Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Kenneth Hagin, Jr. is a Pentecostal preacher. In the January, 1986, issue of The Word of Faith, published by Kenneth Hagin Ministries, Mr. Hagin said:

Churches today (even charismatic churches) have many ordinances and rituals that are traditions. They are not divinely appointed, but because they come in line with God’s Word, they’re good, and there’s nothing wrong with them.

In view of the above quotation, certain thoughts come to mind.

(1) If “ordinances and rituals that are traditions. . . are not divinely appointed,” are they not, then, humanly appointed? They are, therefore, human traditions. What did the Son of God say about human traditions, those that “are not divinely appointed”? He said, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. . . . Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up” (Matt. 15:8,9,13). Thus, if a tradition is “not divinely appointed,” it is one of the commandments of men which our Lord said makes one’s worship “in vain,” void, empty.

(2) How can a tradition be “not divinely appointed,” yet “come in line with God’s Word”? I suppose Mr. Hagin would say that Christmas, Easter and infant baptism are traditions that “are not divinely appointed,” but, “they come in line with God’s Word.” Catholics claim the same for Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday and All Saints Day. Would Mr. Hagin say these are all “good and there’s nothing wrong with them”?

(3) What standard should we use to determine whether or not a human tradition is “in line with God’s Word”? The Bible? Pentecostal preachers? Catholics Councils? The Pope? If there is even one human tradition which Mr. Hagin rejects, what criteria or what rule does he use to determine that it does not “come in line with God’s Word”?

Catholics claim that the adoration and veneration of the “Blessed Virgin Mary” is “in line with God’s Word.” Do the Catholic traditions concerning Mary “come in line with God’s Word”? If not, what rule or standard of authority is used to determine that they are not “good, and there’s something wrong with them”?

(4) Paul, writing as the Holy Spirit directed, said, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). Paul said we are to hold the traditions which he preached or wrote. Where did Paul say, “Hold the traditions of men that you believe come in line with God’s Word, though they are not divinely appointed”? Someone needs to find such a passage.

The Spirit said, “Hold fast the form (mold, pattern) of sound words, which thou hast heard of me” (2 Tim. 1:13). Further, we are “not to think of men above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). A tradition “not divinely appointed” is “above that which is written,” is it not? If a tradition has not been heard from the New Testament, it is not the pattern of sound words. It is not “sound doctrine” (Tit. 2:1). It is above and beyond that which is written. It does not “come in line with God’s Word.” It is not (contrary to what Mr. Hagin says) “good.”

(5) Jesus taught that there are only two possible sources of a doctrine or tradition. It is either from heaven (of God), or it is from men. “The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven, or of men?” (Matt. 21:25) How can a tradition be “not divinely appointed,” yet be “of heaven,” i.e., from God? Whether we are speaking of the worship of Mary or the sprinkling of water on little babies, we need to know if it is from heaven or from men.

(7) Mr. Hagin says that traditions that are “not divinely appointed” are “good.” They are not in the Bible, but they, according to Mr. Hagin, “come in line with God’s Word.” 2 Timothy 3:16,17, says that the Scriptures furnish us completely “unto all good works.” If a doctrine or tradition is “not divinely appointed,” it is not in the word of God. If it were in the Bible, it would be divinely appointed. Since all “good” works or traditions are found in the word of God, how can a tradition be declared “good” if it is not divinely appointed?

(8) Mr. Hagin indicates that there are two types of churches, charismatic and non-charismatic – see his quote above. Such a distinction does not “come in line with God’ s Word.” Is Jesus the head of two types or kinds of churches; namely, charismatic and non-charismatic? Is there a charismatic body of Christ and a non-charismatic body of Christ? If there a charismatic Christ who is the head of the charismatic churches and a non-charismatic Christ who is head of the non-charismatic churches? If there are not two types of Christ over the two different types of churches, then which Christ (charismatic or non-charismatic) is head of the charismatic and non-charismatic churches? Confusing, is it? not? Confusion results when men like Mr. Hagin do not speak “as the oracles of God” (I Pet. 4:11). Mr. Hagin, not the Lord, is the author of this confusion of charismata (1 Cor. 14:33). His distinction between charismatic and non-charismatic churches is “not divinely appointed” and does not “come in line with God’s Word.”

(9) Mr. Hagin claims to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit as were the apostles. He believes Holy Spirit baptism, tongues, miraculous divine healing and prophecy are for believers today. With all of this claims and alleged power in the Spirit, he has contradicted the Spirit of God who wrote the Bible (2 Pet. 1:21). Do you really believe a man who says things that do not “come in line with God’s Word” is of God and has been baptized in the Holy Spirit (Isa. 8:20; 2 Jn. 9; Gal. 1:8,9)?

(10) Christians occasionally wonder if denominational preachers really say some of the things they are charged with. Now, what do you think? Should gospel preachers ignore such things and say nothing against human traditions and doctrines (Rom. 16:17)? As Mr. Hagin’s words show, error is still being taught, and if faithful men do not attack it, apostasy is certain. Do you want your children and grandchildren to grow up believing that a thing “not divinely appointed” may still “come in line with God’s Word”? That will justify and authorize everything from infant baptism to Christmas. If you are opposed to such teaching, support those who fight against it. Encourage and uplift those who are standing for truth and righteousness and cease and silence all murmurings against “negative” preaching.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, pp. 106, 116
February 20, 1986

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

As Nehemiah went about rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, he faced many problems. One of his biggest problems was the opposition of outside forces. Three men in particular, Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem, did all that they could to try to hinder the work that he was doing. The sixth chapter of Nehemiah pays particular attention to the efforts that these men made in trying to stop Nehemiah’s work. They tried to distract him (vv. 2-4). They tried to discredit him (vv. 5-9). They even tried to lead him in to sin (vv. 10-13). None of these things kept Nehemiah from completing the task that his God had put into his heart. The wall was finished and his enemies sadly watched all their efforts to prevent it go for naught (vv. 15,16).

Although these men were unable to accomplish what they had hoped, something interesting is recorded concerning one of them toward the end of this sixth chapter. Tobiah had special connections with some of the Israelites. He had married one of their daughters. As a result, some of the Israelites tried to convince Nehemiah that Tobiah was not really a bad fellow. It says that they reported his good deeds before Nehemiah. Of course, Nehemiah knew better. He had first hand experience of Tobiah’s deeds. He was able to see this man’s fruits and knew exactly what kind of man he was. Tobiah may have had some good points to be sure, but that didn’t change the fact that he had done much harm to the people of God.

Nehemiah’s experience reminds me of what many have to put up with today. Many times there is a brother who causes untold harm to the church either through his teaching or through his actions. Good men in the church begin to oppose this brother and limit his influence and invariably someone will come to the brother’s defense. Many times a contentious brother will have relatives in a congregation that will try to “report his good deeds” and try to convince those who have observed his corrupt conduct that this brother is really no threat to the purity of the church. Many will allow a factious brother who is a relative or close friend to blind them to the harm done by the brother. We need to judge such men by their fruits (Matt. 7:15,16) and not just by what others say about them.

Nehemiah knew what kind of man Tobiah was despite what his supporters among the Israelites said about him. Unfortunately, many of the Israelites could not see the things that Nehemiah saw in Tobiah. As long as Nehemiah was in Jerusalem, he was able to limit Tobiah’s influence. But as soon as Nehemiah returned to Babylon, Tobiah seized the opportunity. Through his friends, he was able to gain a strong influence in Jerusalem (Neh. 13:4,5). We can imagine the grief and heartbreak that Nehemiah experienced when he returned and found this enemy of God’s people dwelling in the very house of God (Neh. 13:6-8). Nehemiah now had to start all over again to rid the people of the influence of this enemy.

Are we able to see divisive and corrupt men for what they are and deal with them accordingly (Rom. 16:17; Tit. 3: 10)? Or do we allow ourselves to be influenced because such enemies of the cross are close friends or relatives? How many times are false teachers defended and followed by friends and members of their families? How many times is the conduct of one who has fallen into sin defended by friends and family members? Too often.

Fortunately, the Israelites had a man like Nehemiah, courageous enough to stand against their enemies, despite the influence that these enemies had among some of their brethren. We need men like that today, who are willing to stand against corrupt men who try to exercise their influence over us. Men who will not “yield submission” to them “even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue” (Gal. 2:5).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, p. 102
February 20, 1986

By Ron Halbrook

Preaching on Bible baptism is as vital today as it has ever been. This is true, first because it is a part of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16). In every case of conversion beginning in Acts 2, sinners who put their trust in Christ were baptized as a part of their initial response to the gospel. When sinners wanted to be saved from their sins, they by faith in Christ were baptized in water immediately – “the same hour of the night” (Acts 16:33) – without delay. The same clear instruction is needed today if sinners are to be saved by the blood of Christ.

Second, the need of such teaching is urgent because denominationalism fills people’s minds with prejudice, resentment, and resistance on this subject. Brethren have taught much on Bible baptism and must teach much on it still. This is not because we believe in the ritualistic idea of baptismal regeneration or that baptism alone saves – as, in fact, several denominations believe which baptize infants or baptize the living on behalf of the dead. But the ground for our teaching so often on this subject is the same basis upon which the farmer and rancher decide where to repair the fence. He repairs it where it is down! In the religious world today, the fence is down at the point where the Bible speaks on baptism. Denominationalism works very hard to keep the fence down at this point, and seeks to tear it down as fast as true children of God can repair it in the hearts and minds of people. We must work very hard to keep it up!

A third reason we need to teach much and often on Bible baptism is that some among us “depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron” (1 Tim. 4:1-2). These men make “shipwreck concerning the faith,” contradicting the great truths they once preached and defended (1 Tim. 1:19). As the cancer of apostasy progresses, such men “overthrow the faith of some” others who are not well grounded (2 Tim. 2:17-18).

Where these apostates once preached with emphasis and exclamation marks, they now speak with speculation and question marks. Their sermons used to be girded with the bands of Book, Chapter, and Verse quotations, but now with the spaghetti strings of what modern theologians and pop psychologists have to say. Frequent, pious reminders are given of how much we have to learn from denominational leaders by men who now are “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7).

Men who used to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” now earnestly defend denominational doubts, dodges, and dogmas on baptism (Jude 3). As these sweet-spirited souls granulate into sugar, they have temper tantrums and go into tirades crying out against “legalism.” A “legalist” in their eyes is someone who insists, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). “Legalists” emphasize that only the baptized are saved from their past sins by the blood of Christ in the gospel age, only those immersed are truly baptized, and only those who know its purpose is remission of sins receive Bible baptism. There is much talk by these apostates about searching for “common ground” they are always finding more and more of it with their denominational neighbors, less and less of it with their brethren who insist upon a “thus saith the Lord” for all things .

Let us not be intimidated by the vast numbers of the lost, by the vast power of denominationalism, or by the rash railings of false brethren. Let us diligently equip ourselves by immersing ourselves in Scripture so that we may be workmen who need not to be ashamed, “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (4:2). You will know it is “out of season” when men falsely accuse you of put ting the Bible or the church or baptism above faith in Christ. Preach the word, anyway. “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doc trine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (1 Tim. 4:16).

(See elsewhere in this issue of the paper an article on “Bible Baptism” by Foy E. Wallace, Jr. [1896-1979], taken from the Bible Banner, May 1948, page 14. Brethren who are liberal on institutionalism, centralized cooperation, and church sponsored recreation are engaged in battle with one of their own princes who now believes that people in denominations are in Christ if they were baptized to “obey God” even without understanding the scriptural purpose of remission of sins. In response, “Bible Baptism” has been widely reprinted. Wallace’s book The Present Truth [1977] is a collection of his journal articles and incorrectly gives the date of that article as August 1938. Current reprints from that source bear the same error.)

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, p. 104
February 20, 1986

By Raymond E. Harris

Homosexuals are a disgrace to any society. In pagan and so-called unenlightened countries known homosexuals are killed because they are so despised. However, in enlightened America, homosexuals are defended and shielded.

1 . Some say they are sick.

2. Some say they are “freaks of nature.”

3. Some say they are the unfortunate victims of the society that produced them.

4. Others just contend that they have simply chosen an alternative life style.

Today any who would dare oppose this dirty, filthy, vulgar way of life is charged with being intolerant, lacking understanding, not caring and being unloving. Also, they cry that their civil rights are being violated! What about the civil rights of those who practice incest, prostitution, public exposure or even rape? Really!

In fact, homosexuality is a violation of natural law, a violation of God’s law and until recently a violation of most states man-made laws. The bottom line is that homosexuality is sin. In every age God condemned such gross practices:

1. Genesis 18:16-19:20 (1,898 B.C.). God said the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were “very grievous.” (Isn’t it strange that the scum which we once jailed and charged with “Sodomy” are now called “Gay” and pampered and defended as poor misunderstood folk who deserve our compassion and understanding?) God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone. But we are being told such should be allowed to flaunt themselves in every area of society.

2. Leviticus 18:22-24:1 (1450 B.C.). “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Leviticus 20:13: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them.”

3. Judges 19-20 (1350 B.C.). The tribe of Benjamin was because all but destroyed by the other tribes of Israel, because of the Benjaminite’s sodomy, rape and vile ways.

4. Romans 1:26,32 (50-60 A.D.). “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” “Who knowing the judgment of God that they which commit such things are worthy of death. . .”

5. Deuteronomy 23:18 (1400 B.C.). “Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, (male prostitute) into the house of the Lord. . .”

6. 1 Corinthians 6:9 (50-60 A.D.) “Know ye not that the God? Be unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind.”

The foregoing passages show God’s attitude toward homosexuality. Should our attitude be any less stringent?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, p. 100
February 20, 1986