Truth Magazine

By Paul K. Williams

Brother Thomas N. Thrasher (“Who Are The ‘Saints’ In Jude 14?” Guardian of Truth, May 16, 1985) labors to prove that the “holy ones” of Jude 14 whom Jesus will bring with Him at the judgment are angels. It is true that Jesus will bring the angels with Him to execute judgment. But it is quite possible that Jude was talking about the saints who are with Jesus in heaven right now.

Brother Thrasher confuses the issue when he says hagios is used of the angels. In every reference he gives also (Matt. 25:31; Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Acts 20:22; Rev. 14:10) hagios is used together with aggelos (angel). He needs to find a reference where hagios stands alone and means angel.

The construction in Jude 14 is the same as in Philippians 1:1. I see no reason to believe it means anything different from the many other times it is used alone in the New Testament — always to mean “holy ones” (people), as far as I know.

Certainly Jesus will bring the saved with Him. This is clearly stated in 1 Thessalonians 4:14. And that the saints shall sit with Christ in judgment is also true. “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?” (1 Cor. 6:2, see also Matt. 19:28; Rev. 3:21).

There is no comfort for the premillennialist in this fact. When Jesus comes He will bring the saints, all will be raised, and all will be judged. In some ways the saints will share in that judging.

Jude 14 uses the common word for “saints.” It seems preferable to let its common meaning stand, especially as no proof was given that hagios is ever used alone to mean “angel.”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, p. 565
September 19, 1985

By Robert F. Turner

There seems to be a resurgence of interest in “security”perhaps due to emphasis upon “grace”-and both subjects are worthy of our consideration. Because of earlier battles with Calvinists on grace, faith only, and “once saved, always saved,” certain prejudices adhere to the very words (for example, words in my heading); and these can keep us from fairly dealing with scriptural aspects of the subject. We believe the current desire for “security” and “confidence” has also caused some to attempt detailed explanations which “go beyond that which is written”; and this, in turn, has spawned reactions that also “go beyond.” We do not imagine ourselves to be a brotherhood doctor, but are persuaded all saints should keep calm, and lend whatever influence and knowledge they have to a scriptural solution upon which true unity may be established.

Confidence respecting our salvation and security is objectively determined, according to the Apostle John. That means we must look outside ourselves for the proof: must depend neither on our “feelings” nor upon solutions originating in human reason. “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren” (1 Jn. 3:14f). The love of brethren is not the whole story, but he is saying, without the fruit we have no assurance. This continues to be the context. Let us not love in word only, “but in deed and truth” (v. 18). “Hereby (by obeying his commandments) shall we know that we are of the truth. . . ” (v. 19). “Whatsoever we ask, we receive … because we keep his commandments” (v.22). And verse 24 continues this context- “hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the spirit which he hath given us” — possibly referring to the “spirit” of obedience which we learned from Him. We are out of context to say it is the Holy Spirit, subjectively determined.

The very conscientious saint may tremble in recognition of his unworthiness. So, “If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things” (vv 19-20; see Plain Talk, Sept. ’83, for detailed study). He reassures by reminding that God knows us better than we know ourselves. But he does not say good intentions take the place of obedience, nor change his theme that assurance is via God’s promises and conditions. Can we know we are saved? God knows (2 Tim. 2:19); we rest on God’s promises! There are two avenues for negation: ignorance of His truth (light), and failure to walk in His light. But on the positive side: (1) we have the ever present remedy, the blood of Christ; (2) we are told how to obtain its benefits; and (3) sinful man, seeking to obey God, has a heart-seeing merciful Judge. Assurance is as strong as one’s faith in God.

Apparently 1 John was written to counter false assurance being taught by the gnostics of that day. Some contend all matter is evil, hence distinction was made in the human Jesus and the divine Christ. The “spirit” was all-the flesh of little or no importance. Those who claimed this superior knowledge (gnosis) said the “enlightened” one’s soul was steeped in light, and he need not worry much about his conduct. But John declares that Christ came in the flesh, which the witnesses saw, handled, and heard (1 Jn. 1:1-2). He passes to us the divine knowledge necessary for fellowship with God, saying, “God is light” (in very essence, v.5); and, there is no compatibility between the life of ungodly conduct advocated by the gnostics (walking in darkness, v.6), and the Christian life (walking in light, v.7). This is the basic thrust and context of 1 John 1.

The gnostics had invented “details” of assurance contrary to the most basic principles of genuine divine knowledge. And I fear some brethren have missed the point of 1 John 1 by inventing details of assurance not in the text; while others have countered with “details” (mechanically interpreted) which ignore the intent and purpose of John’s language. “If we walk in light” (v.7), and “if we confess our sins” (v.9), are indeed present, active subjunctive; and express linear, ongoing, continuous action. Then, “cleanseth” (v.7) is present active indicative: conforming grammatically with the contingencies; and says the “cleansing” takes place to the same extent we “walk,” confessing our sins. When we say the cleansing takes place “even as we sin” we add an element not in the text, and abuse this passage.

But John is not describing the details of a particular event. He is saying that in the course of a Christian’s life we sin, and we repent, acknowledge our sin and need for mercy, and God forgives us. This happens over and over again, the ever available blood of Christ being a promised benefit to Christians, offering “assurance” that is as strong as our faith in God’s promises. The text does not contemplate a single act of darkness or light. It contrasts “walking” in light, with “walking” in darkness: two conflicting and incompatible realms, or spheres of action (see details in previous article, “Much Ado… “). “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17) is not violated should we spend time doing something other than conscious prayer; nor is “rejoice evermore” (v.16) violated should we “weep with those that weep.” We would misuse those passages should we so interpret them. We also abuse 1 John 1:6-7 when we try to break it into a “step” of either light or darkness. It was written in a different vein, for a different purpose, and we should leave it exactly where the Holy Spirit put it.

Some try to “get out” of their first bad exegesis by pleading distinctions in sins. There are legitimate differences in certain aspects of sin, but each is still sin, needing the forgiveness offered upon conditions. But another says “walking” is like a doctor “practicing” medicine. There is some likeness; but the doctor’s past practice will not cure a present patient. He must continue his practice, and we must continue our repenting, confessing, and prayer, to meet today’s needs. We are offered false dilemma: take either “cleansed as we sin” or “sinless perfection,” or “infallible knowledge of sin details,” or “no assurance whatsoever.” These are not true dilemma, for they do not represent the total field. We can scripturally reject all of them, and take 1 John 1 as contrasting two realms-period. And when we do that we also reject “a sin” as removing us from grace, from Christ, His kingdom, etc. Brethren, poor exegesis has begotten poor exegesis; and uncharitable treatment of one another has gotten us into a sorry mess.

A sincere effort is being made to avoid self-justification in this paragraph. The writer knows his terminology is not faultless, and could be or has been ambiguous at times. I have written much on the importance of proper attitude, but never have I said attitude or intention served for obedience. I have written the very opposite. While explaining “walking in light” I have stressed the linear, ongoing, manner of life the phrase depicts. But never have I taught that general direction of life removes the need to actually meet God’s conditions for forgiveness. I have stressed the merciful nature of God, but never dreamed of teaching man could offer comfort on the basis of what he believes God would do in special cases. I have repeatedly stated this was not man’s prerogative. “Whittling on God’s end of the stick” is, so far as I know, my expression which others have copied. When bits and pieces of my Plain Talk articles are offered as proof I espouse “automatic” or “continuous cleansing” “even as one sins,” they are grossly misused.

There are other things to be considered when men are quoted. Even highly respected commentators and exegetes are sometimes wrong. Also, had they been writing at the present time, in the light of current controversy, they may have stated themselves differently. Uninspired writings are not protected by the all-seeing eye of God, so that their principles have universal application. And finally, wide confirmation by men is not equal to proof from God’s word.

Assurance and confidence before God are not to be found in the perfection of our knowledge or doing, per se. This concept led the Jews to ask, “Which is the great commandment?” or “All these things have I observed: what lack I yet?” We must put our trust in God, not in ourselves. But “imputed righteousness,” “difference in sins,” “cleansed even as we sin,” and the like, are also false hopes. They are doctrinal gadgets for assurance, and when carefully compared with the whole of Bible teaching, may leave us in a deeper despair. If we would understand “assurance” and increase confidence in our salvation, we must strengthen our faith in God’s promises and provisions.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 19, pp. 583, 599
October 3, 1985

By Don Willis

The Lord God is in Heaven. All is well with His people. We believe in the veracity of God. God made heaven, the earth, the seas, and all that in them is. Glory belongs to Him! There is none to compare with Him. Worship must be ascribed to Him.

In the great Ten Commandment law, God had demanded, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:3). “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one God: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (Deut. 6:4-5). “The Lord is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him” (Hab. 2:20).

Solomon said the whole duty of man is to “fear God, and keep his commandments” (Eccl. 12:13). Therefore, many people are frightened at the concept of God! Might we call to our attention the two-fold nature of this command: fear God, keep His commandments. The religious world pays much attention to the first half of the command, but ignores the need to “keep His commandments.” One does not love God who fails to keep His commandments (1 Jn. 2:3-4).

More than one Greek word is translated “fear.” Mr. Vine’s excellent work observes that the Greek term, eulabeia signifies “firstly caution; then, reverence, godly fear, Heb. 5:7; 12:28, in best manuscripts, ‘reverence;’ in general, apprehension, but especially holy fear, ‘that mingled fear and love which, combined, constitute the piety of man toward God; the O.T. places its emphasis on the fear, the N.T.. . . on the love, though there was love in the fear of God’s saints then, as there must be fear in their love now… (Vine’s quote is from Trench). There must be a reverential fear, awe, of God. Many regard God too lightly! We are in His presence, let us be in awe before His august throne!

Another Greek term, phobos, is translated fear. Vine said it had the meaning of flight, that which is caused by being scared. One is not “scared” of God; yet Vine continues to note a “reverential fear of God, as a controlling motive of the life in matters spiritual and moral, not a mere fear of His power and righteous retribution, but a wholesome dread of displeasing Him, a fear which banishes the terror that shrinks from His presence, Rom. 8:15, and which influences the disposition and attitude of one whose circumstances are guided by trust in God. . . . ” Vine further adds the reverential fear of God will inspire a constant carefulness in dealing with others in His fear.

God loves you and me. God has said He is “for” us, that is, He is on our side! Christ lives to intercede for us! He died that we might live. Truly, let each of us give our lives to Him in complete obedience. “Fear God, and keep His commandments.”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 19, p. 582
October 3, 1985

By Tommy L. McClure

This lesson is, by its very nature, a lesson on contrasts. Statements which are diametrically opposed to each other will be presented along with the questions of the above title.

Genesis 2:16,17; 3:14

These passages tell us that God warned Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil on the grounds that “thou shalt surely die. ” Of their eating of the very same tree, the serpent told Eve, “Ye shall not surely die. ” Note the statement of God versus the statement of the serpent.

God: “Thou shall surely die.”

Serpent: “Ye shall not surely die.”

Which statement is right? Which do you believe? Since the statements are diametrically opposed to each other, both cannot be right! Nor can one consistently accept both; to accept the former is to reject the latter. This writer does not hesitate to accept the statement of God and reject the statement of the serpent.

Mark 16:16

Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Some religionists tell us: Faith is necessary to salvation, but baptism is not necessary; baptism is a non-essential; it is merely an outward sign of an inward grace and has nothing whatsoever to do with our salvation. If language means anything at all, the “bottom line” of their teaching is: “He that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved.” Look at the two statements together:

Jesus: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”

Men: “He that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved.”

Which statement is right? Which do you believe? To contend that baptism is not essential to salvation is to align yourself with the teaching of men; to do that is to reject the statement of the Son of God; those who reject His word will be judged (condemned) by it in the last day (Jn. 12:48).

After noting that eight souls were saved by water in the days of Noah, Peter said, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Men, however, tell us that baptism does not save, and has nothing to do with salvation. Note the contrast:

Peter: “Baptism doth also now save us.”

Men: “Baptism doth also not save us.”

Which is right? Which do you believe? The statement of the inspired apostle Peter or the teachings of un-inspired men who deny what Peter said? All of the smoke screens raised by denominational preachers who call this “water salvation,” “water religion,” and “salvation by works” do not remove what Peter said! After the smoke clears, the verse still says, “baptism doth also now save us. ” False teachers can deny it, ignore it, and misrepresent it, but they cannot get rid of it! It is there, and will be there to face them in the judgment! (Jn. 12:48)

James 2:24

“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” However, the Methodist Discipline says, “We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deserving. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort” (Doctrines And Discipline Of The Methodist Church, The Articles of Religion, Article IX, Par. 69, p. 28, 1952 Edition; emphasis mine. TLM). Look at the contrast:

James: “Man is not justified by faith only.”

Methodist Discipline: “Man is justified by faith only. “

Which is right? Which do you believe? One must choose one or the other-it cannot be both ways!

Denominational preachers (Methodists and others) will present passage after passage which predicate salvation on the condition of faith. I believe every one of them — I have no quarrel with any of them! Certainly, salvation is by faith, and salvation is promised to the believer (Jn. 3:15, 16, 18, 36; 5:24; 20:30, 31; Acts 10:42; 16:30,31). But, which faith saves? Dead faith or living faith? Remember that faith without works is dead (Jas. 2:17, 20, 26). And which believer is saved? The obedient believer or the disobedient believer? Abraham was an obedient believer-“By faith Abraham . . . obeyed . . .” (Heb. 11:8). So were the 3,000 on Pentecost (Acts 2:41), those of Samaria (Acts 8:12), the Corinthians (Acts 18:8), and the Jailor (Acts 16:30-34). The chief rulers who refused to confess Jesus (Jn. 12:42, 43), the devils (Jas. 2:19), and those who depend on faith only to save them, before and without further acts of obedience, are disobedient believers! If that amazes you, be it known that Hiscox’s Baptist Manual tacitly teaches that obedience is not essential to salvation! Note this statement: “Baptism is not essential to salvation … but it is essential to obedience, since Christ has commanded it” (The Standard Manual For Baptist Churches, Edward T. Hiscox, D.D., The American Baptist Publication Society, pp. 20,21, reprinted 1945). In a “one-two-three” fashion, we have:

1. Baptism is essential to obedience.

2. But baptism is not essential to salvation.

3. Therefore, obedience is not essential to salvation!

Can you beat it? According to that, Baptists will have to “junk” much of the New Testament (Matt. 7:21; Rom. 6:1618; 1 Pet. 4:17; 2 Thess. 1:7,8; 1 Jn. 2:3-5; Rev. 22:14; Heb. 5:8,9; etc.), or repudiate their doctrine! They cannot have it both ways.

Ezekiel 18:20

Ezekiel said, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezek. 18:20). Each individual is responsible for his own sins, and for his own sins only! One may suffer the consequences of another’s sins, but guilt is borne only by the sinner himself.

However, men tell us, “Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit . . . They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed, to a their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation” (The Confession ofFaith of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, by the Publication Department of the Board of Christian Education of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., 1945, pp. 34-36).

Who can fail to see the contrast between Ezekiel’s statement and this doctrine of men? Concisely stated, it is this:

Ezekiel: “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.

Con. of Faith: “All mankind does bear the iniquity of Adam and Eve.”

Presbyterians and others who espouse the “original sin” doctrine must decide which way they will go. They cannot travel opposite directions at the same time!

Acts 2:38

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins As surely as the blood of Christ was shed “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28), man is to repent and be baptized “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). The expressions are exactly the same in both passages, both in English and Greek!

However, men tell us, with respect to baptism, that “for” in Acts 2:38 means “because of” — that men are to be baptized “because of” remission, i.e., because their sins have been remitted already! We ask the proponents of this position, “If that is what men are to be baptized ‘for,’ what are they to repent ‘for’?” Strangely and suddenly the same “for” points in the opposite direction-repentance, they tell us, is unto remission! See the hole they are in? In “repent . . . for (unto) remission,” the word “for” Points forward; in “be baptized . . . for (because of, their definition) remission,” the word “for” points backward! There is only one “for” in Acts 2:38! In their devious efforts to avoid the truth of God’s Book, Baptist preachers make one word point in opposite directions in the same sentence and in the same verse! For one meeting himself coming back, a Baptist preacher has no peer when he comes to Acts 2:38.

Since the actions of repentance and baptism are connected by the copulative conjunction “and, ” whatever repentance is “for” baptism is “for”; the way “for” points with respect to repentance is the way “for” points with respect to baptism! There is not a reputable translation in the world which makes “for” point backward in Acts 2:38.

Consider the contrast between the Bible and men on this point, concisely stated:

Peter: Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

Baptist Preachers: Repent for the remission of sins, and be baptized because of remission of sins already received.

“Choose ye this day” which you will believe; it cannot be both ways!

Acts 22:16

Ananias said to Saul of Tarsus (a convicted, penitent, praying man): “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). This was three days after Saul had been stricken blind on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-18), the time when, according to some religionists, Saul was gloriously saved the very moment he believed on Jesus Christ. If they are correct, Saul was saved while yet in his sins-at least three days before they were washed away! Whatever may be said about what the washing was, the element of the washing, and how it was accomplished, the fact is clear that baptism stood between the sinner and that washing. The sinner had to “go through,” if you please, the act of baptism to reach the washing. Note this simple diagram:

Soul the Sinner ____________ Baptism ___________________ Washing

Thus, baptism is essential to the washing away of sins, a fact which cannot successfully be denied in the light of Acts 22:16.

However, men tell us that alien sinners are saved by praying for forgiveness at the “altar” (formerly the “mourner’s bench”), and that baptism is not essential to that forgiveness. Whereas Ananias instructed Saul to get up to obey, some modern preachers tell alien sinners to get down to pray for pardon. Baptism, according to them, comes after forgiveness. Note their idea in this diagram, and the contrast between this one and the one above:

Alien Sinner _______________Washing of Pardon_________________Baptism

The contrast between the Bible and men on this matter is plain:

Bible: “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

Men: Get down and pray through to salvation, and be baptized later when convenient and if you so desire.

Which is right? Which do you believe?

2 Peter 2:20

Peter said, “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning” (2 Pet. 2:20). The following facts are evident concerning those here under consideration: (1) They escaped the pollutions of the world; (2) Their escape was effected through the knowledge of Christ; (3) After their escape, they are again entangled and overcome in worldly pollutions; (4) Their latter end is worse than the beginning; (5) Since they were condemned at the beginning, they are now more severely condemned! Thus, the possibility of apostasy on the part of saved people, children of God, is made clear; they can so sin as to be finally lost in hell!

However, the teaching of some preachers is quite different. A Baptist preacher, Sam Morris, said, “We take the position that a Christian’s sins do not damn his soul. The way a Christian lives, what he says, his character, his conduct, or his attitude toward other people have nothing whatever to do with the salvation of his soul . . . and all the sins he may commit from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger” (Do a Christian’s Sins Damn His Soul? pamphlet by Sam Morris, p. 1, quoted here from Porter-Bogard Debate, pp. 135,136).

Look at the contrast concisely stated:

Peter: The latter end of the one who has escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of Christ, but is again entangled therein and overcome, is worse than the beginning (2 Pet. 2:20).

Baptist Preachers: The latter end of such a person is not worse than the beginning. The child of God can commit every sin in the book-from idolatry to murder-and still go to heaven.

Believe Baptist Preachers if you are so determined; but, you cannot believe Peter and Baptist preachers at the same time, regardless of your determination!

Other contrasts, as clear-cut as these, could be presented if time and space allowed. It is hoped that this article will prompt the careful student to take this line of study further so as to include all false doctrines of men and that the contrast between them and the word of God will be clearly drawn and forcefully presented to the world. May the question: “Is it from heaven, or of men?” (See Matt. 21:23-27) never be forgotten, regardless of the subject with which we deal.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 19, pp. 584-585, 596
October 3, 1985