Truth Magazine

By Melvin Curry

In the last article the issue of Holy Ghost baptism and the continuation of miracles was discussed. The last two nights of the debate involved the question of the number of persons in the Godhead.

 

Persons in the Godhead

 

The Third Night — Mr. Childress had the first affirmative speech dealing with the Godhead question. He affirmed the following proposition:

The Scriptures teach that there is only one person in the Godhead and baptism is to be administered only in the name of Jesus Christ.

His speech was completely disorganized and he made no attempt to define the terms of the proposition. He quoted numerous passages that teach the oneness of deity, especially from the Old Testament, and made an emotional effort to exalt the name of Jesus in the baptismal formula.

Brother Belue’s first negative speech was interrupted several times because of a faulty public address system. Even though he lost much of his effectiveness as a result of this fact, he did a masterful job in tying Mr. Childress in knots.

The United Pentecostal Church is represented by its debaters as teaching that the word person means “a human bodily form.” It holds true, therefore, that God is not a person, He only has a person. God’s person is Jesus Christ.

Through a set of calculated questions, brother Belue was able to commit Mr. Childress to this same position. Then he committed himself to the task of debating the proposition on the basis of Mr. Childress’ own definition of the term “person.” In fact, by doing this in his second negative speech, he so bewildered Mr. Childress that he was completely at a loss to defend the proposition that he signed to affirm.

His proposition affirmed that “there is only one person in the Godhead.” But his own definition of terms denied that God is a person at all. He at one time had a person, but not now. Jesus Christ was the “human bodily form” of God manifested in the flesh. So if the God of heaven is a human bodily form, He cannot be a “Spirit,” because “a spirit hath not flesh and bones” (Lk 24:39). He saw his dilemma! Either he must affirm that there is more than one person in the Godhead, in order to keep God from being a flesh-and-bone-Spirit, or he must deny that there is a person in the Godhead. But to do this would be to forfeit his own proposition. Even Mr. Welch, who moderated for him the last two nights, was not able to get him out of this tight spot throughout the rest of the debate.

The Fourth Night — Since brother Belue had accepted the definition of “person” proposed by Mr. Childress the night before, his opponent was obligated to accept his definition the last night, or else contend with the flesh-and-bone-Spirit he had created by his own specious reasoning. Whereupon, brother Belue defined the word as “an intelligent, rational being.” Then he proceeded to prove that there are three “intelligent, rational beings” in the Godhead.

He clearly defined all the terms of the following proposition carefully:

The Scriptures teach that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead, and baptism according to the wording of Matt. 28:19 is scriptural.

Having committed Mr. Childress on the meaning of the term “person,” the first half of the proposition was much easier to establish. And it stands to reason that all he had to do in order to prove the last half of the proposition was simply to quote Matthew 28:19. If baptism according to the wording of Matthew 28: 19 isn’t scriptural, then nothing is!

 

A Scriptural Defense

 

Brother Belue’s affirmative speech was well outlined and easily understood. The arguments were three in number and followed one upon another logically. First, he proved by the use of a chart that there are three in the Godhead. The chart had twenty scriptural references on it, including Matthew 3:13-17; 28:19; Luke 1:35; John 3:34; 14:26; 20:21, 22, etc. All of them mentioning the three persons of the Godhead in the same context.

Second, he demonstrated that these three are persons. The Father is a person: He has a will (Mt. 7:21), a voice (Ex. 19:19; Mt. 3:17), and a business (Lk. 2:49); He reveals (Mt. 16: 17), sees (Mt. 6:6), hears (Jn. 11:41; 9:31), appoints (Lk. 22:29), and works (Jn. 5:17); He teaches (Jn. 8: 28), forgives (Mk. 11: 25), knows (Mk. 13:32), gave authority to His Son (Jn. 5: 27); and His person is well attested by Scripture (Job 13:8; Heb. 1:3).

Jesus Christ is a person: He has a mind (1 Cor. 2: 16), knowledge (Jn. 10:4), and all authority (Mt. 28:18); He is God’s Son (I Jn. 4:15), our mediator (I Tim. 2:5), and head of the church (Eph. 5:23); He is eternal (Heb. 13:8); He came from heaven) (Jn. 6:38); He assisted God in creation (Eph. 3:9); He reveals (I,k. 10:22), appoints (Lk.22:29), works (Jn. 5:17), and bears witness (Jn. 1: 18).

The Holy Spirit also is a person: He has a mind (Rom. 8:27), a will (I Cor. 12:11), and knowledge (I Cor. 2:10, 11); He speaks (I Tim. 4:1), bears witness (Rom. 8:16), teaches (Jn. 14:26), testifies (Jn. 15:26), guides (Jn 16:13), commands and restrains (Acts 16:6, 7); He appoints (Acts 20:28), reproves (Jn. 16:7, 8), intercedes (Rom. 8:26), and invites (Rev. 22:17); He can be lied to (Acts 5:3), resisted (Acts 7: 51), quenched (I Thess. 5:19), done despite to (Heb. 10:29), vexed (Isa. 63:10), and grieved (Eph. 4:30); and He is eternal (Heb. 9:14).

Third, since there are three in the Godhead, and since these three are persons, then it follows that they must be separate and distinct from one another. This can be illustrated by a study of the person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is not God the Father: (1) No man has seen God at anytime (I Jn. 4:12; Jn. 1:18; Ex. 33:20). Men have seen Jesus Christ (Jn. 1: 14). Jesus Christ, therefore, must be distinct from the Father.

(2) God knew the day and hour of Christ’s second coming (Mk. 13:32). Jesus Christ did not know that day and hour (Mk. 13:15 32). Jesus Christ, therefore, must not be God the Father.

(3) God (Spirit) has not flesh and bones (Jn. 4:24). Jesus had flesh and bones (Lk. 24:39). Jesus Christ, therefore, is not God the Father.

Jesus Christ is not the Holy Spirit. (1) Those of the world cannot see a spirit (Jn. 14:17).

Those of the world could see Jesus (Jn. 14:19). Jesus Christ, therefore, is not the Spirit.

(2) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven (Mt. 12:31, 32). Blasphemy against Christ can be forgiven. Jesus Christ, therefore, is not the Spirit.

(3) The Spirit hath not flesh and bones (Lk. 24:39). Jesus Christ had flesh and bones. Jesus Christ, therefore, is not the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ is distinct from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. He is one of the three persons in the Godhead (Col. 2 :9).

The overwhelming evidence presented by this positive presentation of truth could not be gainsaid by Mr. Childress. The proposition was sustained beyond any question of a doubt.

Truth Magazine VI: 4, pp. 14-16
January 1962

By Richard A. Kruse

It is important to consider the love of God for man It is important to consider the love of man for God. But it is also important to consider the love man should have for man.

Many fine things are said in the Bible about love. It is called the first commandment (Matt. 22:36-40); it is called the second commandment; it is the great commandment; it is the last commandment (1 Tim. 1:5). All the law is fulfilled in this commandment (Gal. 5:14). It sums up all the commandments (Rom. 13:8-10). He that practices it fulfills the law. It is the royal law (Jas. 2:8): God said above all things be fervent in love (1 Pet. 4:8) . It is the last of the Christian graces (2 Pet. 1: 7) . It is the first of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). It not only covers a multitude of sins (1 Pet. 4:8), but it also covers all sins (Prov. 10:12). It is greater than faith or hope (1 Cor. 13:13).

God is called love (1 John 4:8,16). If God is love then the amount of love that one has in him is the measure of God that is in him. Too many have more of the devil in them than they have of God. Love must be without hypocrisy ( Rom. 12 :9) . In love of the brethren, be tenderly affectionate one towards another (Rom. 12:10). Love worketh no ill to his neighbor (Rom. 13:10). Because of love one would not eat meat if thereby his brother is grieved (Rom. 14: 15). Knowledge puffeth up but love edifies (1 Cor. 8: 1). Let all that you do be done in love (1 Cor. 16:14).

We should confirm our love to the weak and fallen (2 Cor. 2:8) . Through love we are to be servants one to another (Gal. 5: 13) . Love caused Jacob to work seven years for Rachel and they seemed to him as but a few days (Gen. 29:20). It makes the unpleasant sweet and the dread easy. It changes one’s outlook on life and makes one like the Master who prayed in death for His murderers (Lk. 23:34). It caused Stephen to pray for those who stoned him to death (Acts. 7:60).

We are to follow after love (1 Cor. 14:1). We are to walk in love (Eph. 5:2). We are to bear one another in love (Eph. 4: 12); Speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Thus the body edifies itself in love (Eph. 4:16). No wonder that God will see to it that love never faileth (1 Cor. 13:8).

Jesus says that we should love one another, even as He loved us (John 13:34; 15: 12). How much did Christ love us? Did you know that the Bible not only says that Christ laid down His life for us, but that we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren (1 John 3:16)? Is that too hard for us to practice? Then it is too hard for us to be Christians. Love your neighbor as yourself is the second commandment. That leaves no room for less love for our brethren, all the brethren–even the ones we disagree with or ones of a different race. How far from the Bible many are, and yet they wonder if they will go to heaven (Rev. 22: 14-15).

“Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things I say?” (Lk.5:56). Love will cause us to obey God. It will eliminate gossip, lies, slander and division. Love will cause us to preach the message of love to save the souls of the lost (John 3:16; Rom. 6:3-6; 1 Cor. 15: 1-4).

Truth Magazine VI: 3, p.060
December 1961

By F. Maurice Ethridge

When Paul said for women to “adorn themselves in modest apparel,” he surely did not imply that there is only one way for women to dress. Women today, obviously do not dress as women dressed fifty years ago, and women do not dress as they did in Paul’s day. Customs are constantly changing. Today, they seem to be changing faster than ever, because of an alert psychology employed by the garment industries. But, the point is that there is change in custom of dress. People simply do not adorn themselves the same in different ages and in different cultures.

Furthermore, they look back at the clothes people wore in other ages and say, “my, how foolish they look; why did they ever wear that thing?” Or, they might say, “How immodest people used to dress.” If the women of Paul’s day could see the women of today they might think that they were very immodest, or we might think the same thing of them. So, when the styles of clothes change, the judgment of their value also changes. What is “immodest” in one generation may be “modest” in another, and vice versa. And we may say the same thing of different cultures of the world today. What is “modest” in the U.S. may be “immodest” in India. Therefore, two women may be considered modestly dressed in their own cultures and yet each would think that the other is immodestly dressed. Now, the odd thing about all this is that both would be obeying Paul’s command to adorn themselves in “modest apparel.”

The real problem here is this, “Does Custom Define Morals?” Or, we may say it another way, “Is the Christian Moral Standard Relative to the Environment of the Individual Christian?” What would be your answer to that question? One’s cultural environment does come into consideration of what is right and what is wrong for each individual. Probably no one today would say that a woman who wears make-up is “immodest.” Yet, such a woman would have been kicked out of almost any church seventy years ago. Well, which one is right? Neither is right and neither is wrong, depending on the definition of the culture. For example, the covering of the head of the woman in 1 Cor. 11. They would consider the modern woman very immodest, but we do not think they are immodest just because they do not have a veil over their heads.

So, we may say that Custom Does Define Morals–But only to a very limited degree. The Eskimos used to put their old people on icebergs and let them drift out into the warm sea. The fathers are customarily murdered by their oldest son in a native sub-culture of India. This is the custom. The father expects it, the mother expects it, and everybody expects it. The oldest son has sinned if he fails to carry out this custom. If he should become a Christian, could he do this? Customs define morals, but only to a very limited degree.

The limitation is the law of liberty, the New Testament. It commands us not to murder not to commit adultery, not to steal, etc. In some cultures, however, it is customary to do these things. But the Bible says that we are “immoral” if we do them. When there is a conflict between the custom and the Bible, the custom is always wrong. Sometimes SIN IS THE CUSTOM.

It has become a custom today, for women and girls to wear shorts and other articles of clothing, which are designed to give almost full view to every shape and contour of the female form. Fifty years ago it would have been “immodest”, but in our time “its all right.” The standards of modesty are defined by the culture, BUT ONLY TO A VERY LIMITED DEGREE. Are shorts, etc. modest?

Some people may point to some of the tribes of Africa, South America, or the South Pacific, and say, “They wear much less and nobody thinks anything about it.” Native women are only half-dressed by our standards but their cultural environment says that they are modestly dressed. No one in their village may think that they are immodest, because they wear nothing above the waist, but they would be immodest if they should paint their toenails. Does this mean that a grass skirt can be “modest apparel” for some people. We may go a little farther with this logic and say that modest apparel for some may be no apparel at all.

This ought to show that there is a limit to the cultural determination of morals. But, where is that limit? SIN. When you find the dress customarily scanty you also find their morals customarily scanty. You find many forms of plural marriages, as well as customary pre-marital and extra-marital relations. SIN COMES TO BE THE CUSTOM. So “short shorts”, bikinis, etc. are becoming the custom; so is fornication. The only way to check this tendency is by the public records on divorce, rape, illegitimacy, prostitution, etc. How much adultery is not recorded? How many “shot-gun” weddings are there? In our modern American culture, sexual promiscuity is becoming more customary. THERE IS A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THIS TREND AND THE WAY WOMEN DRESS TODAY.

Jesus said, “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). Everywhere we look today, man sees the partially dressed female. Most females want most males to see what they have to show off, and their shorts, etc. are a big help. In the summer-time men may revel in a free burlesque just by going to the lake. Next summer most men will commit adultery (at least in their hearts), thanks to the omnipresent temptation presented by the young American female. Those who do not are either Christians, blind, or to old. Few will be able to resist the temptation, and few women will give them much help. These sweet, innocent little teen-age girls in “short-shorts,” are contributing a major part to the destruction of the morals of our country and the Church in America, because they are helping to lower our standards of morality. If the trend of less and less on more and more continues, we will reach a point when there is nothing on everything. What kind of moral standard will we have fifty years from now? Will sin become the custom? Parents, and young women, this question is yours. You and your children will determine the moral standards of our country and the Church of tomorrow.

Custom defines morals to a limited degree, and that degree is sin. Shorts, etc. are becoming customary, and so is sin. These two things are related.

(Via The Defender; St. Louis, Mo.)

Truth Magazine VI: 3, pp. 4-6
December 1961

By 

There are many things people seek in religion today. Some look for the church with the most parking spaces or the most elegant building. Some look for a place to display their clothing, or for a place where the preacher will not preach very long or hard. Some think the elders and preachers give the congregation a hard time by being anti-modernistic a n d trying to teach the word of God as it should he taught. (Of course, such faithful brethren will not be very popular with the younger generation).

It is said one colored preacher told his congregation that one fifth of them wore out the knees of their trousers praying while the other four-fifths wore out the seat of their trousers backsliding. The same is true today. In many ways, we can deny Christ just as Peter did. Many of us condemn Peter for his action, but we do the same thing in our every day walks of life. We are going to be held responsible for teaching the pure word of God. If we fail in this, then I’m afraid the younger generation and the following one will have plenty of parking spaces, be long on air conditioning and very short on sermons and the practice of a pure religion.

When we surrender to the will of Christ and obey his word, the Lord forgives our sins and purifies our souls like that of a newborn baby. Jesus can’t keep sin out of our lives – we must do this in manifesting the fruits of repentance. He told the sinful woman to “go and sin no more” (John 8:11). Again we read, “Draw nigh to God and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands ye sinners; purify your hearts ye double minded” (Jas. 4:8). The responsibility for a change in our conduct and character is ours. We must change. Christ can’t clean up our sinful lives while we continue in evil doing. He has promised to aid, guide and sustain us, but the actual obligation of refusing to sin is ours. Let us here note some things Christ is unable to do for us.

He Can’t Purify Our Bodies While Our Hearts Are Evil

Jesus said, “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man” (Mark 7:21). Sin that is made evident in the actions of the body has actually had its origination in our minds. The intellect of man is responsible for his sins. If we would possess bodies that are clean and pure, we must first clean up the inner man. If we would speak words that are sound and “cannot be condemned,” we must be sure that speech emanates from a clean heart, for “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matt. 12:34). Whoever thinks evil long will soon find himself saying or doing evil. Thus Paul admonishes Christians to think on things that are honest, just, true, lovely, of good report, virtuous, and worthy of praise (Phil. 4:8). Christ can’t control our thoughts, nor can He make our lives to be in contrast with that which we think on.

Christ Can’t live Our Lives for Us

Christianity is a doing religion. Jesus went about doing good to others, and we are commanded to “be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only” (Jas. 1:22). Pure religion includes helping those in need and keeping oneself unspotted from the world (Jas. 1:21). The Lord is not going to pay our debts, give our money to the poor, force us to help the feeble and downtrodden. Pure religion does not consist in what He does for us, but what we do for Him and His.

Jesus can’t make us honest, benevolent, helpful, zealous and kindhearted. Yet, those are all attributes He requires of us. He will not perform a miracle on the bank to keep our credit good, nor does the banker investigate the record of Christ to determine our credit rating. Again, Jesus does not remove the food in our pantry and give it to the poor, nor does he reach into our pockets to relieve the beggar. The widow and orphan are not sustained by a miracle from heaven, nor does the Lord make the beds, wash sheets, clean blankets, etc. so we can have a bed to give to the unfortunate. The fevered brow of the sick is not touched with a cool, damp cloth from heaven. The feeble and downtrodden are not sustained and encouraged by a special guardian angel sent to them by some miraculous means. Christ came to do the will of the Father, and did it perfectly, but He can’t do for us what God has given as our own responsibilities.

He Can’t Make a Good Worker Out of the Unwilling

Jesus can’t make a good teacher out of the unprepared, because one must first be a student before he can become a scholar. The Lord can’t make a good personal worker of one who won’t speak to people about the truth, just like he can’t make a good bishop out of one who does not desire to thus serve. He can’t make a preacher out of the unwilling to speak, nor a good song leader of one who just will not sing. Jesus can’t even make a good janitor of one who won’t sweep, or a good deacon of one who is not eager to be a servant of men.

He Can’t Preach the Gospel to the World

The Lord committed the charge of preaching the gospel to us, and if we fail to preach it, it just won’t be preached at all (2 Tim. 2:2). But, just as Christ can’t do the physical job of preaching the gospel to lost souls, neither can he take money from our pockets and put it into the contribution basket to supply the support of those who do get out and preach the word of God. We must supply those funds ourselves if the work of the Lord is to be carried out.

We are preaching daily by how we live and what we do for the cause of Christ. In the day of judgment, the millions who will face the Lord unprepared will not point the accusing finger at Jesus, for He has done everything He could. But, unless we have been faithful in our various duties and efforts to teach the lost, they will accuse us, and justly.

Truth Magazine, VI: 3, pp. 16-17
December 1961