Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

On this subject there are as many ideas as on any other one subject which would enter into a religious discussion. One man contends that what he teaches is the GOSPEL, while another says the same thing about his teaching, even though each of these doctrines are in conflict with the other, AS WELL AS THE WORD. The preacher, in whom you have the greatest confidence, may be one who leads you astray. He may be teaching something, calling it the GOSPEL, which he could not, with many years, prove to be true from the Bible. He may also be adverse to anyone who is interested enough to ask him questions. I think one of the remarkable things about Christ was his readiness to answer the questions asked him (those which were worthy of answers), for the benefit of his followers. Therefore, it is quite difficult to understand a man who does not welcome questions that pertain to the doctrine he believes and teaches. Let us now examine the GOSPEL, to note the different characteristics of it. If you read this honestly, you will see the amazing difference in the GOSPEL OF CHRIST and the varied creeds of men. We welcome your questions.

In analyzing the GOSPEL, we notice three distinct characteristics and we wish to notice them in this article.

1. There are many facts about the GOSPEL that we must believe. They are the (a) death, (b) burial, and (c) the resurrection of Christ. “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the GOSPEL which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received, how that CHRIST DIED for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that HE WAS BURIED and that HE ROSE AGAIN the third day according to the Scriptures.” (1 Cor. 15:1-4) These facts, preached by Paul, are basic facts that every honest person must accept in accepting the GOSPEL.2. In addition to facts, there are certain commands that must be obeyed. Acceptance of the GOSPEL is more than mental assent, it involves some definite action; that of ascertaining responsibility and fulfilling it. We list these commands, citing passages that prove their validity. We urge you to refer to the scriptures cited to see that we are not leading you astray.a. One must believe in Christ. (Jno. 8: 24.)

b. One must repent of sins. (Lk. 13:3.)

c. One must confess Christ as God’s Son. (Acts 8:31.)

d. One must be baptized that sins be washed away. (Acts 22:16.)

e. One must continue to live faithfully before God. (Rev. 2:10.)

3. The GOSPEL makes certain provisions for the person who has believed the facts and obeyed the commands. These are called promises.

a. The first of these promises we mention is remission of sins. (Acts 2:38.)

b. This same passage teaches us that one shall receive the gif t of the Holy Spirit. While this may be difficult to define, one who believes the Bible will not doubt its being given to the obedient. (Acts 2: 38.)

c. The last of these we mention is the promise of eternal life. (1 Jno. 5: 11) After all, is not this the ultimate end we all seek?

This is the GOSPEL! It is the “good news” that is to be proclaimed unto all men today. With Christ’s coming, death, burial and resurrection, there was made possible certain blessings which exceed any other blessings of all time. We are recipients of these blessings. It is, therefore, a great question in the minds of faithful men as to why some people seek to change the GOSPEL.

Hear this warning from the apostle Paul: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:6-9.) There are many points of great value to be gleaned from these verses, and for our purposes just here, notice that some were turning away from the GOSPEL OF CHRIST and were turned to another GOSPEL. Paul said that this was not actually another GOSPEL, but some were PERVERTING THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST. Some were changing the GOSPEL that was delivered to the world by the Spirit of God. Paul further said that he had PREACHED THE GOSPEL and that the Galatians had RECEIVED it. If there came any man or angel, preaching any perverted GOSPEL, that man stood condemned; he is destined to receive the eternal curse of God.

The problem referred to by Paul is one that we face today. There are many men who are actively teaching a PERVERTED GOSPEL. In many respects, the truthfulness of their teaching is not so much as challenged, and thus, many honest men believe the corrupt doctrine. The purpose now is to show the existence of some perversions of the GOSPEL that all may ever be on guard lest they become the victims of these false teachers. Let us notice the teaching of one prominent denomination on the:

Justification of Man

“We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings; wherefore, THAT WE ARE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH ONLY, IS A MOST WHOLESOME DOCTRINE, AND VERY FULL OF COMFORT.” (My Emp., LW. Articles of Religion; Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1914; Edited by Gross Alexander. If some would question the validity of this statement today, it might be of interest to know that this was checked with the Methodist minister, Greencastle, Indiana, who read this identical statement from the latest Methodist Discipline, 1960.) The doctrine is that man is justified before God, and that by FAITH ONLY.

How many times have you seen checks marked “only 50 cents?” I doubt that anyone misunderstands this statement. We would not expect to receive 59″: ONLY the 50″. In regard to this Methodist doctrine, we notice that Methodists teach that man is justified by “faith only.” It would be a misinterpretation of their doctrine to include repentance or confession; for “faith only” excludes anything else.

There are examples in the New Testament of men who believed but those who teach the afore-mentioned doctrine will not agree that they were justified. John 12:42 tells of rulers of the synagogue that believed but would not confess Him. They loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. James 2:19 tells of demons that believed and trembled. Is there anyone who believes that these were justified? (Notice point No. 2 above – “Commands.” There you will see other things that one must do in addition to faith.)

This is a perversion of the GOSPEL OF CHRIST for it alters the commandments. No man will ever be justified until he obeys, not part, but all the commands of God. Thus we see that the doctrine of justification by faith only is not nearly as “full of comfort” as some preacher would have you believe.

To further illustrate the different perversions of the GOSPEL, we direct your attention to one doctrine on the subject:

Church Membership

“It is most likely that in the apostolic age when there was but ‘one Lord, one faith, and one baptism,’ and no differing denominations existed, the baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a member of the church, and at once endowed him with all the rights and privileges of full membership. In that sense, ‘baptism was a door into the church.’ NOW, IT IS DIFFERENT . . .” (My Emp., LW; Standard Manual for Baptist Churches by Edward T. Hiscox, D. D., 1890. This statement is found in the 1951 copies of this manual) Here, in regard to church-membership, we see that some would change the manner practiced in the early church. At that time, one who was obedient to the Lord in baptism, was immediately granted the blessings that accompany membership in the Lord’s body. However, according to the creed of the Baptist Church, now it is different. BY WHOSE AUTHORITY IS IT NOW DIFFERENT??? With Christ and the apostles, one situation prevailed; with this modern-day denomination, another. Christ and the apostles accomplished their work and there were no denominations, only the unique body of Christ. Now, after the mind of man has become so corrupted that he thinks he can improve upon the Word of God, there are many different and conflicting denominations, some of which, would have us to believe that somewhere down through the years, Christ altered the laws governing the church and its membership. This is, by no means, the only difference present among the religious minds of the day, but it does serve to illustrate our point. Here is a perversion, A CHANGE, in the GOSPEL that was presented to mankind by an Almighty God. The Baptist creed leaves positive evidence of this in saying: “Now, it is different . . .”

I think it meet that we notice what the Bible says about this most important subject. There were 12 disciples of the Lord, divinely appointed, who began, on the day of Pentecost, the great task of spreading the Kingdom over the world. These apostles spoke to a great multitude of Jews, speaking the GOSPEL, and these Jews were the first to hear it. Hear Luke’s account of the events of that day. “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:41.) Here were some who were baptized and added to the disciples back when “no differing denominations existed.” These people were extremely happy over the fact that they now enjoyed salvation. so much so that they were “praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:47.)

What was the manner of becoming a member of that church of the New Testament?

It was: hearing the GOSPEL ( the death, burial and resurrection) proclaimed; obeying it; and being added, by the Lord, to the church. These additions being day by day as others were being saved. Are we going to adhere to the teachings of fallible men and say that now the manner of entrance into the church is different? The honest man will not. He will be content to simply obey the GOSPEL as it is recorded.

Man’s Great Mistake

One of man’s greatest failings is the attitude of heart that leads him.to think that he has the wisdom to improve upon God’s law. “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” (Jer. 10: 23.) Thus we see that man does not have the ability or authority to alter, in any respect, the law of God. WE MUST BE CONCERNED WITH OBEYING THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, nothing more or nothing less. This GOSPEL is found only in the New Testament. Sinner friend, forget your creed, manual, confession of faith, etc. STUDY THE BIBLE. You will find life beautiful, and after this life, eternity that is beyond description by man. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO MUST DECIDE.

Truth Magazine VI: 7, pp. 1, 3-4
April, 1962

By Bryan Vinson, Sr.

“And this I pray, abound yet more and that your love may more in knowledge and all discernment; so that ye may approve the things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and void of offence unto the day of Christ; b e i n g filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are through Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God”. (Phil. 1:9-11)

The above statement by the apostle embodies a most laudable desire prayerfully voiced as touching that that is designed to effect in its culmination the Philippians’ salvation eternally. All that we are, that we do and that we become here is to be esteemed in relation to our final destiny. In this prayer there is the looking to the day of Christ, and relating the present to that time. Standing between them and the final state of being sincere and void of offense in the day of Christ is the growth in knowledge and discernment to the end they may thereby be enabled to approve the things that are excellent; and the ability and practice of approving the things which are excellent renders one capable of being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which, in turn, secured the final end contemplated in the day of Christ.

To the Corinthians Paul said that it is “not he that commendeth himself (that) is approved but whom the Lord commendeth.” (2 Cor. 10:18) That is, we may be disposed to commend ourselves apart from being approved–tried, tested; however, that one whom the Lord commends is he who has been thus approved–approved through the means of having been proved or tried. James tells us, “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation, for when he is tried he shall receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to them that love him.” Notwithstanding, however, the fact that God thus exercises discernment by means of testing or trying those whom he will ultimately reward, it is essential that we, in order that we may emerge victorious from all such testing, also cultivate the quality of discernment to the end we may approve the things which are excellent. The footnote in the R. V. on this expression says: distinguish the things that differ. This is the act of discerning.

A very serious rebuke was administered to the Hebrews in the following language: “For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that someone teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God, and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For everyone that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for full-grown men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil.” (Heb. 5:12-14) The senses here are those of perception, and the capacity of spiritual apprehension. The full-grown are those, then, who by their knowledge of the truth are thereby enabled to exercise these spiritual faculties of perception and apprehension of the spiritual as distinguished from that which differs therefrom. Herein is found the explanation of that which so besets and afflicts the people of God even in our present time. Spiritual infantilism characterizes the great generality of the children of God today. They are children in that very sense in which they are told not to remain such, whereas too often they fail to be as little children in those respects in which we all must be in order to please God. There must be that humility, docility and guilelessness in our hearts and lives so eminently manifested in little children; whereas those elements of mental discernment and judgment are the product of growth and development essentially dependent on time, interest and effort, and thus not associated as characteristics of children.

The ability, therefore, of distinguishing between those things that differ is required of us, and possessing this ability is not inherent within man. We are constitutionally finite, fallible and thus liable to error in thinking as well as in action. The latter grows out of the former. This liability in varying degrees ever remains with and characterizes the lives of all men. Truly, “it is not within man that walks to direct his own steps,” and the Lord orders the steps of a good man. It is, then, recognition of one’s dependence on the Lord, and this leading to a complete reliance on His Word to direct us, which can mature the capability of exercising our senses to discern good and evil and thereby enjoy the security the Lord promises His people, which we need so much today.

The mind of the world insofar as the quality of good or evil is concerned is largely, if not wholly, confined to principles of morality. And these principles are subjected to a great torturing by man. Morality is never for long enthroned in the hearts and lives of men, when not undergirded and sustained by a just conception of God and proper relations with Him. In confirmation of this one has to but read the description of the moral decline and degeneracy of the Gentiles described in Romans the first chapter. What preceded and led to this course but the repudiation of God from their hearts? Man never can improve his character apart from Divine guidance, and influence. Where the morals of a people who aren’t Christian can be regarded as elevated such must be attributed to the indirect influence of Divine Truth on them. Thus, then, has affected beneficially these, and enabled to do so by instilling proper concepts of good and evil and thereby the power to discern between them. The children of God, while obligated to influence for weal the world, often succumb to the influence of the world. Therein is found the primary cause of the spiritual immaturity that lacks the powers of discernment we are enjoined to possess. We have taken recourse to the world to form and mold our thinking rather than being content with and informed by the mind of God. Conduct which formerly was condemned by the children of God is indulged in by many of them now, and is regarded as such to be alright since we see nothing wrong with it; and the reason we see nothing wrong or evil in such things is because we are thinking as the world thinks and does.

Also, and of great seriousness, is the disposition to evaluate spiritual matters by a moral standard, thereby failing to distinguish the difference in whether a given thing comes within the spiritual or moral realm. Recognizing that a thing may be wholly free of all moral wrong, we lack discernment if we thus adjudge such to be spiritually acceptable. Jerusalem was charged by Jehovah with having profaned holy things in failing to put a difference “between the holy and profane.” (Ezek. 22:26) That which is holy is such because it is so made and designated by Deity. Man cannot transmute the unholy into the holy by any decree of his own. Too, he cannot intrude the profane into the realm of the sacred. A given thing or action may be good species in that and a counterfeit in this. The sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, made the fatal mistake of failing to distinguish between that which God commanded and that which “he commanded them not. ” Jehovah warned Aaron that neither he nor his sons should drink strong drink when they went into the tabernacle to the end they should put a difference between unclean and clean. (Lev. 10:9-11)

A most vital lesson bearing on this very point is found in l Cor. 8. There is depicted by Paul a given action, that of eating meat; in the one instance it is all right, and in the other it is wrong. Basically, there is acknowledged by the apostle “that meat commendeth us not to God, for neither, if we eat are we the better, neither, if we eat not are we the worse.” That is so far’ as the moral aspect of the matter is concerned the eating of meat is amoral–it lies outside of being either morally or immorally considered. Furthermore, the Lord taught while here that it isn’t that which goes into the mouth of a man that defiles him, but that which comes out. So, then, starting from this base, we are confronted with the need of recognizing that one man may eat meat without being guilty of wrong doing, whereas another brother in Christ may do the same thing and thereby effect his ruin. What is the difference? The first one has knowledge; the second one has not this knowledge. But what is the knowledge the one has and the other has not? It is that an idol is nothing, and thus meat offered to an idol has no essential significance therefore attaching to it. But back of this immediate knowledge is the more fundamental concept that meat does not commend one to God, and therefore the eating it or not has no bearing on one’s standing before God. This being true, then, one cannot eat meat as an action performed in relation to God, and hence as designed to commend him to God. To do this is to sanctify to a purpose that which has not been so done by God.

In the case of the one, therefore, the eating of meat was without effect on his standing before God; whereas the same act by the other did affect his standing before God, because he attached to his eating a religious significance. It results in his condemnation. (vs. 13) So, then, we see in the one instance the act of eating meat as being an innocent one, and in the other instance a guilty one, and all because of the different concepts of the act as thus performed by the respective parties involved. The former was done as by one possessing proper knowledge and thus as exercising becoming discernment. The latter did the same act, that of eating meat, but was condemned by the’ identification in his mind of the wrong concept of the meaning and significance of that which he did as related to God. It was a non-religious thing done, but had assigned by the latter a religious connotation. Every “fellowship dinner” in which brethren participate they are unwittingly becoming the victims of the same erroneous reasoning that underlay the reasoning of the brother who was lacking in knowledge and discernment in the case instanced by Paul.

Spiritual matters are restricted to those instrumentalities and actions designated by the Lord. Man has been granted no prerogative in utilizing the one and performing the other apart from Divine authorization. To do so is to be guilty of confounding the profane and the holy.. The economy of the Jews was sanctified by the blood of animals, even the vessels employed in the service of God. (Heb. 9:18-22) Corresponding thereto, all that is within and a part of the Economy of Grace has been thus sanctified by the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ is the blood of the New Testament, and thus that which has been authorized therein is so sanctified. Herein lies the vital objection to instrumental music in the worship–it has not been sanctified by the blood of the New Testament. Consequently, it is profane as distinguished from that which is holy. This same principle of distinguishing between that which differs and thus the approving of things which are excellent is to be employed throughout the whole area of our service to God in the work and worship of the church. Let us, therefore, prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.

Truth Magazine VI: 6, pp. 21-23
March 1962

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