Truth Magazine

By Ron Daly

The necessity of exposing error is abundantly taught in Scripture (cf. 2 Tim. 4:1-5; 1 Jn. 4:1; Rev. 2.2; Tit. 1:10-11). Preachers of the gospel have the God-given responsibility to boldly speak out against all error, in the church and out! Therefore, I presently address myself to bringing indictments against Pentacostalism.

Pentecostal churches no no right to exist. They are a part of denominationalism, a state of religious division which is antagonistic toward the unity demanded in the New Testament. Denominationalism, of which Pentecostalism is a part, is the very opposite of all Christ prayed for in John 17:11,20-21. Hence, Pentecostalism is not authorized to exist, for it is a “plant which shall be rooted up” (Matt. 15:13).

Nowhere in the New Testament do you read of a “Pentecostal Church,” “United Pentecostal Church,” or “Pentecostal Holiness Church.” These are not given in the New Testament Scriptures as designations for the church Jesus built (Matt. 16:18). Inasmuch as the New Testament church is never called by “Pentecostal Church,” “United Pentecostal Church,” or “Pentecostal Holiness Church” is proof defacto that to designate or describe the church as such is to fail “to speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11; 1 Cor. 4:6; Col. 3:17). To fail to “speak where the Bible speaks, and to be silent where the Bible is silent” is sin!

Pentecostalism is a religion founded chiefly upon emotionalism, not Scripture! It is not uncommon to hear Pentecostals say, “I do not care what you say, I know what the Lord is doing for me,” or “I do not care what the Bible says, I know what I feel in my heart.” Some have even said, “I would not take a stack of Bibles for what I feel within my heart.”, thus, Pentecostalism is a false religion of subjectivism, emotionalism, and dire ignorance of the Scriptures! Man has no right to trust in his own feelings apart from divine revelation (cf. Prov. 14:12; Isa. 55:8-9; Jer. 10:23). Wherever emotions rule, ignorance is usually very prominent. Pentecostalism stresses “personal testimonies,” “preacher bear-say,” and “inner feelings and leading of the Spirit” above and beyond the authoritative, inerrant, perfect, and inspired word of God (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Jas. 1:25). Friends, mark this well, whenever people emphasize and depend on “personal testimonies” and “inner leadings of the Spirit,” it will not be 30 days before they will not give the flutter of an eyelid or the snap of a finger for what the Bible says! This is why seventy-five per cent of a “true” Pentecostals repudiate plain Bible teaching without a troubled conscience!

Pentecostalism tends to involve the Holy Spirit in ridiculous contradictions (i.e. if Pentecostalism claims are true, which of course, they are not!). They claim to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit, one of the purposes of which was to guide the apostles “into all the truth” (Jn. 16:13; t4:25-26). Question: If Pentecostals actually possess the baptism in the Spirit, why do they teach and practice doctrines which the Holy Spirit through the apostles declared to be false and sinful, i.e., without divine authority? Why do they have mechanical accompaniment as music in worship when the Spirit through the apostles commands us to sing in worship (Matt. 26:30; Mk. 14:26; Acts 16:25; Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Jas. 5:13; Heb. 2:12)? If Pentecostals are truly guided by the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit that guided the apostles, why do they not simply sing as the apostles taught the early church? Also, the Holy Spirit through the apostles guided the early church into a threefold work, viz. (1) evangelism (2 Cor. 11:8; Phil. 4:15-17), (2) benevolence (Acts 6:1-6; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Acts 11:27-30), and edification (Acts 20:32; Eph. 4:11-16). Pentecostals have church-operated kindergartens, church financed picnics, kitchens, and other social arrangements. They have their busses, food, fun, and frolic. This is unscriptural; there is no Bible authority for it! It just seems so strange that the men and women in Pentecostalism who claim to have-been baptized in the Holy Spirit would be teaching and practicing things which the Holy Spirit through the apostles condemns!

Pentecostalism is to be indicted because its preachers are fraudulent in their claims to perform miracles. There is not a Pentecostal preacher on earth who can, by the power of God, perform a bonafide sign, wonder, or miracle! All such claims are deceptive and untrue. The Bible explicitly teaches that miracles have ceased, for their purpose has ended (1 Cor. 13:8-10; Eph. 4:11-16; Jas. 1:25; 2 Pet. 13; Jude 3)! Miracles served the purpose of confirming the word of God (Mk. 16:20; Jn. 20:30-3 1). Once all the word was confirmed, they ceased! Some of the less skillful Pentecostals will sometimes say, “I do not know how to answer the arguments of those who say miracles have ceased, but I will continue to testify regarding what the Lord is doing for me.” This involves contradiction; if they have actually received the “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” they would know how to answer the arguments of the adversaries! The Bible says so (Mk. 13:9-11).

It seems that Pentecostal preachers (along with other denominational preachers) are getting too wise (?) to have their doctrines examined under public scrutiny with the word of God! The reason: “The light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, lest his works should be reproved” (Jn. 3:19-20).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 7, p. 213
April 3, 1986

By Robert F. Turner

Paul said, “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:21). Of course it was the message, the “word of the cross” (v. 18), which the world considered foolish. Surely no reader seriously believes “the cross” refers to a piece of jewelry or talisman; and I hope we are mature enough to recognize the necessity for faith, repentance, and baptism, without thinking this constitutes the “message of the cross.” Nor is “our cross” some arthritic shoulder, inconsiderate boss, or family problem. Jesus said we must “bear our cross” to be His disciple (Lk. 14:27), and that relates the cross to our learning and following the Lord. We must strive to understand the message of the cross.

The obvious basis for this message is the literal cross, and more particularly the meaning of the cross in the redemption of man. Man was created a free agent, but used his freedom to sin against God. We can not appreciate the message of the cross until we realize something of the awfulness of sin and its affront to our Maker. God, in keeping with His nature, made the decree: “the soul that sinneth, shall die.” But early in man’s history, God’s merciful nature was also manifested. Animals were ordered sacrificed as a type substitution – the life of the animal for the life of the sinner. Then, Isaiah said, “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon in; and with his stripes we are healed” (53:5f). Philip and other inspired writers apply this to Jesus Christ, the God-given means of man’s redemption. The literal message of the cross is that Christ died in our stead, making salvation a gift of God, freely given to “whosoever” will put his trust in Him.

But the message of the cross goes much further than a literal “blood” payment. He who truly forgives must bear the cost of the wrong, must “take the loss” instead of his “pound of flesh.” This remedy for sin was freely given, at tremendous cost, for totally undeserving mankind. The sinless Son of God prayed, “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matt. 26:39). He could have called for angelic protection (v. 53), but chose instead to carry out the plan of divine grace. The Hebrew writer says, “yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (5:8). This was learning in the sense of ultimate experience – the divine need over fleshly desires. Clearly, self sacrifice is emphasized as the heart of the message of the cross. “God so loved . . . that he gave” (Jn. 3:16). “He loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 Jn. 4: 10). John said, “Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another” (v. 11). Sacrificing love in the message of the cross is an essential for all who would bear their cross (cf. 1 Cor. 13).

The message of the cross is more; it is non-material in its nature. Christ “led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men” (Eph. 4:8). But they were not the material gifts men expected. The Jews looked for Messiah, a Davidic king with a wealthy, powerful, material kingdom. Instead, they were offered a suffering Messiah who had no place to lay His head. To make matters worse, from their viewpoint, He asked them to make like sacrifices (Lk. 9:58). Paul coupled “the sure mercies of David” with the crucified and resurrected Jesus, and said the blessings were “the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 13:23,34t). That was no more welcomed by worldly minded people then, than it is today. Jesus Christ was a “stumbling block” to the Jews (Rom. 9:32; 1 Cor. 1:23). The message of the cross challenges us today: go the second mile, love your enemies, give all (Matt. 5:38-48). Yea, “how hardly shall they that have riches (that “trust in riches”) enter into the kingdom of God” (Mk. 10:23-24).

The message of the cross was offensive then, and is now, because it runs counter to man’s ways of winning. How could the meek inherit the earth? When Jesus first told His disciples He was going to suffer and die, Peter rebuked Him saying, “Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall never be unto thee” (Matt. 16:22). But Jesus replied, “Thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men” (v. 23). It was then He continued: “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (v 24). Jesus triumphed through suffering (Heb. 2:10); and taught that greatness is achieved in humble service (Matt. 20:26f). Our weapons are not carnal (2 Cor. 10:4f), and the spirit of “burn ’em up” is rebuked (Lk. 9:54f). We can not “glory in the cross” while we glory in the flesh (Gal. 6:12-14). Those who rejected the cross persecuted those who tried to live by its message (Gal. 5:11).

The message of the cross does not depend upon man’s wisdom; and that irritates those who flaunt their degrees. But the gospel does not discourage learning; it only insists that God’s wisdom is greater. “God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and . . . the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty” (1 Cor. 1:27). The message of the cross rejects worldly wisdom – when it becomes our God (Col. 2:3f). The things of the Spirit are received by humble men, whose faith stands in the power of God rather than in human wisdom (1 Cor. 2:1-5, 14). In the final analysis, salvation is by faith in the cross, not by faith in ourselves. How desperately we need to learn this basic principle of the message of the cross.

Paul gloried in the cross of Christ, “by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world” (Gal. 6:1-14). The power of the world over Paul, and his carnal love for the world, were done away in his acceptance of the message of the cross. Paul realized the awfulness of his sins, and welcomed the mercy of the cross. He was ready for its message of forgiveness, for he was made to see himself clearly – as “chief of sinners.” But he also welcomed the opportunity to sacrifice himself for Christ’s sake. He accepted stripes and imprisonment for the cause of Christ, and bore on his body the marks of Jesus (Gal. 6:17). He was determined to preach the gospel, regardless of support (1 Cor. 9:15-16); and tender love shown even as he upbraided erring brethren (Gal. 4:19-20). He was “crucified with Christ” and Christ lived in him (2:20). Paul had learned well the “message of the cross.”

But do not expect the world to flock to the cross. “The god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not” (2 Cor. 4:4), and they will not see beyond its empty glitter. The confinements of the cross are too much for them, the cost too great. The challenge of preaching is to seek and find the few who recognize the transient nature of this world, the value of the soul; and who will understand and be thankful for the message of the cross. These will find peace with God and self, become new creatures, and live with God here, and hereafter.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 7, pp. 199, 215
April 3, 1986

By Hayse Reneau

1 Corinthians 7

Concessions For A “Present Distress”

Brethren at Corinth, where Paul had formerly preached the gospel and established the church (Acts 18), found themselves under some distressful circumstances which prompted them to compile a letter asking several questions about family arrangements. The questions can be surmised by the answers which are given. (Like John 3, Can there be any doubt that Nicodemus asked Jesus something about the kingdom?) His answers are based upon the situation that existed at Corinth at that time. The inspired Paul’s answers to their questions show God’s sympathy and allowance for temporary departures from His commanded order, for the duration of the “present distress” (26). By observance of these concessions, temporarily allowed, they would be “happier” (40); it would be “better” (38); it would be to their spiritual “profit” (35); it would “spare them trouble in the flesh” (28); it would be “good” for the present situation (vv. 1,8,26).

Paul writes things previously addressed by the Lord (10); he refers to things written “by permission” (6); to things “speak I, not the Lord” (12). But all things revealed by Paul were authorized by the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37; Gal. 1:11- 12); therefore, with God’s approval, former commands are temporarily set aside because of the “present distress.” No one today can know for certain what stressful conditions existed in Corinth at that time which prompted this letter and these exceptions. Some suppose it was severe persecution by Nero and Romans; others, that it was excessive economic stress; still others, say it was a situation prompted by the ungodly persecution of the Judaizers. Whatever, it was made worse for those married with a family. So, some family arrangements are allowed to be altered, “for the present distress.”

Failing to concede the fact that authorized concessions to God’s will are herein set forth; and that they were only temporary, is to put this holy text in direct conflict with other plain statements of God’s word.

1. God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone… Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:18, 24). The Hebrew writer wrote: “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled. . . ” (Heb. 13:4). Paul wrote, “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully” (1 Tim. 5:14). All of this, and more which could be cited, show God’s will of marriage regarding man and woman. Contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine, God does not recommend celibacy as a superior way of life, except in Corinth at that time.

But, there the inspired Paul writes: “It’s good for a man not to touch a woman,” meaning to take a wife and start a family. Is this a contradiction of God? It could be considered in no other way, except that under those trying circumstances God says, temporarily, it’s best not to marry. During, and as long as the present distress lasts God was granting this exception. The same is the case regarding all marriageable persons: virgins (28), widows (8), and any who had lawfully put away their spouses (Matt. 19:9). Isn’t it apparent that the context of this chapter hinges on verse 26?

2. In addition to procreating the race (Gen. 1:28), another purpose of marriage is stated in verses 24, “to avoid fornication.”

Under that “present distress” it is evident that there was a greater burden placed upon those who were married. Special strength of faith should be sought-Through separation, and cessation of sexual contact, by mutual agreement, there could be greater spiritual commitment in prayer and fasting (5) (distance isn’t implied: whether in the same house or out). Also, some of them had either already departed from their spouse or were contemplating it (10, 11). Wives, fearful for themselves, or their husbands, were asking if it, would be better to separate from their mate. Husbands were concerned and, for the same reasons, thought it might be easier apart from their wives (10, 11). (This presumption is but to give them the benefit of doubt as to their reasons [these are Christians!], though some, perhaps, were taking advantage of the situation to rid themselves of unwanted spouses.) Paul concurs; however, God who knows all about us, causes Paul to add certain warnings: sexual passions in some are stronger than in others, so continence would be more difficult for some if they were separated for a long period (v. 5). Satan will be watching to tempt you, he warns. They are not reprimanded; but warned that in their incontinency they were not free to join themselves to anyone except their husband/wife during or after the distress was ended.

They are reminded of Christ’s law (10): “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6). Notice: their action is in direct contradiction to the Lord’s law; but for the “Present distress, ” it is allowed, with the warnings against immorality. This is not a contradiction of God’s law at that time for the same reason it was not against God’s law to advise that “it is good for a man not to touch a woman.”

The rest of the chapter is to be understood in the same manner: Because of the “present distress” the Holy Spirit revealed these things unto the Corinthians.

If I know my own mind, these things are presented in an unbiased manner, for the simple purpose of Bible study. I have no one in mind to condemn or justify. I trust in your examination you will likewise strive to stand apart from tradition and present opinions of the world.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 7, pp. 203, 215
April 3, 1986

By William Pile

I came by it honestly. My disdain for Christmas, that is. I was the perfect model for a “Christian” Scrooge.

When my parents came to Christ, I was but a child, and when they came to believe that Christmas was a pagan holiday, not fitting for true Christians to observe, it was hardly a studied decision on my part. In my teenage, as a Christian myself, I bought heavily into Christian exclusivism, a kind of unmentioned theology by which most everything nominal Christians did was at least suspect, or in some cases outright denied. Observance of religious holidays not specifically mentioned in the Bible fell into the latter category.

It was the old “origins” argument, but I didn’t know it. By that argument, anything that had ever been touched by paganism was still pagan, and “Christianizing” it didn’t change anything. Naive Christians who observed Christmas were actually celebrating the Saturnalia, or worse yet, the Catholic version: Christ’s Mass. All the trappings of the holiday had equally evil background, I discovered. Christmas trees, Santa Claus, mistletoe, the yule log, exchanging gifts. Incidentally, it didn’t really bother me that much of the research and argumentation behind the “origins” concept was coming from Jehovah’s Witness publications and the writings of Herbert W. Armstrong.

True to form, as Christmas approached, I became a real Scrooge. As a minister and soul-winner, I loathed the season. (Don’t look at my records of souls saved during December!) Everything I saw people doing seemed like such a mockery. I talked mostly about the drunkenness, phony love and good will, and extravagance. And you didn’t dare get pe into a department store during the Christmas shopping season! Bah! Humbug!

My own children pretty much accepted my non-celebrating of Christmas. I’m not sure I really tried to explain it to them. Probably I relied on my exclusivism theology and told them that “real Christians are different!”

It didn’t happen overnight, my conversion, that is. I’m not sure of the dynamics of my change, actually. I know that no body, no person, changed my mind. People don’t unscrooge a Scrooge. I know that for a long time I’d been questioning whether the fact that the Bible didn’t mention the early Christians honoring the birth of Christ meant that it was wrong to do so. I was wondering about the “origins” argument. I could think of some things that used to have an evil connotation, but now didn’t.

The Holy Spirit’s impact on my life wasn’t quite as dramatic as the ghosts in Scrooge’s, but He certainly changed me. He began to strip my robes of righteous exclusivism from me while refocusing my attention from the negative to the positive. Those were two radical moves! I discovered many “true Christians” who observed Christmas in a genuinely Biblical spirit, and if anything they were better for it. They knew the early Christians probably didn’t celebrate it, and they knew that December 25 was just a guess at His true birth date. They didn’t worship trees, or tinsel, Or lights, or Santa Claus, or December 25th.

And then I looked at some of my non-Christian friends. Christmas was very important to them. Sure, they were caught in the commercialism but it didn’t take much pushing on my part to change conversations from commercialism to Christ. They seemed to want there to be more to Christmas than Jingle Bells, drunken parties, and huge credit card bills. Someone had changed – and it wasn’t them!

Even a flashing thought of a world without Christmas now scares me. This season I intend to celebrate my Savior’s coming every chance I get. I’ve got some ghosts of Christmases Past to relive. I was Scrooge for too long. Some of the people who knew me that way deserve to see the “new” me.

You may not agree with my conversion. You may see it as compromising with evil. And you may be wondering where all the Bible verses are that justify my change. I already thought of that. My list is composed of one passage encouraging Christmas celebration, for every passage denouncing it. Send me yours and I’ll send you mine. In the meantime, we’ll call it a draw.

May God give us all joyous celebration at Christmas and all year ’round!

Guardian of Truth XXX: 7, p. 204
April 3, 1986