Truth Magazine

By Jerry C. Ray,

Due to the limited information in the Bible on the subject of demonology, and in the absence of any other inspired and infallible source of information, we of the modern world know very little about demons. But if it were not for the reference of the Bible on this interesting subject we would be mystified and completely baffled in view of the absurd and conflicting ideas set forth by men through the ages, and we would probably conclude that the entire subject was mythology.

The information of the Old Testament concerning demons is negligible. To the New Testament we must turn for the major portion of our knowledge of demonology. Even here we find, including repetitions, only about 80 references. The limited information that we have in the Bible however does not invalidate the actuality of the existence of demons.Concepts of Uninspired Men

By way of illustrating the conflicting ideas of men through the ages on demonology, and by way of introduction to demonology, let’s notice what heathen writers, Hellenistic writers, and the “church Fathers” have written on the subject.

1. Heathen writers used the word “demon” with considerable latitude. In Homer’s writings, where gods are but supernatural men, the word “daimon” ( Greek) is used interchangeably with “theos” (Greek word, translated “God”). Afterwards Hesiod used it to denote intermediate beings–messengers of the gods to men. This became its general meaning, although in poetry and in philosophy “to daimonion” was sometimes used as equivalent to “to theion” for any superhuman nature. Aristotle applies the term to Divinity, Providence. Plato used the word in the distinctly limited sense. It was also believed that the “daimonia” became tutelary deities of individuals, hence “daimonion” was often used in the sense of “fate” or “destiny” of a man. McClintock Strong states: (l) “Demons, in the theology of the Gentiles, are middle beings between gods and mortals,” ( 2 ) “Demons were of two kinds; the one were the souls of good men, which upon their departure from the body were called heroes, were afterwards raised to the dignity of demons, and subsequently to that of gods,” and (3) “The heathens held that some demons were malignant by nature, and not merely so when provoked and offended.”2. Hellenistic writers. In the Septuagint the word is employed to render different Hebrew words, generally in reference to idols in heathen worship. (Psa. 95:3) Also it is found in Dt. 32:17 for “lords,” in Isa. 65:11 for “Gad, the goddess of fortune,” and sometimes for avenging spirits, or evil spirits, as in Psa. 91:6 for “pestilence,” and in Isa. 13:21 for “hairy” and 34:14 for “dwellers in the desert” in the sense in which the King James renders “satyrs.”Josephus used the word to refer “always of evil spirits” (McClintock & Strong, 11, p. 639), and says, “Demons are no other than the spirits of the wicked, that enter into men and kill them, unless they can obtain some help against them.” He speaks of exorcism by fumigation (cf. Tobit 8: 2-3).

Philo uses the word in a general sense as equivalent to “angels,” referring to both good and bad.

3. The church Fathers. “By some they are represented as angels who, originally created holy, fell into rebellion and sin . . . while others represent them as the fruit of the intercourse of angels with women (Justin Martyr, Apol. 2: 5), and others that they are the souls of the giants whom the daughters of men bore to devils.” (Ibid., p. 640)(Under the next section of this paper we will deal with the non-canonical writings of the Jews).

The Modernist’s Position

The intellectually egotistical portion of the modern world has, in the absence of concrete proof of demons in the present age, attempted to explain away the reality of demons in Biblical times: “Demonology is the animism pertaining to malignant spirits which primitive man accepted as originators of disaster, disease, evil, etc. Its counterpart in Biblical literature is angelology, which deals with spirits that bring good to men.” (Madelein S. Miller & J. Lane Miller, Harper’s Bible Dictionary, p. 136). Thus the modernist (who denies all the supernatural in the Bible) rejects the reality of angels and demons.

How then does the Modernist explain the 80 New Testament references to demons?

1. Strauss and the mythical school. Some make the demonology of the Bible merely symbolic, without basis in fact–“only a lively symbol of the prevalence of evil in the world, the casting out of the devils by our Lord a corresponding symbol of his conquest over the evil power by his doctrine and his life.” (Op. cit., p. 641). This theory falls beneath the weight of its own assumptions in the light of the inspired record. The very manner in which the New Testament records the power of the demons and Jesus’ casting out of demons negates the possibility of highly figurative language. “It would be as reasonable to expect a myth or symbolic fable from Tacitus or Thucydides in their accounts of contemporary history.” (Ibid., p. 641).

2. The second theory is that Jesus and the New Testament writers spoke only in accommodation to the general superstitions of the Jews, without any assertion as to its truth or its falsity. It is concluded that since bodily diseases often accompanied demon possession, then demoniacs were simply people suffering from unusual diseases of mind and body. “Jesus accommodated himself to current demonology, and by the power of his word, presence, and prayer, readjusted the distorted to life.” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, p. 136).

Such is ridiculous and an insult to the dignity and integrity of Jesus, the Son of God. It is completely inharmonious with His every word and deed. Jesus not only spoke of demons as personal evil spirits to the multitudes, but in private with his disciples, declaring to them the means and conditions by which power over them could be had. (Mt. 17 21) Twice Jesus distinctly connects demoniacal possession with the power of Satan, once in Lk. 10:18, where he speaks of the success of the seventy in casting out demons as the “fall of Satan,” and again in Mt. 12:25-30.

The case of the demons entering the swine at Gadara (Mk. 5:10-14), is sufficient to show that either the gospel writers told the truth, or were guilty of base deception. The effect that the demons had upon the swine overthrows the assertion that Jesus and the gospel writers never asserted or implied objective reality of demoniacal possession.

McClintock & Strong again states the case with wisdom and emphasis: “With regard to this theory also, it must be remarked that it does not accord either with the general principles or with the particular language of Scripture. Accommodation is possible when, in things indifferent, language is used which, although scientifically or etymologically inaccurate, yet conveys a true impression, or when, in things not indifferent, a declaration of truth (1 Cor. 3:1-2), or a moral law (Mt. 19:8), is given, true or right as far as it goes, but imperfect, because of the imperfect progress of its recipients. But certainly here the matter is not indifferent. The age was one of little faith and great superstition; its characteristic the acknowledgment of God as a distant lawgiver, not an inspirer of men’s hearts. This superstition in things of far less moment was denounced by our Lord; can it be supposed that he would sanction, and the evangelists be permitted to record for ever, an idea in itself false, which has constantly been the very stronghold of superstition? ” (11, p. 641).

3. A third theory is that Jesus was himself mistaken and in error in believing in demons! “In all this there is no evidence that Jesus and His disciples consciously accommodated themselves to current beliefs they knew to be erroneous. They seem rather to have shared in the popular demonology, although they never committed themselves to the absurdities which marked some of the rabbinical teachers.” (A New Standard Bible Dictionary, Funk & Wagnalls Co., pp. 176-177). And so the modernists set aside the omniscience of the Son of God, the plain statements of Scripture, and claim for themselves superior knowledge to God’s Son. This theory is answered in the main by the remarks relative to the preceding theory. Suffice it to say that for the believer of the Bible it is a simple choice in whether to believe the plain statements of Scripture or to accept the anti-scriptural theory of Jesus being in error and ignorance.The next article will deal further with the fallacy of the Modernist’s Position, and with the absurdities of the non-canonical writings of the Jews concerning demonology. Another article will then deal with the teaching of the New Testament on demonology.

(The major portion of this article is taken from McClintock & Strong, 11, 639-642).

Truth Magazine VI: 6, pp. 19-21
March 1962

By E. C. Koltenbah

“Arraying Passages Against Passages” Who is guilty?

Brother Holland cites a scholar; “In the Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words by W. E. Vine, page 336, it is explained (emphasis mine, ECK) thusly: ‘Eternal life is the present actual possession of the believer because of his relationship with Christ, (John 5:24, 1 John 3:14), and that it will one day extend its domain to the sphere of the body is assured by the resurrection of Christ.”‘ But we cite Christ speaking of the judgment scene following the resurrection of the dead; “And these (the wicked) shall go away (future indicative) into (eis) eternal punishment: but the righteous into (eis) eternal life.” (Matt. 25:46.) Again, “Verily I say unto you, there is no man that hath left house, or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this time (kingdom’s), and in the world (age) to come eternal life.” (Lu. 18:29-30.) Identify the time of the kingdom and thus the time to come after it. And again, “Behold, I come quickly; and my reward (wages; “payroll”) is with me, to render to each man according as his work is. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into (eis) the city.” (Rev. 22: 12-4.) And again, “Be thou faithful unto (until) death, and I will give thee the crown of life.” (Rev. 2:10b.) We much prefer Jesus’ explanation.

Passage against passage, indeed! Until the brother has reconciled his position with these and parallel passages it falls, and he speaks with poor grace to charge the faithful men who have agonized their lives on earth to defend the faith and to keep the doctrine pure. They knew why they fought the good fight of the faith even if our brother does not.

Fallacy on Two Births

Our brother labors to try to show that Jn. 3:5 means a contrast between the body of man and the spirit of man, that the new birth means the spirit of man is saved from sin but the body is not. Herein he again flaunts a well known hermeneutical rule, namely; reading into a passage something the writer did not have in mind, nor which did not enter into the discussion. The discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus was not on the difference between the spirit and body of man. It was over the difference between the kingdom as Nicodemus conceived it and the one Christ came to establish. Nicodemus, nor any of the Jews, ever thought of the kingdom as open to any Gentile. So to impel him to consider the vast difference between the kingdom of the Jews with that about to be established Jesus stunned him with a figurative representation of entrance into it as contrasted with entrance into the Jewish kingdom. But Brother Holland makes Jesus to say that only the spirit of man is born again, not his body, something Jesus did not say nor intend to say. So, another hermeneutical rule is ignored; that governing interpretation of antithetical statements, the law of opposition and negation. What is affirmed on one side of the antithesis is set in opposition to the exact opposite on the other side; eliminate a functional and necessary part from one side and that on the other is eliminated. So we shall apply the rule to the passage as our brother construes it.

“That which is born of flesh is flesh,” vs. “that which is born of spirit is spirit.” If, therefore, the spiritual birth eliminates the body, then the fleshly birth eliminates the spirit of man, otherwise the rule is broken and the passage rendered meaningless, reduced to a farce. If the fleshly body can’t be involved in the one then the spirit of man can’t be involved in the other. Now will the brother tell us where the spirits of the Jews came from? Did the human spirit “stand by” and wait until the body came forth out of the womb then enter into it? Or did the Jews ever have human spirits? The brother’s theology gets him into a maze of theosophical difficulties with no way out except by renouncing the folly. If he denies the rule of interpretation he must find how to answer sectarians in another antithetical statement of Jesus, namely, Mk. 16:16. They say one is saved and can’t be lost. But the rule applied means the lost can’t be saved! If he admits the rule he surrenders his case. There is no dodge on this passage; he must repudiate the hermeneutics of his theory. Besides, Paul did not so understand for he says, “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also is it now.” (Gal. 4:28-29.) Now, Brother, did Ishmael have a spirit; was he born with one? Did Isaac have a body? What constitutes a man that God was mindful of him, or how made a little lower than the angels? Jesus did not teach one thing on the matter, then give to Paul to present it contrariwise. It is unexegetical to build a doctrine on a figure.

But here also another rule is violated. Jn. 3:5 is a highly figurative passage. The literal act describing the same thing is found in apostolic revelation, viz, “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and were all made to drink of one Spirit.” (I Cor. 12:13.) And again, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27.) The rule is that figurative or otherwise obscure and difficult passages must be explained in the light of plain passages treating of the same subject. But following the lead of sectarians bent on proving their creeds the brother reverses the rule and attempts explanation of the plain passages by what he thinks he sees in the obscurity of the figurative, then rests his case on an appeal to sectarian scholars. Operating by this fallacious principle guarantees that one would never see the truth nor understands why good men defend it!

Rom. 8 and Like Passages Misconstrued

Much of the remainder of the article is given over to a gross misinterpretation of Rom. 8:1-11 and parallel passages. The-term, “flesh,” in this passage cannot refer to the literal body for “they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” (v. 8.) Nothing stamps one of being more in the dark as to this epistle than to construe it as referring to the literal body. And the body that is “dead because of sin” (v. 10), is precisely the same as the “body of sin” (Rom. 6:6), which is done away when baptized into Christ. (6: 3ff.) It is identical to the “flesh” in the passage under consideration. Let him who differs explain what of a man is crucified with Christ! Let him explain how one can put to death what is already dead, i.e., dead in sin! Paul states clearly, “And if Christ is in you (necessary antecedent condition), the body is dead because of sin” (consequent inevitable result), (Rom. 8:10); not dead in sin here; hence if it means the literal body it necessarily follows that it is better to live in sin than have Christ in us, but Paul did not say this of the physical body. This necessary conclusion forever compels the rejection of the misinterpretation. The body of sin is what Paul affirms to be dead. The brother is utterly confused on this passage. The life given in Rom. 8:11 following does not refer to the general resurrection, but the life mentioned at the very outset of the paragraph; read it; “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life (spiritual law of life, i. e., the gospel, Rom. 1:16) made me free from the law of sin and of death.” (8:1-2.) Is this freedom something other than life? So Paul says in the concluding statement, “But if the Spirit of him that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies (literal as qualified) through his Spirit that dwells in you” (consequent inevitable result.) (v. 11.) The resurrection of Jesus guarantees the resurrection of the righteous no more than it does that of the wicked. That is not Paul’s reference here, but instead to establish that the power that rose up Christ from literal death is identical to the power that dwells in the believer thus enables even his mortal body to live unto God, now that there is NO CONDEMNATION to him. This condition is absolutely absent in the unbeliever hence he is dead in sin; under condemnation. For the literal body of the believer belongs to Christ, (1 Cor. 6:15), and is the temple of the Holy Spirit, (1 Cor. 6:19), and the Spirit gives life. (Jn. 6:63.) This is the office of his word. It is the life that is freed from the condemnation of sin. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Cor. 3:17.)

The condemnation to physical death of the physical body is not because of guilt of sin, but because of the consequence of Adam’s sin. One is not pardoned of consequences, but of guilt. Therefore that which is involved in the guilt is pardoned and that is the whole of a man and that must be kept free of sin. (2 Cor. 7:1.) But the literal death of the body due to Adam’s sin comes to all men, whether in Christ or not. It was an unconditional decree in Eden. The law of pardon is the conditional means of removing the guilt; is absolutely effective when its terms are met; will remain effective as long as its terms are kept; and the life of Rev. 21 and 22 is the eternal reward entered upon following the judgment.

Paul deals with one step at a time in the development of his theme in Romans and this is true in chapter 8. He discusses the end of condemnation in 8:1-11 and does not deviate from it in any wise; not even in the resurrection from the dead. To speak of it there would have been a digression in subject material. At least give the apostle credit for not being confused when he wrote the passage. In vs. 12-17 he goes a step further in discussing the triumph of sonship in Christ. Then in vs. 18-25 he proceeds to the subject of our eventual glorification involving the resurrection of the dead; he had reserved that matter for this entry. Still two other triumphs of redemption are discussed in the remainder of the chapter, BUT IN NO CASE DOES THE APOSTLE CONFUSE HIS READERS BY DISCUSSING A NUMBER, OR ALL, OF THESE RELATED SUBJECTS AT ONE AND THE SAME INSTANCE, Revelation is clear as a bell, but uninspired theology is woefully confused in its frantic efforts of self justification, wresting the word of God to suit its purpose.

Pitfall of Using the Language of Ashdod

The adoption of the language of sectarianism with its sinister connotations instead of Bible language in disregard of 2 Tim. 1:13, contributes greatly to the darkness of confusion in scriptural matters. Where in the Bible do we read of “spiritual life and spiritual death” in flowing terms? To insist that it must be so even if not stated in so many words is to beg the question. The New Testament treats the matter as “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2: 1), and “made alive together with him” (Eph. 2:5), and sin is not an entity to be removed by some sort of mysterious surgery, but is transgression of law (1 Jn. 3: 4), and its guilt must be removed by pardon. Nor is eternal life an indefinite mysterious something of an entity separate and apart from the persons who obtain it, as some seem to suppose. To conceive of it as such is as childish as the parallel Jewish traditional concept of sin, the adoption of which Jesus condemned as being without understanding. (Matt. 15:16.) There is not one single text in the entire New Testament that remotely hints eternal life being some sort of separate entity that can be passed back and forth between recipient and God. Even the very thought is utterly preposterous. On the contrary God gives man the RIGHT to become his children (Jn. 1:12), the RIGHT to enter into the heavenly city (Rev. 22:14): the transformation is of the entity that is, namely, the man! One of the certain marks of incompetent scholarship in scriptural matters is the promulgation of theoretical positions based upon lavish and strained misinterpretations of highly figurative and obscure passages in utter disregard of plain simple texts treating of these very matters. We have not only the new birth as such a figure regularly misused by sectarian error, but also such parallel figures as the adoption of sons, (Rom. 8:15 ), espousal to one husband, ( 2 Cor. 11:2), translation, (Col. 1:13), the laver (Tit. 3:5), all placed by revelation for the same literal act. If it is legitimate to take that of the new birth and run unbridled into the illimitable reaches of uninspired fancy and livid imagination, why not of any or all of the others? Yet revelation itself poses the answer and caution to every seeker of the truth, that we must turn to the plain teaching in literal language of those men whom the Lord himself ordained to explain such matters, the apostles, (1 Cor. 2:6-16), matters which “in other generations (before the cross) was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed (gospel time) unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit.” (N. T. prophets.) (Eph. 3:5.) When they explained the figures they removed the drapery of beautiful imagery and reduced them to the simple concrete terms of gospel obedience. To ignore this simple truth and revert to some chosen figure to distort, elaborate, and perpetuate in nebulous and grandiose proportions a superstructure of doctrinal confusion in a desperate effort to prove the unprovable of human invention is to demonstrate disqualification to lead the people of God. He who makes a “discovery” (?) of Biblical truth involving obedience never before seen by any of the faithful among God’s chosen commits rational suicide.

Truth Magazine VI: 7, pp. 6-9
April 1962

By Billy Boyd

Something is eternal! This is the most axiomatic of all axioms, the most self-evident of all truths. To say that something cannot come from nothing may be to repeat an overworked phrase, yet it is also to restate an unalterable truth.

Even the absolute materialist must concede that everything is grounded in eternity. This is as fundamental to his development of matter and man as it is to the theist. The chair in which I am sitting, the desk on which I am writing, the paper, the ink, the typewriter, which I am using, all have their existence ultimately depending on the eternal. To deny this is to deny reality itself. One has only to seek to trace anything back to its ultimate source or origin to see its necessary relationship to what we will presently call the “undefined eternal.” The desk on which I am writing is made of wood. This wood came immediately from a tree. The tree in turn was the product of a seed. The seed, itself, was the product of a different tree which had been able to grow because of its ability to utilize certain basic elements of the earth. Thus, we would be completely accurate in saying that the desk at which I am sitting is basically composed of certain combinations and adaptations of some of the elements. These elements may be further broken down into atoms which may be even further broken down into electrons and protons. In the views of some scientists, these may be further broken down to the point that matter is a form of energy. But still one does not get away from the force of the fact that every existing thing is grounded in the eternal.

Materialistic Reasoning

If we should follow the absolute materialist in his reasoning, we would be taken back through the supposed evolution of life, through the emergence of the living from the non-living, even through the evolution of matter itself. Yet, we would still ultimately stand face to face with the fact that something is eternal. If the basic foundation of matter is energy in motion, then energy in some form existed before matter.

The recent claims of some scientists that they may be able to “create” matter (i.e. make new matter from other matter) in no way alters this fact. For in his attempts to bring into existence matter which did not previously exist, the scientist begins whith matter and energy which did previously exist. Even if scientists are successful in bringing matter into existence, which did not previously exist, all that will have been done will be to prove that under favorable conditions, certain types of matter can “give birth” to other matter. If something is not eternal, then they must not seek to “create” matte: by the formation of favorable conditions, but they must seek to “create” matter by the elimination of all conditions. Unless something is eternal, we must trace the ultimate origin to the time when there was no matter, no elements, no energy. We must envision, not only a time when there was no earth, but also when there was no sun, no stars, no gaseous elements from which they might be formed NO THING. Then we must bow before this great state of Nothingness with reverence, humility and awe. For NOBODY, out of NOTHING, with NOTHING to do it, with created the great and marvelous SOMETHING which we behold. No greater feat of magic has ever been performed, no greater miracle has ever been claimed, no greater fraud has even been perpetuated. Yet, this is the conclusion to which the “educated” man of today is driven unless, UNLESS, he wishes to write an answer other than NOTHING in the blank of the following statement, _______ is Eternal. If he writes an answer in this blank other than NOTHING, then our axiom has been admitted. SOMETHING IS ETERNAL!

But the inquiring mind cannot stop here. Faced with the undeniable reality that something is eternal, the honest searcher must seek to know what this “undefined eternal” is.

Dilemma of Agnosticism

Here the agnostic bogs down. He fears to face the inquiry and seeks to take refuge in the disposition that “I do not know and cannot know what is eternal.” But clearly such an attitude is not only irrational, it is impossible to truly maintain. There can be no such thing as true agnosticism in a practical way for two reasons. First, to be a true agnostic one would forever have to close his mind to the problem of what is eternal. Guided by the disposition that I do not know and cannot know, the agnostic would be forced to abandon all search, all questioning, all desire to know. This is an impossible state of mind. Second, agnosticism is an impossible philosophy by which to live. “On the grounds that certain knowledge of God and spiritual things is unattainable, it bids man think and feel and act as if there were no God and no spiritual life and no further existence. It thus degenerates into a practical atheism.” (New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. I, p. 87.) While avowedly affirming nothing, practically the agnostic affirms the negative that that which is eternal is not God. And in so doing, he runs from the refuge to which he ostensibly fled for shelter.

Thus the honest mind is forced again to the consideration of what is eternal. Only two answers have ever been seriously maintained and we will now examine these one at a time.

Materialism

Materialism is the doctrine or belief that MATTER is eternal. It should be emphasized at the outset that materialism, like theism, is a FAITH. Sometimes those who do not believe in God are wont to belittle the idea of faith. But in the world in which we live it is impossible not to exercise faith in something. Those who do not have faith in God have faith in something other than God. The responsibility of the materialist is, not to ridicule the exercise of faith, but to show the faith which HE exercises is more reasonable and rational than the faith which the theist exercises. This he cannot do and should he even attempt to so do, he will end in utter failure. William Clark has forcefully pointed out that it “is fair to say at this stage of history that all materialistic explanations of existing things have lapsed into common failure.” (The Christian Doctrine of God, p. 393.)

Science cannot produce one shred of evidence to indicate that matter is eternal. The very opposite is true. All of the known facts of the universe in which we live point inevitably to the conclusion that matter is not eternal. Those who hold the doctrine of materialism do so without facts and often in the face of the facts. Not only so, but they are faced with insurmountable difficulties all along their pathway of tracing life. For when one affirms the eternity of matter, he, at the same time, affirms that life emerged from non-life, order from non-order, intelligence from non-intelligence and spirit from non-spirit. He likewise affirms that all of this took place without guidance, plan or direction. He is forced to the conclusion that the world with all its wonders and marvels is totally the produce of change. Therefore, the doctrine that matter is eternal is unreasonable as well as unscientific. This has been dramatically demonstrated in recent weeks by indications that even the top scientists in Russia are no longer satisfied with a purely materialistic explanation of life.

Theism

If then, the question of what is eternal cannot be satisfactorily answered by the doctrine of materialism, how is it to be answered? The only other possibility is that Mind, manifested in the existence of God, is eternal. There is, of course, the popular idea today that the world and its phenomena are to be explained by the doctrine of pantheism. This is the belief that the world itself, with its forces, movements and actions IS God. This doctrine denies the personal being of God and seeks to identify God as Cosmic Energy or force. The fallacy of this faith is that it ultimately reverts to materialism and collapses at the same spot. For if the only god in the universe is a god of Cosmic Energy, then this energy must be eternal. But this is the exact affirmation of materialism and is equally unreasonable and unscientific.

We return again, then, to the only possible answer to the question of what is eternal. It is the answer which is affirmed in scripture and expressed so beautifully by Paul. “Which in its own time he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power eternal.” (I Tim. 6: 15-16.) Or again, “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.” (I Tim. 1:17.) This was the same wonderful truth that had been expressed many years earlier by Isaiah in these graphic words: “For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy.” (Isa. 57:15, emphasis added.)

Yes, something is eternal. That something is God. This is a faith that is founded in fact, that rises with right reason and that can be continued in confidence. May we never allow the clouds of skepticism and doubt to block the sunshine of this truth from our souls. May we with unwavering trust be guided by this truth until we, ourselves, stand on the other bank of eternity and are ushered into the presence of Him who makes his habitation there.

Truth Magazine VI: 7, pp. 11-13
April 1962

By Ervin Driskill

Brother Gayle Oler continues to write as though his statements, concerning the relationship of Boles Home to the church and whether it is doing the work of the church or the home, had never been met or answered. In B. H. News, January 25, 1962, he has this to say, “Boles Home is doing the work of the home and not the church.” Well, let us suppose that B. H. was emptied of all children and the facilities were used for 350 “widows-indeed” and churches were maintaining their care. Would this be the work of the church or the home? I Tim.5:16 certainly identifies such care of widows as the work of the church. (This does not mean a centralized arrangement of caring for widows indeed, under one eldership, would be right; I only use the illustration to show what is and who is the obligation of the church). My point is this: What makes B. H. caring for 350 children doing the work of the HOME and B. H. caring for 350 widows doing the work of the church? Does Gayle deny that I Tim 5:16 sets forth the work of the church? One of two things is true: (1) Either B. H. (under its present set-up) is doing the work of the church and not the home or (2) I Tim. 5:16 is not a picture of the church at work. Either you deny I Tim. 5:16 or you give up the present set up at Boles Home.

Caring for my family is my obligation and, that which is my obligation becomes my WORK. This is true of any person or organization. When I am unable to meet my obligation I am no longer accountable for the work. When the church steps in, it has accepted its obligation and it has therefore become ITS WORK. From this it is evident that if the church has any obligation to children in B. H. and is meeting the obligation then, it is the WORK OF THE CHURCH and not THE HOME that is being done. These are evident facts and they cannot be gainsaid. If any of these liberal brethren think otherwise let them expose the fallacy. At least two major things are wrong with B. H. (1) They have fostered a work on churches, that is not the work of the churches and, (2) they are having them do it through a human institution.

It has further been argued that caring for orphans is a Religious Work. (Jas. 1: 27.) However, the charter of Boles H. says, “Every director believes, and is required to believe in order to be a director, that the LOCAL CONGREGATION of the church of Christ, IS ALL AND THE ONLY ORGANIZATION AUTHORIZED TO CARRY ON CHRISTIAN WORK OR WORSHIP and that such organization EXCLUDES EACH AND EVERY OTHER ORGANIZATION for the purpose of conducting or carrying on RELIGIOUS WORK or worship, whether the same be missionary or OTHERWISE.” (caps, mine R.E.D.) Notice then, the following:

1. The church being the ONLY ORGANIZATION for carrying on RELIGIOUS WORK, excludes all other organizations for carrying on that work (Boles charter).

2. Boles Home is ANOTHER ORGANIZATION carrying on RELIGIOUS WORK. (Jas. 1:27.) Therefore, Boles Home is excluded by its own charter.

But, with the former before us we reach this conclusion:

1. Another organization to do or carry on RELIGIOUS WORK is an impeachment of the wisdom of God in establishing the church to do RELIGIOUS WORK.

2. Boles Home is that other organization. Therefore, Boles Home is an impeachment of the wisdom of God.

These brethren must either deny Boles Home is doing a RELIGIOUS WORK (and when they do they give up their argument on Jas. 1:27 and it applying to the church rather than the individual), or they must admit Boles Home is doing the WORK OF THE CHURCH, or THEY WILL HAVE TO WRITE ANOTHER CHARTER.

Our brother further says, “B. H. sustains exactly the same organizational relationship to the church of Christ that any other home does.” That then, means there is no such relationship or connection and, if so, what right do men have setting up such an organization and soliciting and receiving contributions from churches? Could we set up natural homes and solicit and receive contributions from the church? We could if B. H. sustains the same organizational relationship as any other home. I can give as much scripture for one as he can for the other and there is none for either.

If men in the church, set up a Missionary Society and make its establishment and continual existence depend on church money and, its policies and operation are set by a board, it becomes an organization of the church; there is organic relationship but, these same men can set up a Benevolent Society (Boles H.) and it is not an organization of the church; there is no organic relationship. Those who so reason are either mighty shall low or, are too dishonest to admit their inconsistency.

Gayle also says, “So B. H. stands in the exact PLACE of the home, and in no other” and then argues there is no difference in the natural home and Boles H. How can B. H. be “the home” and at the same time “stand in the place of the home?”

The following are propositions I shall be happy to affirm and deny:

1. Resolved: The New Testament teaches the church’s obligation, in benevolence, extends to saints ONLY.

2. Resolved: The New Testament teaches the church has a responsibility to care for orphans who are not saints as well as those who are.

I will affirm the first and deny the second. Let someone first establish the right of the church to support orphans per se and then we will discuss the relationship of Boles Home to the church etc.

It becomes a little disconcerting for brethren to state their belief in the all sufficiency of the church and then come forth with a lot of specious palaver trying to prove their unscriptural practice is in harmony with their statement of belief.

Truth Magazine VI: 7, pp. 13-14
April 1962