Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The apostle Peter spoke of the living hope of Christians as a means of encouraging them to maintain their faith amidst persecution. He wrote,

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time (1 Pet. 1:3-5).

Our living hope comes to us through the mercy of God, not through perfect obedience, who begot us again (by the new birth) to a living hope. It is a hope which sustains us regardless of the outward circumstances which we must face.

Our Inheritance

Peter used several adjectives to describe the inheritance prepared for Christians.

1. Our inheritance is incorruptible. Our inheritance is not subject to decay or corruption; it is imperishable. In 1947 should one have left me as an inheritance his 1947 Chevorlet, it would likely be of little use to me today. Most 1947 Chevrolets have long since been destroyed by rust, deteriorating in junk yards. In contrast to a corruptible inheritance, the Christian’s inheritance is incorruptible.

2. Our inheritance is undefiled. The word “undefiled” points to an inheritance that is unsoiled and without defect. Should someone give me a white shirt which was splattered with printer’s ink, it would be useless to me. However, the Christian’s inheritance cannot be soiled and tainted.

3. Our inheritance does not fade away. Flowers lose their beauty soon after they are picked. A new house becomes old; new clothes wear out. In contrast to these, inheritance of the Christian does not lose it glory with the passing of time. It never fades away.

4. Our inheritance is reserved in heaven. When Jesus departed from his disciples, he said, “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (Jn. 14:1-3). Jesus prepared the place for us and it stands reserved in heaven for us (it is not our present possession). Just as a room at a motel may be reserved for someone, heaven has been prepared and reserved for those who serve God faithfully. It has been prepared for God’s saints, just as a bride prepares herself for her husband (Rev. 21:1-3)

A Kept People

The Scriptures also teach that the children of God are “kept by the power of God.” The idea of being “kept” is “securely protected.” God keeps his children securely protected. Several of the Old Testament psalms teach this same idea. Read them:

But thou, O Lord, art a shield for me; my glory, and the lifter up of mine head.

I cried unto the Lord with my voice, and he heard me out of his holy hill.

I laid me down and slept; I awaked; for the Lord sustained me.

I will not be afraid of ten thousands of people, that have set themselves against me round about (Psa. 3:3-6).

But know that the Lord hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the Lord will hear when I call unto him (Psa. 4:3).

But let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice; let them ever shout for joy, because thou defendest them: let them also that love thy name be joyful in thee (Psa. 5:11).

Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever (Psa. 12:7).

I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help.

My help cometh from the Lord, which made heaven and earth.

He will not suffer thy foot to be moved: he that keepeth thee will not slumber.

Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.

The Lord is thy keeper: the Lord is thy shade upon thy right hand.

The sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the moon by night.

The Lord shall preserve thee from all evil: he shall reserve thy soul.

The Lord shall preserve thy going out and thy coming in from this time forth, and even forevermore (Psa. 121).

They that trust in the Lord shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed but abideth for ever.

As the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the Lord is round about his people from henceforth even for ever (Psa. 125:1-2).

The Lord keeps his children. What all God does in keeping his children, as he works in his providence, is unknown. Here are some things specifically mentioned:

1. He leads us out of temptation and delivers us from evil (Matt. 6:13).

2. He protects us from temptations which are greater than we can bear (1 Cor. 10:13).

3. He provides a way of escape (1 Cor. 10:13).

4. He provides the grace of forgiveness when we stumble into sin (1 Jn. 1:7). This grace is continuously available and conditionally received.

5. He provides his word to keep us from sin (Psa. 119:11).

6. He provides spiritual men to call us to repentance (Gal. 6:1).

These and many other blessings could be cited to show God’s active care for his children.

To realize that God is keeping his children is a beautiful thought. I am not fighting against Satan by myself. I do not rely solely upon my own strength in my battle against sin. I am leaning on the everlasting arms of my merciful God. Trusting in my own strength alone, I have no hope; trusting in the grace, mercy, and providence of God, I cannot be defeated.

In those areas beyond my control, I learn to lean on the everlasting arms of my merciful God who wants me to be saved. Rather than looking for security in the nature of my sin, I look to the providence of my Father in heaven to keep me in his care, leading me to repentance through his goodness (Rom. 2:4). 1 have confidence, not because of my own perfection or ability, but in the knowledge that my Keeper never sleeps nor slumbers.

Kept Through Faith

The keeping of God is conditioned upon faith. We are “kept by the power of God through faith” (1 Pet. 1:5). My part in staying saved and maintaining my hope of heaven is to keep my faith in God. Faith is man’s response to God’s revelation (Rom. 10:17), leading to the obedience of faith (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). So long as I take God at his word and do what he says, God continues to keep me and continues to reserve a place in heaven for me. When I cease to walk by faith, I am no longer kept by the power of God, whether my ceasing to walk by faith occurs as a willful act of highhanded sin or being deceived by a false teacher (Matt. 15:13-14). Consequently, I must ever examine the spirits to see if what is taught is the word of God (1 Jn. 4:1-3; Acts 17:11).

Saving faith is efficacious to the salvation to our souls. God is able to save the man who has faith in him. The gospel is fully sufficient to save the man who has faith in Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, pp. 322, 343
June 4, 1987

By Larry Ray Hafley

Infant baptism is practiced by a number of denominations. However, the Scriptures do not assume the rite. Rather, they are filled with presumptions against the ceremony. The New Testament presumes the immersion of penitent, adult believers. Before we labor to sustain our thesis, let us notice some facts which do not forbid the baptism of infants.

Non-Exclusionary Items

Several aspects of baptism do not exclude infants.

Element. Baptism is in the element of water (Matt. 3:16; Jn. 3:23; Acts 8:36-38; 10:47), but that fact alone does not forbid infants as subjects of the ordinance.

Agent. Man is the agent, the administrator, of baptism (Matt. 3:131,14; 28:19; Jn. 3:23; 4:1,2; Acts 8:38), but the agency of man does not presume either for or against infants as candidates for baptism.

Action: The action of baptism is immersion, a burial (Matt. 3:16; Jn. 3:23; Acts 8:36-38; Rom. 6:3,4; Col. 2:12), but the process itself does not preclude infants. (One may object that infant baptism is actually sprinkling. True; and that is an abuse of the action, but it does not mitigate against the inclusion of infants. If a Catholic priest corrected his practice and immersed a baby, would that make it scriptural? No, for the action itself does not tell us whether or not infants should be baptized.)

Design: The purpose of baptism is the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Mk. 16:16). That aim does not deny infant baptism. Once the true nature of sin and guilt is shown and known (1 Jn. 3:4; 5:17; Jas. 1:13-15; 4:17), the purpose does exclude infants, but the purpose itself, alone, does not.

Passages Which Presume Adults

(1) Romans 6. (A) The persons in these text had lived in sin (v. 2), and they could have chosen to “continue” to do so (v. 1). Infants are precluded, for they could not so decide. (B) Those baptized were to “walk in newness of life” and “henceforth . . . should not serve sin” (w. 4-6). (C) These Romans had yielded and obeyed sin; later, they obeyed “from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered” to them and “became the servants of righteousness” (vv. 16-18). Babies cannot have doctrine delivered to them, nor can they obey it “from the heart. ” (D) They were “now ashamed” of what they -had done and subsequently were to yield themselves “to righteousness unto holiness” (vv. 19-21). All of this is a. presumption against infants as the ones who were “baptized into Jesus Christ.”

(2) Galatians 3:26-29. (A) These baptized believers had been brought “unto Christ by the law (v. 24). (B) They were children of God by faith (v. 22). They had “run well” (5:7). (C) They had been called by the gospel into God’s grace (1:6,7). (D) They were adults who had been entangled with the yoke of bondage, but were now to let their faith work by love (5:1-7). The book of Galatians is a presumption against infants as the ones who were ‘ ‘baptized into Christ.”

(3) Colossians 2:11-13. (A) The Colossians who were “buried with him in baptism” were adults (1:5,6; 9-11; 21-23; 2:4-8). (B) They had been risen with Christ through the faith of the operation of God. Infants cannot have faith in the operation or working of God when they are baptized. (C) Those baptized Colossians had sins forgiven which they had committed (1:21; 2:13; 3:5-7; they had “lived in them”). This precludes infants. (D) After their burial, in baptism, the Colossians were to “seek” and “set” their mind on “things above” and deny the lusts of the flesh (3:1-5). Infants could not do that.

(4) Acts. (A) Those baptized in Acts 2 were old enough to hear, believe and repent prior to their baptism (2:6,14,22,36-41). (B) The Samaritans were “men and women” who heard and believed prior to their baptism (8:5-12). Observe, too, that they were old enough to have been deceived by Simon the sorcerer for a “long time.” (C) Cornelius and his household were of sufficient age to hear the words of Peter, fear God, believe, repent, work righteousness, obey commands and speak (10:2,35,43,46-48; 11:14,18). (D) The Philippian jailer’s house heard, believed, ate food and rejoiced in the events surrounding their baptism (16:25-34). (E) The Corinthians and Ephesians were not infants for they heard, reasoned, trusted and believed (18:4,8; 19:1-7; 1 Cor. 2:1-5; 4:15; Eph. 1:13). Also, they had formerly committed sins that only adults could commit (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:22).

This brief treatise shows that the Bible presumes against infant baptism. It certainly does not assume it.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, p. 332
June 4, 1987

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Please explain Daniel 9.24-27. What are the “seventy weeks”?

Reply: This passage is one of the most difficult to interpret in the Old Testament. There are many interpretations of these verses that are given by commentators. First, let us read the passage.

“Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy Holy City, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy. Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: it shall be built again with street and moat, even in troublesome times. And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined. And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate” (Dan. 9:24-27).

Daniel was in the seventy years captivity which had been prophesied (Jer. 25:11). Toward the end of this captivity, Daniel prayed to God, confessing his sins and those of Israel, and asking the Lord to be merciful and forgiving. While Daniel was speaking and praying, the angel Gabriel approached him and gave him the message which is contained in the above quoted verses.

The period of time covered by the “seventy weeks” was from the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until “the anointed one” (Christ), followed by events and then the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. These “seventy weeks” are symbolical and not to be interpreted literally. If a week is seven years (believed by most commentators) is correct, then the span would be 490 years. There is some question in determining when the 490 years began – which decree to restore the temple and rebuild the city is meant. Some believe that the “seventy weeks” started with the decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah (445/4 B.C.) It seems that more in harmony with the context, is the earlier date, the decree of Cyrus (539/8 B.C.) – the very year of Daniel’s vision. If it be argued that Cyrus did not mention the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and therefore the decree must be later, we simply refer back to the prophecy in Isaiah 44:28. Jehovah, predicting the role of Cyrus, said: “He is my shepherd, and shall perform my pleasure, even saying of Jerusalem, She shall be built; and of the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.” Also, that the earlier date is in harmony with the context, is the fact that Daniel asked the Lord in his prayer not to defer his request (v. 19). It is not plausible that the Lord would detain this action for 100 years! Chronological difficulties must only be explained by considering the period of “seventy weeks” (490 years) as being symbolical, not literal. To sum up the period of time covered by the “seventy weeks” . . . “they relate to the whole period between the proclamation of Cyrus and the end of the Jewish commonwealth” (see Foy E. Wallace, Jr., God’s Prophetic Word, p. 515).

The “seventy weeks” is broken up into a pattern of 7 — 62 — 1. The first seven weeks embrace the period of the restoration and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple. The sixty-two weeks that follow include the time when sin would be restrained and prophecy would be sealed (validated, or fulfilled). This would be brought about by “the anointed one, the prince” (Christ), who would bring in everlasting righteousness” (v. 24). The remaining week of the “seventy weeks” is the period in which “the anointed one” would be “cut off.” This took place when the enemies of Christ put him to death and he made atonement for the sins of the world. At the end of this last week of the “seventy weeks,” Jerusalem and the temple would again be destroyed. The Jewish nation would end. This series of events fits into the projected goals, as set forth in the Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy and this interpretation is void of speculation. In fact, it is noteworthy that when Jesus was foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem, he alluded to this prophecy. Speaking to his disciples, he said: “When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place. . . ” (Matt. 24:15). The destruction of Jerusalem – the end of the Jewish nation, is the terminating point of the “seventy weeks” in Daniel 9:24-27.

The prophecy under study is a “sugar stick” for premillennialists of different kinds, including Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Dispensationalists have postponed the seventieth week until “the rapture” takes place. They have waited for about 2,000 years for the seventieth week to be fulfilled. They believe that at the future coming of Christ, the saints will be taken up with him into heaven (a seven years rapture), and coexistent with seven years of tribulation on earth. According to this view, the last 3 V2 years of tribulation on earth will be the Great Tribulation, followed by the battle of Armageddon. This view of the “seventy weeks” has been popularized by Robert Anderson in his book, The Coming Prince (pp. 119-129). Of course, the Dispensationalists believe that the end of the seven years “rapture” in heaven and the tribulation on earth, Jesus will return to earth with his saints and will rule upon earth in Jerusalem for a period of one thousand years. At the end of this millennial reign, the final judgment will take place. They believe that all prophecy is to be literally fulfilled in the physical nation of Israel. Obviously, the view is based upon mere assumptions, in the absence of scriptural proof.

The Bible is clear as to what will occur at the second advent of Christ. (1) Both the wicked and the righteous will be raised from the dead (Jn. 5:28,29); (2) the earth will be destroyed (2 Pet. 3:10); (3) all will be judged (Rom. 14:10-12). There is no intervening period between the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked, not one day, much less 365,000 days. The resurrection of all the dead will take place at “the last day” (Jn. 6:44). If it is “the last day,” no more will follow – not one day – a thousand years is eliminated. In view of this, the premillennial interpretation is false because it is contrary to the Scriptures.

All details of the Daniel prophecy may not be fully understood, but we can be safe in concluding that nothing in the span of “seventy weeks” extends beyond the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, pp. 325, 342
June 4, 1987

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Since I have never been asked to sing a solo or in a quartet (in fact, I was once asked to sit at least four pews back so the song leader could sing), I thought I would tackle the thorny problem presented by my friend and brother Weldon Warnock in the April 2, 1987 issue of Guardian of Truth on the above subject.

In this article, “Confusing Law and Expediency” of which the above title was a subheading, brother Warnock said some good things that need to be said. I commend most of the article. He is a good writer and stirs our thinking at times when it needs to be stirred.

On the matter of solos and quartets in our worship assemblies, I suspect that there is not a nickel’s worth of difference, if that much, in what I encourage and practice and what brother Warnock encourages and practices. He says, “I doubt there have been many preachers in the last 25-30 years who have been more outspoken against choirs, quartets and other ‘specials’ in the church than I have.” I have not heard Weldon speak on the subject, but knowing him as I do, I can imagine that he has spoken with force and in no uncertain terms. So, if you are thinking of soliciting Weldon Warnock to help you get the brethren to let you have a choir, quartet or solo singer – you would be ringing the wrong number. You won’t get any encouragement from him.

Now, having said all of that, what is the problem? Why do I feel the need to reply to his aticle? Where do I differ from brother Warnock?

Brother Warnock believes solos, quartets and choirs are lawful (authorized in the New Testament) and objects to them only on the ground that they are inexpedient with grave danger of abuse.

I believe there is another reason to object. I do not know a passage that clearly establishes their lawfulness – brother Warnock’s observations notwithstanding.

He bases his case on one verse – 1 Corinthians 14:26. He says, “1 Corinthians 14:26 plainly shows solos were sung in the assemblies of the first century church, even at the same time that Paul wrote Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. These passages in Ephesians and Colossians did not condemn and preclude what I Corinthians 14:26 allowed, namely, solo singing, and neither do they today” (all emphasis mine, EOB). He follows then with a paragraph showing why he believes 1 Corinthians 14:26 applies today. He then assumes what I believe he has yet to prove: “It is strange to me that solo singing was scriptural for the first 65 to 70 years of the New Testament church, but sinful today. It is also strange that Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 allowed solo singing then, but not now. Indeed, it is strange.”

You see, he interprets any difficulties (?) in Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19 in the light of his plain (?) passage of 1 Corinthians 14:26. It seems to me that it ought to be the other way around. It is not at all plain as to what use was made of the psalm in 1 Corinthians 14:26. The only way that one can know that it was sung before the assembly as a solo is to assume it. The passage simply does not say what the brother who had it did with it. He may have simply passed it along to the congregation for them to sing. It is listed with several other things miraculously received by members of the Corinthian church who had spiritual gifts. The following verses tell about the use of tongues, their interpretation, and prophecies. They were to exercise these gifts “each in turn” or “by course” with others keeping silent. But, not one word is said about the psalm. Yet, brother Warnock says it was plainly sung as a solo and assures us that such was done during the first 65 to 70 years of the New Testament church. A few times in my life I have received a good song (a piece of sheet music) and carried it to the assembly. It was pasted in the front of the song book and we learned and sang it. It was not given to me by the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless when the church came together I had a psalm. I did not sing it as a solo (to the relief of a lot of brethren), but simply passed it on to the assembly for all of us to sing.

1 Corinthians 14:26 is dealing with things being delivered to the church by inspiration. Various members would have various types of inspiration. Some, no doubt, received psalms from the Holy Spirit. They could deliver these songs to the congregation without necessarily standing before the congregation and singing a solo. To say that this is a clear example of solo singing in the first 65 to 70 years of the New Testament church is to assume more than the passage says or necessarily infers. I believe that such an interpretation contradicts what is clear, to me at least, in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16.

The Ephesians passage says, “speaking to one another (heautois) in psalms.” The Colossians passage says, “Teaching and admonishing one another (heautous) in psalms.” In both passages Berry’s Interlinear renders the pronoun, “each other.” This is a reciprocal pronoun. Of “reciprocal,” Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language says, ” 1. done, felt, given, etc. in return; as, reciprocal tolerance. 2. on both sides; each to the other; mutual: as, they felt reciprocal affection. . . . 5. in grammar, (a) expressing mutual action or relation: as, each other is a reciprocal pronoun.” Reciprocal pronouns describe action that is reciprocated. It is not a one way street. The same action is returned by the other party.

Both Thayer and Vine point out the reciprocal nature of the pronoun (heautou) in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16:

“3. It is used frequently in the plural for the reciprocal pronoun alklou, allelois, allelous, reciprocally, mutually, one another: . . . Col. iii. 13,16. . . ” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, J.H. Thayer, p. 163).

“(b) different forms of the plural of heautou ‘of himself,’ used as a reciprocal pronoun, e.g., Eph. 5:19, RV, ‘one to another’ (KJV, and RV marg., ‘to yourselves’; . . . ” (W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson Publishers, pp. 446,447).

So, any effort to obey these two passages needs to include the idea of reciprocity. If there is to be singing that does not include that element – the authority will have to be found elsewhere. Any arrangement (solo, quartet or choir) that precludes it does not fit these two verses. These verses are talking about reciprocal action.

Thayer gives other passages to illustrate the reciprocal nature of the pronoun. Here are the references as translated in the New King James Bible: “And they reasoned among themselves” (Matt. 16:8).

” . . .they said among themselves” (Matt. 21:38).

” . . . And they were astonished beyond measure, saying among themselves” (Mk. 10:26).

“And they said among themselves” (Mk. 16:3).

“And they reasoned among themselves” (Lk. 20:5).

“. . forgiving one another” (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13).

“. . having fervent love for one another” (1 Pet. 4:8).

“. . minister it to one another” (1 Pet. 4:10).

So, it seems to me that 1 Corinthians 14:26 is the more obscure passage to be interpreted in the light of these two plain passages, instead of the other way around.

When brother Warnock receives a psalm, we will be glad for him to bring it to the assembly where I attend – but he will have to do it so as not to violate the reciprocal action of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16.

Too be sure, brethren, congregational singing fits into what is authorized in these verses – beyond the doubts of anyone that I know. Even brother Warnock says that solos, quartets, etc. should not be used in our assemblies. Brother Warnock and I will continue to encourage brethren to practice only congregational singing in our worship services. So, don’t anyone get excited that we are about to part ways over this “issue.”

It has been simply my purpose to show why I believe that solos and quartets should be opposed on grounds other than that they are merely inexpedient. I do not believe that anyone has proven them to be scriptural. While those who oppose them only because of abuses may presently strongly object to their use – I fear that the seeds of justification are being sown by their writings for the next generation to use them, having been convinced by the writings of this generation that they are indeed lawful. They may not perceive the abuses and dangers as we do. Brethren, think about it.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, pp. 326, 342
June 4, 1987