the difference. At least, they would not have accused me of preaching Baptist doctrine!

I know that harm can be done by mentioning denominations in the spirit of sarcasm. There is a difference between exposing error and abusing the adherent of the error. We may show kindness to the man and yet expose the error which he holds. Therefore, I do not hesitate, when I feel that conditions demand, to call denominations by name and show the error of the denominations. This is exactly what Jesus did while he was on earth, and, judging from what he did then, it is exactly what he would do now!

Make People Know They Are Lost

Preaching that is not distinctive enough to make the lost realize they are lost is not the kind of preaching it takes to save men. Whenever an unfaithful brother, one guilty of sins against the high heaven, or with an ungodly attitude toward the work of the Lord can sit under a man’s preaching without feeling any discomfort or alarm, there is probably something wrong with the preaching. The man needs to be blasted with the gospel dynamite till he can see his lost condition. As long as your preaching allows him to feel secure in his sins he will not likely be redeemed from his sinful state. Just so it is with the member of the sectarian churches. If my preaching allows them to feel safe in denominationalism, there is not much chance to rescue them from it meshes. My preaching must be distinctive enough to make them see the sinfulness of denominationalism, then I can have some hope of saving them.

Just remember that in order to save a man you must make him know that he is lost. By your following some other method he might decide to “change churches” because he likes the preacher, or that he might be with some other friends he especially likes, or something of that kind; but “changing churches” for any such reason is not conversion. What we want to do is to convert the man that his change may be the result of conviction.

Jesus Christ and the apostles did not hesitate to let men know they were lost. Paul called Elymas a “child of the devil,” and “enemy of all righteousness” (Acts 13:10). There was no reason for Elymas to think that Paul considered him in a safe condition. Peter plainly told Simon to repent and pray that God might forgive him (Acts 8:20-23). He let him know that he stood condemned. And Jesus said the Pharisees were children of hell (Matt. 23:15). With such worthy examples before us, why should we fail to preach so that men in sin and sectarianism can see they need to be saved?

(Originally appeared in the Gospel Advocate, but reprinted here from Guardian of Truth, November 20, 1980.)

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 7, pp. 207, 213
April 7, 1988

By Michael Garrison

Webster defines morals as “relating to, dealing with, or capable of making the distinction between, right and wrong in conduct.” An article by David Schoenbrun in Parade Magazine (Dec. 6, 1987) contrasted life in the 1950s and life in the 1980s. Some of the statistics Mr. Schoenbrun reports were most interesting and point out a difference, I think, in the morality of the ’50s and the ’80s. (Note: Quotes and statistics quoted in this article are used by permission of Parade, copyright 1987, m1g.)

For example: Mr. Schoenbrun points out that births out-side of the marriage relationship in the 1980s account for 22 percent of births! On the other hand, births outside the marriage in the ’50s was only 4.5 percent! This shows a huge difference. The reason? The morals of the ’50s were more in line with the Bible and the morals now are in line with humanistic ideas.

The Bible teaches, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). This is what most people in the ’50s believed and followed. Now, most people follow another “Moral” code. This code says, “. . . neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered ‘evil'” (Humanist Manifesto II, p. 18.) Actually, this is an immoral code, because it does not recognize any sexual activities as “wrong” or “evil.” No wonder the ’80s see so many births outside of marriage. When the moral code God has given is rejected, anything goes!

Mr. Schoenbrun also points out a difference in the divorce rate in the ’50s and the ’80s. The divorce rate in 1984 was 5 per 1000 people. But, in 1957, it was 2.2 per 1000. Why? Again, the moral ideas of people have changed. Most people in the 1950s recognized, “For the Lord . . . hateth putting away” (Mal. 2:16). They also believed that “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matt. 5:32). The humanist code, not recognizing right and wrong says, “In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to . . . divorce should be recognized” (Humanist Manifesto II, p. 18). This reminds me of Judges 17:6: “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” This is what happens when God’s moral standard is left behind and people do what they want to. The more humanism had made headway, the more wrong and immoral conduct has been seen.

Mr. Schoenbrun also points out that in 1986, most professional jobs were held by women, whereas in 1957, only 35 percent of women had out-of-the-home jobs. Why? Most women in the ’50s were taught God’s truth, that they are “to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers (or workers) at home, good, obedient to their own husbands” – then note this – “that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Tit. 2:4-5). When this God-given moral code was rejected, women began leaving their God given roles and followed their own desires. After all, don’t they have to help pay for all the luxuries (not necessities) this present world offers? After all, the Humanist Manifesto Il says they believe “. . . individuals should be permitted to . . . pursue their lifestyle as they desire” (p. 18). This leaves God and his moral standard out of the picture! Then their children come home from school to an empty house and have no supervision for hours to do what they want to do and later on, once the children have gotten into some trouble or been caught with various drugs, the parents will ask, “Where did we go wrong? Didn’t we provide everything they needed?” All but love and care as God directs in his Word!

A little – very little – progress is being made by researchers on AIDS. As AIDS spreads from the homosexual community to heterosexuals, it’s ironic that the old-fashioned virtue of sex with a permanent partner, the standard of the Eisenhower times, is now regarded as the principal protection against the scourge. To be moral, to be monogamous, is now the greatest defense against the new plague. That monogamy seems like a new idea is an indication of how our notions of the family have changed since the ’50s.

Yes, in many ways, the 1950s were better than the 1980s because the highest moral code ever given to man was followed by a majority of the people. That did not make it right, but when it was followed, it made a better world in which to live! Let us ever follow that moral, code given by God – by so doing we will have the best life here on earth and prepare ourselves for that world to come in which nothing immoral can enter.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, p. 229
April 21, 1988

By Earl Kimbrough

The alluring new Florida state lottery arrived recently with inflated fanfare. The media proclaimed it in banner headlines and pictured eager players panting like puppies expecting a bowl full of Kibbles and Bits. The first million dollar winner (a member of the church) was duly christened in a televised ceremony. All of which only shows that gambling fever is running high here, as elsewhere across the land. We may have about as much chance of cooling it down as of being an instant millionaire. But gambling is wrong in every way and sensible people, especially those led by God’s word, will have no part in it.

1. Gambling Is Wrong Economically. The St. Petersburg Times said, “The people who govern this state will try to separate you from your money in a game of chance that affords you virtually no chance. . . . You invest $1 in a lottery ticket, in hopes of winning $1 million. Your odds are one in a million, right? Wrong. Try one in 125 million. . . . For a realistic return on risk, the lottery is a farce. You are 250 times more likely to be hit by lightning.” While all gambling is a losing proposition (except for entrepreneurs), the lottery is probably the most economically depressing. It hurts most those who can least afford it. The Tampa Tribune reports that lower-income areas are apparently buying more tickets than the more affluent neighborhoods.

Even for winners, the economics are on the down side. Small winnings are squandered on more chances. And few who win big can wisely handle the windfall. Studies show that for most the golden goose soon dies and the visions of sugar plums that lured them to the lottery soon vanish in the thin air of infectious greed. A local family who won big in another state lives in a mansion it can hardly pay the taxes on.

2. Gambling Is Wrong Socially. It adversely alters the behavior of people in their dealings with one another. This is seen more in the fruit of gambling than in the act itself. It primarily preys on the foolish. John Dryden, the English poet, said,”Bets, at the first were fool-traps, where the wise, like spiders, lay in ambush for the flies.” The social ills of gambling are known to those who study it. After investigating national crime, Senator Estes Kefauver said, “Pages could be filled with examples heard by the (senate) committee of the old, familiar story of how fine citizens and family men became paupers, embezzlers, and worse because of the enticements of the gambling tables” (Crime in America, p. 125).

Gambling robs families of life’s necessities. It wastes time, money, and energy. It spawns crime. It gives false hope to the hard-pressed. Many who cannot pay the bills spend money on games of chance. “Gambling is a kind of tacit confession that those engaged therein do, in general, exceed the bounds of their respective fortunes” (Sir William Blackstone). Testifying for the State Gaming Commission before a senate committee in 1984, Gerard Fulcher said sixty-five percent of the lottery machines in Delaware are located near “the lowest socioeconomic group . . . and lest they forget what they are supposed to do with those machines, we found a doubling of advertising by the State lottery on the day the welfare checks arrive” (Gambling, Crime or Recreation, p. 83).

3. Gambling Is Wrong Morally. This moves the matter from the level of waste and folly to that of truth and right. “Moral” implies “conformity with the generally accepted standards of goodness or rightness in conduct and character.” With Christians, God’s word is the measure, rather than community attitudes. But many in the world see gambling as immoral. George Washington said, “Gambling is the child of avarice, the brother of iniquity, and the father of mischief.” Even the board of the National Council of Churches in 1951 reaffirmed its “vigorous opposition to all gambling as an insidious menace both to personal character and social morality.”

One moral evil of gambling is its enslaving nature. If otherwise harmless, the gambler still runs the risk of addiction. It can get a strangle hold on him. “Gamblers gamble as lovers love, as drunkards drink, inevitably, blindly, under the dictates of an irresistible force” (Horace Levinson, The Science of Chance, p. 26). Senator Kefauver said, “The fascination of gambling to many people is so strong, in my opinion, it would be complete folly to make the facilities more available than they are.” Nearly two thousand years before, Horace penned these lines in Rome: “Curst is the wretch enslaved to such a vice, who ventures life and soul upon the dice.” No one, certainly no Christian, should “chance” such a demoralizing bondage (see 1 Cor. 9:27).

But some say, “I only bet what I can afford to lose.” Or, “I gamble not for gain, but for sport.” This is like the apology for social drinking. Ben Franklin was moved to say, “Keep flax from fire, and youth from gaming (gambling).” What assurance does a gambler have that his “sport” will not lead to his child’s addiction? What assurance that it will not encourage the weak to get caught in its snare (see Rom. 14:21)? The member who gambles puts the church in an unfavorable light before those of the world who know what gambling is. He also weakens the church’s voice against worldliness of all kinds (see Rom. 2:21-24); and it is weak enough already.

4. Gambling Is Wrong Spiritually. It violates God’s will regarding material gain. There are five acceptable ways to obtain the world’s goods: work (1 Tim. 5:18), selling or exchanging value for value (Acts 5:1,4), business profit (Jas. 4:13), gifts (Acts 20:35), and inheritance (2 Cor. 12:14). Gambling is none of these. It seeks to profit at another’s expense without giving anything in return. This is true of all gambling. None wins except from another’s loss. The fact that losers are willing to risk the loss, or pool the wager to minimize it, does not lesson the evil intent of all involved.

The main cause of gambling is covetousness (Rom. 13:9). This is “greed for something another person rightfully possesses.” The word has elements of both envy and greed. The whole gambling industry rests on this sin. Richard Whately, author of Lessons on Morals, is correct in saying, “All gambling, since it implies a desire to profit at the expense of others, involves a breech of the tenth commandment. ” Christians aspire to higher motives of conduct (Col. 3:6).

The fact that every facet of gambling is wrong should be enough to cool the temptation that sometimes runs high among those, including some brethren, who dream too much about an effortless route to easy street.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, pp. 225, 247
April 21, 1988