Truth Magazine

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

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: Please explain the following Scriptures: Genesis 22:2, 8, 11-12; Exodus 1:15-19; 3:7-10, 5:1, and 1 Kings 3:24-25, 27-38. Do they indicate that God approves certain forms of deception?

Reply: The above Scriptures do not teach that God approves of certain forms of deception. Let us examine their meaning.

(1) Genesis 22:2, 8, 11-12. In verse two, God said to Abraham: “Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah, and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.” The purpose of this command was to prove Abraham (v. 1). To begin with, God was not tempting Abraham to do evil. If he were, this would be a contradiction of James 1: 13 where we read, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man . . . .” The key to God’s request of Abraham is to understand the meaning of the word “tempt” in verse one. The ASV verse uses the word “prove.” God was not tempting Abraham to sin, but rather He was testing him. This is the sense in which the word “prove” is used here and in some other instances. God proved Israel when He rained bread from heaven (Ex. 16:4). He tested them as to whether they would properly gather the manna. Toward the end of their journeys, God tested them as to whether they loved Him and would continue to serve Him (Deut. 8:2, 16). Abraham proved his unwavering faith in God. So, there was no deception here on God’s part. By this test He simply proved Abraham’s faith.

Verse eight of this account is Abraham’s response to Isaac’s question in verse seven. Isaac asked, “Behold, the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” (v. 7). Abraham replied, “God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son” (v. 8). There was no deception in Abraham’s response. Abraham did not know what God had arranged but he had faith that God would provide the sacrifice. He had the utmost confidence that God would provide. The words of Abraham must not be taken to mean that they were spoken to deceive. He was assuring Isaac that God would take care of the sacrifice -trust Him. Jehovah-jireh, “Jehovah sees,” i.e. He provides (v. 8).

Verses eleven and twelve show that the Lord knew that Abraham feared Him, and his obedience was such that he was willing to sacrifice his own son. The angel of Jehovah prohibited Abraham from slaying his son. He said to Abraham “for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing that thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me” (v. 12). In view of the fact that what God required Abraham to do was a test, there is no way that we can derive the idea that God used any deception.

(2) Exodus 1:15-19. In this account, Pharaoh had commanded two Hebrew midwives (Shiphrah and Puah) to slay the male infants born to the Hebrew women. But these women feared God and, therefore, spared the male children. Pharaoh asked them why they had done this. The midwives explained, “Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwife come unto them” (v. 19). Rather than committing infanticide, they delayed their coming to a woman in labor. The baby was already born when they arrived. They did not divulge the fact that their delay was deliberately planned. They chose to give the king a partial truth rather than committing infanticide. We read in verse twenty-one: “And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them households.” We are not to suppose from this that God approved the deception upon the part of the Hebrew midwives. They were blessed because they were willing to risk their lives to save the infants. These women were rewarded, “not, however, because they lied, but because they were merciful to the people of God; it was not their falsehood therefore that was rewarded, but their kindness (more correctly, their fear of God), their benignity of mind, not the wickedness of their lying; and for the sake of what was good, God forgave what was evil” (Augustine, contra mendac. c.19, quoted by F. Delitzsch, Volume 1, The Pentateuch, p. 425). They were also blessed because they helped to increase the families of Israel. Thus, God made them households.

(3) Exodus 5:1. This verse reads: “And afterward Moses and Aaron came, and said unto Pharaoh, Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness.” We see no deception here. This was an appeal to Pharaoh that he should have understood. Jehovah simply demanding that His people be released to serve Him in the wilderness. This is what they were to do on their journey. It was common for nations to offer sacrifices to their deities, so this request was not unreasonable. Pharaoh had the choice of granting this request, but refused (v. 2). The request included the offering of sacrifices in the wilderness as in seen in verse three. It was founded upon the fact that by neglecting this sacrificial festival, God could punish the Hebrew nation. Furthermore, these sacrifices could not be made in Egypt as this would incite trouble. The Egyptians regarded certain animals to be sacred and, therefore, under no circumstances allowed them to be killed (see Ex. 8:26). The request of Moses and Aaron was God directed. It was honorable and there is no evidence of any deception.

(4) 1 Kings 3:24-25, 27-28. This is the account involving two women who had given birth to babies. One mother had lain on her baby in the night, causing it to die. Both claimed to be the mother of the living child. Solomon ordered a sword to be brought to him and proposed to divide the living child in two, giving half to each of the women. The true mother, demonstrating her love for the child, pleaded for Solomon to spare the child and to give it to the other woman. The other woman was willing to have the child divided. By this, Solomon knew the identity of the true mother. She did not want her child slain. The great wisdom of Solomon convinced the people that he was qualified to do justice.

The account given in the above passages, like the proposal made by God to Abraham in Genesis 22:2, reveals a supreme testing. The order by Solomon determined who the real mother was by the affection which she would show for her offspring. As God had proved Abraham, Solomon had proved the two women. The true mother demonstrated her love for her child, whereas the pretender showed no concern. It was a plan which involved the utmost proof. Solomon was making use of the wisdom which God had given him to decide which of the two women had the feelings of a mother for the living child. It was a case of judicial wisdom on Solomon’s part, but again this is no evidence that God was approving a certain form of deception.

God is infinite and man is finite. We cannot understand all that God does (Isa. 55:8, 9), but we do know that He does not approve of that which is contrary to His moral character.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 18, pp. 549-550
September 15, 1983

By Donald Townsley

Is your marriage as happy as you want it to be? Many marriages today are in trouble and the mates are unhappy. One million divorces are granted in this country every year. Fifty-four percent (54%) of married women admit they have committed adultery, and the percentage of men who have committed adultery is higher than the women! This unfaithfulness to the marriage bed shows that many marriages are not what God intended them to be. God never intended that marriage be an unhappy state, but for it to be one of the happiest relationships that man would have on this earth (Prov. 5:18-19). When a marriage is in trouble and the companions are unhappy, someone is breaking the laws of God.

The Husband/Wife Relationship

God created the man and said it was not good for him to be alone, so made an help meet for him – woman (Gen. 2:18; 2:21-22; 1 Cor. 11:9). God then instituted the marriage relationship (Gen. 2:24). The institution of marriage is a divine, monogamous, and life-long relationship of oneness (Matt. 19:4-6; Rom. 7:3-4). God said by the prophet Malachi that “He hateth putting away” (Mal. 2:16). Jesus said that there is only one reason for “putting away” and marrying again, and that reason is fornication (Matt. 19:?). Only the innocent party has the reason.

God ordained that the man should rule over his wife (Gen. 3:16), not unjustly as a slave, but he is to rule her with love (Eph. 5:25, 28-29). This is to be a self-giving concern for her person – a love that seeks her happiness and well-being at the sacrifice of his own interest and welfare (I Cor. 13:5). The wife is to reverence and submit to her husband (Eph. 5:24, 33; 1 Pet. 3: 1) and to love him (Tit. 2:4).

In the marriage relationship the husband and wife become exclusively the possession of each other (I Cor. 7:2-5). Marriage fulfills one of the greatest needs of mankind – to love and to be loved. This relationship brings into the life of each mate fulfillment, satisfaction, and contentment. A fruitful marriage is built upon love, respect, faithfulness, and mutual consideration.

Let us now look at some attitudes that build each other up instead of tearing each other down – some attitudes that will sweeten marriage:

Express Appreciation To Your Companion

Express appreciation for things that are done – whether they be big or small. At all times look for the good qualities in your mate and express appreciation for them. Don’t just look for the negative, if you do all of life will begin to appear totally negative! If you are to stay in touch with the reality of the good in your companion, you must look for good and express appreciation for it.

Give Honor And Respect To Your Companion

Peter said to the husbands, “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered” (1 Pet. 3:7). Paul said to the wives, “And the wife see that she reverence her husband” (Eph. 5:33). Respect breeds respect, so if a wife wants respect she must show respect. Disrespect inflames bad feelings. Treat your mate with respect and dignity and your mate will want to rise to the same high level.

Be Forgiving

An unforgiving attitude inflames tension and strife. Never have the habit of dredging up the past mistakes to put down your companion. That is being unmerciful and unforgiving, and it reopens old wounds. Everyone wants mercy and forgiveness for his (or her) shortcomings. Many times people forgive everybody but their mates, but the first place forgiveness should be practiced is at home with one’s mate (Luke 6:36-38; Matt. 6:14-15; Col. 3:13; Eph. 4:33). You and your mate are imperfect human beings (1 John 1:8), so when you are wrong why not simply say, “I am wrong and I’m sorry”? Only an immature and prideful person refuses to admit his shortcomings and sins.

Be Helpful and Constructive

Companions should be able to talk honestly with each other, and to treat each other as best friends (and they should be best friends). You want your feelings, needs, and opinions to be heard and considered – so does your companion.

What does it mean to be a friend? Friendship is a privilege – not a situation to be taken advantage of. When a person takes advantage of another there is no friendship – so, no loving companion will take advantage of his mate; Friends love each other dearly – so do mates who are trying to do God’s will; A friend offers his best to a friend – husbands and wives who are what they ought to be offer their best to each other; A friend will go when needed; so will a true and faithful companion; A friend is a holder of confidences – if there is one person on earth one should be able to trust, it is his mate; A friend will have empathy for another – if there were ever two people who should feel each pain of the other it should be companions; A friend will do all he can for another – loving mates cannot do enough for each other.

Marriage Partners Are A Team

A healthy, loving husband/wife relationship is not a master/slave relationship. It is a sharing, complimenting relationship where each mate recognizes the God-ordained role of each. When each mate realizes they need help and that they do compliment each other, they draw closer and grow to respect and love each other more.

God’s Laws of Marriage Must Be Respected

Break any of God’s laws, and they will break and destroy you! Millions are paying painful, mental, emotional, and physical penalties for rejecting and transgressing God’s laws on sex and marriage – and most of these will pay eternally with their souls lost in hell! God’s law is plain – “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Rom. 13:9) -and the penalty for breaking this law is always enforced! Let us look at the penalty:

1. Remorse (Prov. 5: 11; Psa. 51:3).

2. Disease of the body (Prov. 5: 11; Rom. 1: 27).

3. Dishonor (Prov. 6:33).

4. Impoverishment (Prov. 5:10).

5. Spiritual death (Prov. 6:32; Rom. 6:23).

6. The only grounds for divorce (Matt. 19:9).

7. The Lord will avenge (I Thess. 4:6).

If we who are married will only practice the things we have stated in this article, it will bring sweetness to the marriage relationship.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 18, pp. 547-548
September 15, 1983