Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

I doubt that any single thing has had the impact on society that equals the influence of television. Most Christians would like to think that they are immune to these things. However, if we think the church has not felt the effect of television, we’ve got our heads in the sand. No longer is it valid to ask, “Has television influenced the church?” A more correct question is, “How large a percentage of us are affected by it?”

We usually discuss the influence of television on our children. Is anyone so naive that they do not acknowledge the influence of television on the parents? It is an unquestionable fact that almost as many television programs are heard by Christians (?) at the Sunday evening worship hour as there are sermons that are heard. When parents absent themselves from the worship to watch TV, guess who is sitting there watching it with them? And, I do not refer to the Lord! Susie, Betty, Billy and John – you- get the picture. Those precious treasures which are our children are imbibing the way of the world instead of the right ways of the Lord.

I heard a startling statement recently. A fellow said, “I grew tip in the 50’s and television was my babysitter.” I would like to think that he was being dramatic. But he probably meant just exactly what he said. “Go watch television” is the instruction too many parents have given to their children so that the parents can take a nap, cook a meal, go shopping or hold down a secular job. Instead of loving their children and talking or listening to them, the television is turned on and we listen to it. Naturally, everyone must be quiet that not one single line of dialogue is missed. Toys, grades and boyfriends will simply have to be discussed later – provided the kids don’t fall asleep before the TV is retired for the evening. These beautiful, impressionable minds are feeding on the godless philosophy and defunct morality of Hollywood. Surely no one believes that this doesn’t affect our children.

I think most of us would like to conclude that they’re watching Captain Kangaroo, Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers or Bugs Bunny. It might be revealing, however, if we would ask what’s happening with J.R. on Dallas or what the Dukes of Hazzard are up to these days. More of them will ask you, “Who is Mr. Rogers?,” than “Who is J.R.?”

What parent doesn’t like to hear his kid singing? He learns “Snap-Crackle-and-Pop” jingles, “Tootsie Roll” jingles and “Hubba-Bubba-Bubble Gum” jingles. But, do you remember your delight and amusement when that three or four-year old sang you a “Budweiser” commercial? Of course, they learn this at Bible Class and not television, right?

No plan of attack has been as successful as Satan’s attack on the family. Too many examples of his success can be cited, even among God’s people. No, especially among God’s people! We have been lulled to sleep by something we would like to think is innocent, when honesty demands that we designate it insidious, dangerous and Satanic. Is everything on it bad? Certainly not! Is everything on it good? Certainly not! Obviously, we’re not likely to eliminate television sets from our homes, so let us at least try to be selective about what we and our children watch.

We would all be well-advised to consider the influence of sin in our lives. “A little leaven leaventh the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9). He was discussing a different “leaven” than TV, but Jesus warned, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees” (Matt. 16:6). Paul said, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33). He also said whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7). Fathers are to bring up their children “. . . in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Finally, Paul enjoins upon all Christians, “. . . keep thyseif pure” (1 Tim. 5:22). 1 was just thinkin’ – would one be more likely to protect himself from evil and maintain his spiritual purity while watching TV or while studying God’s word? I’ll not insult your intelligence by answering that. Following is a poem by Jerry Johnson that every Christian should consider.

TV Spiritual Suicide

Think how wonderful our nation

And how peaceful it could be

If each prayed and searched the Scriptures

Much as they tuned in TV.

It’s amazing and appalling

How the Lord is so denied –

Many have exchanged their Bibles

For that so-called TV Guide.

Murder pictures – children watching,

Programs often base, obscene.

Many juvenile delinquents

Can be traced back to the screen.

Pastors many are bemoaning

Small attendance Sunday nights,

Careless members, home and watching

Special programs, or the fights.

Surely this must grieve the Master,

All this tendency to crime,

As He notes ‘the wasted hours’,

How and what we do with time.

With this grip upon our nation,

Midnight hour, so very nigh,

Yet we lull to sleep our conscience

‘Mid a ‘Rock-Roll’ lullaby.

Spiritual suicide is certain

If continued in this way.

How we need to search the Scriptures;

More and more we ought to pray.

There would be tremendous difference

(To this you may not agree),

But our greatest Spiritual Robber

Is none other than TV.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 18, pp. 557-558
September 15, 1983

By Ron Howes

In recent years one of the most interesting approaches to the study of Matthew 19:9, has been an attempt to suggest that the grammar of the compound complex sentence, necessarily infers the right of the guilty party to remarry. In a previous article we reviewed Lewis G. Hale’s arguments in this regard.(1)

Other authors to have made this claim in print are Maurice Estes, in the tract Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, God’s Answer to Man’s Problem,(2) and Guy Duty (deceased) in the book Divorce and Remarriage, A Christian View, put out by Bethany Fellowship.(3) In my discussions with those of that persuasion over the years it is my opinion that every one holding that the guilty party may remarry has either consciously or subconsciously made this same logical error.

Essentially what they are doing is turning the “except for fornication” phrase into a floating modifier. Note the following excerpt from Duty:

a. Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

b. Except it be for fornication, whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery, and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

c. Whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery, except it be for fornication .(4)

Duty summarizes his argument thus:

“This translation gives the true sense of Christ’s divorce law. Jesus said the remarriage of the divorced woman would be adulterous, except for fornication.”(5)

The argument has everything necessary to make good print. It is ingenious, intriguing, and convincing. It lacks only one major element, and that is that it is not true. The authors in question have pitched their tent on unsound soil.

Any freshman in a college English course knows that modifiers may “float”. However, they may only float so far. You will note that we have referred to Matthew 19:9 as a compound, complex sentence. What we mean is that there are really two complete sentences here linked by the conjunction and. Within limits, modifiers may float around in a sentence, as long as they do not become too detached from their object; that which they are modifying. Modifiers, may not, under any circumstances be taken out of the sentence in which they are found. For purposes of a grammatical analysis, Matthew 19:9 is actually two sentences, not one. The use of the conjunction “and” is a literary device to avoid short choppy sentences; very common in spoken communication.

To illustrate our point that indiscriminately moving a modifier around in a sentence is unfair, allow me to do with Acts 2:38, what Duty et. al., have done with Matthew 19:9.

a. Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

b. Repent ye, unto the remission of your sins, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

c. Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ; and ye shall receive the Holy Spirit, unto the remission of your sins.

The parallel is legitimate and the switching of the modifier around in the sentence an exact duplication of Duty and others’ attempts. Acts 2:38, like Matthew 19:9 is a complex, compound sentence (actually, two sentences linked up by a conjunction for literary or spoken effect). Ond can easily see that the entire meaning and intent of the speaker can be grossly misrepresented by these lame attempts to “float modifiers.” It is an illegitimate way to establish your point.

To bolster our claim that “except for fornication” cannot be moved out of its position in the sentence to modify anything else, we called upon several university English departments for their opinions in our 1979 Truth Magazine article. Subsequent to the printing of that material, I was encou raged by brother O.C. Birdwell and others to expand the survey and publish the results. This we have done.

The legitimacy of a survey of the type we conducted is measured against several criteria. First, does the question the survey asks, fairly represent the issue under discussion? Secondly, do the scholars queried, represent a legitimate source of investigation? Thirdly, were those asked, sufficiently disassociated from the discussion to reply in a nonprejudiced manner? Fourthly, were enough scholars polled so that a true cross-section of opinion devoid of sectional or regional bias, could be attained.

First, our survey question. We asked . . .

“In your scholarly opinion, grammatically speaking, what does the phrase ‘except for fornication’ modify in the compound sentence:

“whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.”

Specifically, does the phrase “except for fornication” modify the first clause, the second clause, or both clauses? Also, would you please diagram the sentence, and include any comment you wish to make.”

As you can see, we asked both a specific and a general question, allowing our scholars some latitude in answering rather than just having a “yes” or “no” response. Significantly, most of our scholars responded with just a “yes” or “no” answer.

Second, do the scholars queried represent a legitimate source of investigation? We chose in this poll to question College and University English Departments. A few Greek departments did respond, and some of the English professors addressed themselves to the Greek Text. The text of Matthew 19:9 has been translated so regularly and uniformly for the last 500 years that we decided to survey English departments.

The legitimacy of the Greek text is a subject that has been adequately addressed by other studies. Note the fine work on this question by Mike Willis.(6) The only significant translation in the last 500 years to reject the Westcott and Hort reading is the NIV.

Third, were the responses unbiased? Within limits, we may answer this question yes. Two members of the Lord’s Church were included in our survey. One was a professor at Abilene, and another was a professor at Bowling Green State University of Ohio. The reader may judge from where these are listed in our results tabulation whether their responses unfairly influenced our figures. For the rest,. there is a reasonable mix of religious and nonreligious institutions, with the vast majority being secular institutions.

Fourth, what about regional bias? I do not believe that regional bias is a real factor in this survey. But, to offset that factor we chose to send out our questionnaires at random. The only qualification being that the university or college in question have an accredited English department.

The Results

We sent out 110 of our questionnaires. We received 33 responses of three general categories. Category I were those who believed that “except for fornication” could be used to modify the second clause, thus making the remarriage of the guilty party possible. Category 2 was made up of those who stated their belief that the phrase “except for fornication” did not belong in the text, in agreement with the NIV. Hence, a neutral category. Category 3 was made up of those who responded that the phrase “except for fornication” modified only the first independent clause. Category 4 were responses who declined to state an opinion, or answer the question as put.

Categories

In category 1, we received one response from the Humanities department of Grand Canyon College, Phoenix, Arizona.

In category 2, we received two responses. One from Baylor, and one from the University of Utah at Salt Lake.

In category 3, in agreement with our position, we received twenty-four responses from: University of Pennsylvania, Adelphi University, University of Colorado, East Tennessee State, Bemidji State, Brandeis University, Emory University, American International College, Baylor University, Clemson University, Dartmouth College, Drake University, University of Dayton, North Dakota State, University of Evansville, Abilene Christian University, Creighton University, Atlantic Christian College, Calvin College of Grand Rapids, Boston University, Miami of Ohio, Wellesley College, University of Arizona, Northern Arizona University.

In our last category, of those choosing to respond to the questionaire, but giving no opinion, we had five: Department of Greek, Calvin College of Grand Rapids, Purdue University, Bowling Green State of Ohio, University of Masschusettes, University of Kentucky at Lexington.

Tabulations

Reduced to percentages, the opinions of the scholars responding take jon an ominous weight for those who believe that they can “float” the “except for fornication” phrase in Matthew 19:9, to make it appear that Jesus is justifying the remarriage of the guilty party.

Of those choosing to respond, 15 percent had no opinion, whatsoever, or chose not to state it for personal reasons, 6 percent of those responding believed that the phrase “except for fornication” did not belong in the text (what we choose to call the NlVposition); 3 percent believed as do brother Estes, and Mr. Duty and others that you may float the “except for fornication” phrase to justify the remarriage of the guilty party; 73 percent responded that the phrase could not be moved.

Now, let’s interpret the statistics, subtracting those who had no opinion or denied the text, leaves us with 25 responses and the following breakdown. With 24 of 25 expressing an opinion on our question, 96 percent denied the conclusion of Mr. Duty, Lewis Hale, Maurice Estes, and any other who choose to go into print with a conclusion that can only be based on a breaking of the laws of grammar and misapplication of the words of our Lord.

Conclusion and Afterthoughts

I wish that we had the resources to poll not 110 Universities, but 1000. We didn’t, and others may criticise our efforts because of the limited number of responses that we received. Universities do not have to respond to private questionaires, and response is voluntary.

The results however are significant for a couple of reasons. Rather than trying to interpret what a dead scholar meant 150 years ago, we asked a pointed, extremely specific question, to living scholars – most without a biblical orientation. Their nearly unanimous response is a factor that anyone challenging the conclusions of this survey will now have to answer. We invite another survey, by those of the opposition, and look forward to reading the results.

Have we proven anything? Yes, just a minor point of grammar, that should put a wrinkle in the attempt of anyone henceforth to speak as a grammarian on this passage. A copy of this survey can be obtained from the author, at cost of duplication and mailing.

Endnotes

1. “Reviewing Lewis Hale,” Truth Magazine, Volume 23, pg. 792.

2. Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, Meco Foundation, Cayucos, California, 1980.

3. Divorce and Remarriage, A Christian View, Bethany Fellowship, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2nd Edition, 1980.

4. Ibid., pg. 50

5. Ibid., pg. 51

6. “Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage (1-3),” Guardian of Truth, Vol. XXIV, Nos. 13-15.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 18, pp. 555-557
September 15, 1983

By Dudley Ross Spurs

Notable among the date setters for the end of time have been such familiar names as William Miller, Hal Lindsay and a few more. But have you ever heard of such men as Montanus, Hans Hut, Thomas Muenzer or Melchior Hofmann? It is not likely that readers will be familiar with these names unless they are avid students of church history. But all of them have something in common. They are all very radical, unstable and have convinced people of their generation that they had the key to unlock all prophecies in the Bible.

William Miller, one of the founders of the Seventh-Day Adventist cult, set the date at 1843. People fanatically followed him and were deceived. Hans Hut was a fanatic preacher of the millennial concepts and set the date for the coming of Christ and the millennium in the summer of 1529. Then came Melchior Hofmann who set the year of 1533 as the time when this age would end. It is interesting that he claimed that Strassburg would be the New Jerusalem and that the magistrates would there set up the kingdom of God; that the new truth and the new baptism would prevail irresistibly throughout the earth. However, he was wrong about the date and died in jail in 1543. Then there were the famous “Fifth Monarchy Men” in England. Historians describe them as, “enthusiasts, misled by the study of prophecy” (A Short History of the Baptists, Vedder, p. 223).

It is really this simple. All prophecy regarding the reign of Christ has been fulfilled. His kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, not of this world (John 18:36). No one knows when the Lord will return and those who predict it are made fools by the progress of time (Matt. 24:36, 42). However, we may all know that when Jesus returns He will come to judge the wicked and righteous, not to set up a world government over which He will force His law on His subjects. Don’t be misled by the millennial miscalculations that come from fanatics.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 18, p. 554
September 15, 1983

By Larry Ray Hafley

I. Introduction:

A. Statement and Definition of the Doctrine of “Eternal Security.”

1. “They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called. and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved” (Westminister Confession of Faith, Chapter 17).

2. “Or in other words we believe that those who once become true Christians cannot totally fall away and be lost, that while they may fall into sin temporarily, they will eventually return and be saved.

“This doctrine does not stand alone but is a necessary part of the Calvinistic system of theology. The doctrines of Election and Efficacious Grace logically imply the certain salvation of those who receive these blessings. If God has chosen men absolutely and unconditionally to eternal life, and if His Spirit effectively applies to them the benefits of redemption, the inescapable conclusion is that these persons shall be saved. And, historically, this doctrine has been held by all Calvinists, and denied by practically all Arminians” (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 182).

3. “The saints in heaven are happier but no more secure than are true believers here in this world” (Ibid., p. 183).

B. Statements Relative to the Consequences of the Doctrine of Perseverance.

1. “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 . . . . All the prayers a man may pray, all the Bibles he may read, all the churches he may belong to, all the services he may attend, all the sermons he may practice, all the debts he may pay, all the ordinances he may observe, all the laws he may keep, all the benevolent acts he may perform will not make his soul one whit safer; and all the sins he may commit from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger . . . . The way a man lives has nothing whatever to do with the salvation of his soul …. The way I live has nothing whatsoever to do with the salvation of my soul” (Sam Morris, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Stamford, Texas, in a tract entitled, “Do A Christian’s Sins Damn His Soul?”).

2. “. . . there is absolute safety and security for the Father’s child even while he is sinning” (Quoted by Robert L. Shank, Life In The Son, p. 133).

3. “Baptists teach that a child of God can do anything he wants and go to heaven anyhow” (Dr. Albert Garner, Baptist Editor, Former President of Baptist Seminary, Lakeland, Florida, Kelley-Garner Debate, p. 116).

4. In public debate with me, Wayne Camp, President of a Baptist Seminary, said a child of God who died guilty of lying, drunkenness, and adultery would be saved in heaven (May 1971, Peoria, Illinois).

C. Things that are not questioned by those who believe a child of God may fall from grace and be eternally lost.

1. God’s power. It is sure, reliable, but we are “kept by the power of God through faith” (1 Pet. 1:5). One’s faith may fail (1 Tim. 1:5, 6; 1: 19; 4: 1; 5:8, 12; 6:2 1; 2 Tim. 2:18; Lk. 22:32).

2. God’s faithfulness. He is faithful. (1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Tim. 1: 12), but are we (2 Tim. 2:12, 13; Rev. 2:10; Jas. 1:12)?

3. God’s love. His love will not die (Rom. 8:38, 39), but we must “keep” ourselves “in the love of God” (Jude 21). We do this through obedience (Jn. 15:9; 10; 1 Jn. 2:3-5; 5:3; 2 Jn. 6).

II. Discussion:

A. Scriptures used by Calvinists to prove the Doctrine of Perseverance.

1. John 5:24 – “shall not come into condemnation. “

a. Note conditions. It is those who hear and follow who “shall not come into condemnation.” No one denies this.

b. But the issue is over one who:

(1) Ceases to hear (2 Tim. 4:3, 4).

(2) Ceases to believe (Heb. 3:12; Psa. 106:12, 24).

c. “Brethren” can “fall into condemnation” (Jas. 5:12).

d. Brethren can pass from life to death (Rom. 8:12, 13).

2. John 10:27-29 – “shall never perish.”

a. True, those who hear and follow “shall never perish.”

b. But one may:

(1) Cease to hear (2 Tim. 4:3, 4; Prov. 28:9).

(2) Cease to follow (Jn. 6:66).

c. Compare John 3:36 – an unbeliever “shall not see life.” John 10:27, a believer shall “never perish.” If “shall never perish” means a believer cannot become an unbeliever and perish, does “shall not see life” mean an unbeliever cannot become a believer and see life?

3. John 6:37 – “(he) that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.”

a. True of one who comes to Christ, but what if he ceases to come?

b. In addition, one must believe when he comes (Heb. 11:6), but one may cease to believe (Heb. 3:12).

c. Jesus will “cast forth” and “spue out” some (Jn. 15:6; Rev. 3:16).

B. Philosophical Arguments used to Prove the Doctrine of Perseverance.

1. A child cannot be “unborn.” You are always your Father’s child, so we remain children of God. We can never be “unborn.”

a. Physically, one cannot be “unborn,” but our lives in the flesh are independent of our parents; they die, we live.

b. Spiritually, our life “is in his Son” (1 Jn. 5: 11); apart from Him, we can have no life (Jn. 15:6; 1 Jn. 2:24).

c. God will deny and disinherit those who deny and desert Him (Num. 14:12; 2 Tim. 2:12; Matt. 25:1, 12).

d. Can a child of the devil be “unborn”? Does one always remain a child of the devil? Calvinist says he is born a child of the devil. Can he be “unborn”?

2. If one is lost, he was never truly saved. He was a “professor,” not a “possessor” of eternal life.

a. Jude 5 – were they only professors of deliverance from Egypt?

b. If one is saved, was he never lost? He was just a professor of damnation, not a possessor!

c. This argument is assumed; it is never stated in Scripture, in cases and illustrations of apostasy, that one was never genuinely what he professed to be (Matt. 25:14, 30 – still a servant).

3. The sins of the flesh do not affect the soul. This is philosophy behind Sam Morris’ statement quoted in introduction.

a. “My soul sin? No. Has Brother Bogard ever sinned? In my soul I do not. I am as perfect as God himself so far as my soul is concerned. Then what about my body? It does sin” (Hardeman-Bogard Debate, pp. 309, 3 10). Outer man sins. Inner man does not sin; body is not redeemed (cf. 1 Cor. 6:19, 20).

b. One verse destroys this contention -“abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul” (1 Pet. 2:11; cf. 2 Cor. 5:10).

c. Consider 2 Corinthians 7:1 and 1 John 3:3. How could one who takes this position obey these texts?

d. Consider problems of inner man and outer man in view of Hebrews 12.

(1) Outer man is not chastened because it is not redeemed.

(2) Inner man is not chastened because it does not sin.

(3) Therefore, no chastening is done. Hence, all are bastards, not sons.

(4) Yet, outer man is baptized into their churches!

C. Scriptures Which Teach That A Child of God May Fall From Grace and Be Lost.

1. Luke 12:42-43.

a. Verse 42 – the question – “Who is faithful?”

b. Verse 43 – the answer – the one doing as instructed.

c. Verse 44 – the reward – he will make him ruler.

d. Verse 45 – the danger – reliance on Lord’s delay, so, sin.

e. Verse 46 – the penalty – appoint portion with unbelievers.

2. John 15:1-6.

a. Vine is Christ. Branches are saved ones in Christ.

b. Abiding in Christ (Vine) is necessary. Life is there (1 Jn. 5:11).

c. Branch could not wither if it had no real life. Burned equals lost.

3. Romans 8:12, 13.

a. Death is spiritual, for all die physically whether they live after flesh or not.

b. He is addressing “brethren” who are debtors not to live after the flesh. Aliens are not such debtors.

4. Galatians 5:1-4.

a. These are saved people

(1) Called into grace of Christ (Gal. 1:6).

(2) Children of God by faith, having been “baptized into Christ” (Gal. 3:26, 27).

(3) Had been made free (Gal. 5:1).

(4) Christ could not “become of no effect” unto them if he had not been of some effect.

b. What is the condition of one who is severed from Christ and “fallen from grace”?

5. Hebrews 10:26-29.

a. These were “sanctified” by the blood (v. 29).

b, There was a “sorer punishment,” worse than physical death. Does this describe salvation or damnation?

6. 2 Peter 2:20-22.

a. They had escaped through knowledge of Christ (cf. Jn. 17:3).

b. They were “again entangled.” They could not be “again entangled” if they had never been disentangled.

c. But not only were they entangled, they were “overcome.”

d. Why would it have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness if they were going to be saved?

III. Conclusion

A. Apostasy is a real threat. Warnings in the Bible are not to be taken simply as spurs to do good unto those who will be saved because of an unalterable divine decree (1 Cor. 10: 1- 12; Heb 3:1, 12).

B . Be not deceived into thinking:

1. That your response has no part in determining your security (Jn. 8:51; Col. 1:21-23; Rev. 2:10; Jas. 1:12).

2. That we are denying God’s word, power, and love by setting forth the truth on this proposition.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 18, pp. 552-554
September 15, 1983