Truth Magazine

By Daniel H. King

One of the most often made self-criticisms of so-called Higher Criticism is its inability to offer “assured results.” Students of the history of research recognize that with changes of presuppositions come distinctive changes in results. Thus Old Liberalism read the ethical Kingdom of God into every .page of the life of what it called the “historical Jesus.” In the same way Bultmann read his existentialism into the thought and life of the Teacher. Within a few short years, a scholar like Bowman could be so bold as to refer to this outdated philosophical mold as Bultmann’s “red herring”! And while we concur with his judgment in respect to Bultmann, we wonder whether Bowman and others of his persuasion may have a few red herrings of their own?

In fact, it is our considered opinion that they do. Every generation of students considers itself alone devoid of such pre-philosophies, but leave it to the next generation to uncover the inconsistencies of the past and ignore its own! One should not be deceived into thinking that only scholars of yesteryear and conservatives of every era are weighed down by such presuppositions. Let us briefly survey a few of the most obvious ones that characterize liberal critics of the Gospels and lead to the wide-ranging pictures of the “real Jesus” gleaned from their articles and books about him:

First, there is made a distinction between what the Germans call Historie (what actually happened) and Geschichte (an account of past events in terms of their contemporary significance), and it is thereupon asserted that the early church’s concern was primarily with the latter, the former being a matter of almost complete indifference to them. The church was concerned with the Christ of faith and not the Jesus of history. But, as a matter of fact, this distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith is purely a modern philosophical and theological division. The early church made no such distinction. The same applies to the dichotomy between the two concepts of history, represented by Historie and Geschichte. No evidence whatever has been forwarded to demonstrate either distinction. Both are grounded solely on assertions made by men of reputation and are repeated out of reverence for their high learning and the uniqueness of their approach.

Second, many scholars assume that a theological motivation in the writing of the Gospels excludes a concern for historical authenticity. While we would not be found contending that the Evangelists were without theological motivation, since all of the evidence points in the other direction, we would with all due force deny that this caused them to have little respect for historical or other verities.

To advocate the reverse, in whatever theological form or philosophical language one may disguise his views, is to contradict the basic nature of the movement and the stance of its adherents toward honesty and probity. For it is certain that the church was absolutely convinced that the things that the Gospels claim for Jesus and about Jesus were completely and in every detail correct. Once more, we are here dealing with a modern distinction and not an ancient one.

Third, it is presupposed that the supernatural element in the Gospel tradition cannot be treated as historical. It is thus decreed in advance that the historical Jesus, both in His deeds and in His words, will be compatible with the anti-supernaturalistic world-view, or as R.T. France has dubbed it, “the closed mind,” of modern scientific man. This anti-miraculous, supposedly scientific approach is based on the unproved and unprovable dogma that Nature behaves with invariable uniformity. Moreover the God of this dogma ought to be spelled with a small “g,” since he is a “god” who does not act. In the words of the esteemed Princeton scholar B.B. Warfield:

It is appropriate that this miraculous life should be set between the great marvels of the virgin-birth and the resurrection and ascension. These can appear strange only when the intervening life is looked upon as that of a merely human being, endowed, no doubt, not only with unusual qualities, but also with the unusual favor of God, yet after all nothing more than human and therefore presumably entering the world like other human beings, and at the end paying the universal debt of human nature. From the standpoint of the evangelical writers, and of the entirety of primitive Christianity, which looked upon Jesus not as a merely human being but as God himself come into the world on a mission of mercy that involved the humiliation of a human life and death, it would be this assumed community with common humanity in mode of entrance into and exit from the earthly life which would seem strange and incredible. The entrance of the Lord of Glory into the world could not but be supernatural; His exit from the world, after the work which He had undertaken had been performed, could not fail to bear the stamp of triumph. There is no reason for doubting the trustworthiness of the narratives at these points, beyond the anti-supernaturalistic instinct which strives consciously or unconsciously to naturalize the whole evangelical narrative (From his essay, “The Historical Christ”, in The Person and Work of Christ, p. 32).

Fourth, the narratives and sayings of the Gospels are presumed to owe their origins to the early church instead of the life of Jesus, unless clear reasons can be adduced for regarding them as authentic. As Ernst Kasemann has put it: “The obligation now laid upon us is to investigate and make credible not the possible unauthenticity of the individual unit of material but, on the contrary, its genuineness” (“The Problem of the Historical Jesus,” Essays on New Testament Themes, p. 34). This is tantamount to saying that a man is guilty until proven innocent! Such an approach has never been used in such a full-scale way upon any piece of ancient literature before. It is generally conceded that Josephus wrote Wars of the Jews, the Antiquities, etc. Were someone to attack the authorship of one of these documents on such flimsy grounds, his attempt would be summarily ruled out of order and the case thrown out of court! Yet Kasemann and others lodge such bold assertions with scholarly impunity!

Fifth, the figure of the Jesus of the Gospels is alleged to be the product of the Church rather than the Church being the product of the Christ described in the canonical Gospels. But, as John W. Wenham has so prudently observed, “To regard the great mass of Gospel teaching as the creation of the Christian community seems to posit a marvellous effect without a plausible cause. Here is what may fairly be claimed as the greatest literature of all time, yet supposedly created by the imagination of an undistinguished community. It seems far easier to suppose that the Jesus of the Gospels created the community than the community created the Jesus of the Gospels.” This assumption meets with the problem that communities as such are not thus creative – not in music, art, philosophy, science, morals, or religion. Communities can furnish favorable conditions for creativity, can help at the start and radically modify the result afterwards, but it takes creative personalities to account, in all such realms, for the unique, original discoveries. For instance, Johann Sebastian Bach’s music was largely lost sight of for a century, and then gathered around it an enthusiastic following of those who hailed Bach as the prince of musicians. It would be preposterous, though, to suppose that the community of his followers created the music, and that Bach was only an imaginary mouthpiece through which the group spoke. Nothing like the originality of Bach’s music or Jesus’ unique contribution to ethical and religious life and thought is ever explicable without creative personality.

Sixth, it is supposed that there was a long interval between the uttering of Christ’s words and their committal to writing. It is widely accepted that the church was entirely dependent on oral tradition for forty or more years. On the surface one may see that this is a supposition without proof of any kind. Were we to grant this, for sake of argument, the first Gospel was still written at a time when there were a few people alive who were contemporary with Jesus and could have easily exposed the portrait when it appeared in written form as fanciful or fraudulent.

Seventh, it is assumed in connection with the foregoing point that the memories of the writers were no better than those of present-day scholars and, therefore, would have been prone to forget exact details and enlarge the happenings in a legendary way. Two facts militate against this presupposition: To begin with, oriental memories especially those of trained teachers – are incomparably more retentive than our own. Any instructor in the Jewish traditional law and lore, of Mishnah and Talmud, will attest to the long periods of time in which entire bodies of traditional material was handed on from teacher to student; each tradent forming a link in the chain and cognizant that he must accurately reproduce the words of those who have gone before. Also, and infinitely more important, is the fact that their memories were not left unaided in recollecting the events of Jesus’ life and the words from His mouth. Their mental capabilities were promised help from God: “But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you” (Jn. 14:26).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 8, pp. 231-232
April 21, 1983

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: 1 am making a study of 2 Corinthians 10:5, “bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. ” Can we control every thought that comes into our minds? If so, how is this accomplished?

Reply: There are different kinds of sin described in the Scriptures: (1) we can sin in thought (Matt. 5:27, 28), (2) we can sin in disposition (Matt. 5:22, 23), (3) we can sin in word (Matt. 12:34-37), and (4) we can sin in deed – by the overt act (2 Cor. 5:10). Although this classifies the different ways by which we can sin, all sin begins in the mind or heart (see Prov. 4:23; Mk. 7:21, 22; Jas. 1:13-15). All accountable individuals sin (1 Jn. 1:8) and since sin originates in the mind or heart, therefore, none of us prevent sin from entering our minds – even though it may be momentary and not habitual. If an evil thought never enters the mind, then obviously we would not be subject to temptation and would be sinless. We read in I John 3:9, “Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God.” Some mistakenly conclude from this passage that if one is truly converted then it is impossible for him to sin. But this is not what John is teaching. We observe that sin is not committed while the seed, the Word of God, is in us. This is not saying that one cannot depart from the Word. If one cannot, then the impossibility of apostasy is the inevitable conclusion; but we have both warnings and examples to the contrary (1 Cor. 10:12; Gal. 5:4; Acts 8:20-22; Heb. 3:12; etc.). We are certainly to make every effort to prevent evil thoughts from entering our minds, but in spite of all efforts, they will occasionally intrude. The one born of God does not make a practice of sin. Charles B. Williams translates 1 John 3:9: “No one who is born of God makes a practice of sinning. . .” (Translation of the N. T., p. 533). R.L. Whiteside has well expressed this idea by his statement: “When sin enters into a Christian, it enters as an intruder and not as a dweller” (Commentary on Romans, p. 158). The idea that a Christian “cannot” sin does not mean that it is impossible for him to do so, but rather that he cannot afford to do so. For other examples where the word “cannot” does not mean “impossible,” see Genesis 19:19; 24:50; 44:22 and Exodus 19:23.

Every thought of the Christian must be subjected, whether it be our own understanding (human reasoning) or impure thoughts (see Isa. 55:8, 9; Jer. 10:23). Evil thoughts will come into our minds because of lust (Jas. 1:13-15), as discussed above, but they must be brought into subjection to the will of Christ. Charles Hodge has suggested an imagery in 2 Corinthians 10:5 which we believe is correct. “It is the indispensable condition of salvation that our understanding should be brought in captivity, led submissive as though bound, into the obedience of Christ …. Agreeably to the figure in the context, the obedience of Christ is conceived of as a place, or fortress, into which the captive is led” (Exposition of 2 Corinthians, p. 236). Thus, the human heart is suppressed. Lenski summarizes it well: “Every such hostile device Paul pictures as falling a helpless and a hopeless war captive to a victor who abolishes that device” (Interpretation of Second Corinthians, p. 1209).

Evil thoughts will enter our mind but they can be controlled and subdued by prayer, diligence, constant study and a persevering effort.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 8, p. 230
April 21, 1983

By Wayne S. Walker

The Way International is a religious ministry founded by Victor Paul Wierwille and headquartered in New Knoxville, Ohio (see the last article for a more complete history). It has become quite militant in its evangelistic campaigns and may have the influence of the Mormons or the Moonies in the future. We need to be aware of it and its teachings in order to be equipped to deal effectively with it. Here are some of its basic doctrines, which are proclaimed quite publically as on a flyer I was given by a member of the group.

I. The Name. “Before the disciples of Jesus Christ were ever called `Christians’ (Acts 11:26), they were called `the way’ (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4).” No one can deny that early Christianity was referred to as “that way.” However, none of these passages indicates that this term was intended as some kind of formal name for Christ’s disciples. The Lord promised His people a new name (Isa. 62:2). This promise was fulfilled in Acts 11:26 by the name Christian. It is the only name by which we can glorify God (Acts 4:12, 1 Pet. 4:16).

Some people seem to get all excited about “the name of the church.” Of course, it is wrong to call ourselves by some unbiblical term (1 Cor. 1:12). But it is also wrong to take a scriptural designation, like “The Way,” or “The Church of God” (1 Cor. 1:1), or even “The Church of Christ” (cf. Rom. 16:16), and make that into an official and exclusive title. Our only aim should be to persuade people to become Christians (Acts 26:28) and to unite with the church Jesus built and revealed to us in the New Testament (Mt. 16:18, Acts 2:47; Eph. 1:22-23).

II. The Dead. “The dead are dead until Christ returns (1 Thess. 4:13-18).” We would agree that the dead are dead, but what is meant by “dead”? Wierwille teaches that human beings do not have immortal spirits or souls. They remain completely dead upon physical death until the final resurrection. But the Bible says man does have a soul which cannot be killed (Mt. 10:28). The body dies (Jas. 2:26), but nowhere does Scripture teach that the spirit dies – it returns to the control of God (Eccl. 12:7).

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 teaches that when Christ comes, He will bring the souls of the dead to reunite them with their new spiritual bodies (1 Cor. 15:51-53, Phil. 3:21, 1 Jn. 3:’2). First, the dead in Christ shall rise. Then they shall be joined by the living in Christ, who shall be changed, to meet the Lord in the air and both shall remain forever with the Lord where He is (Jn. 14:1-3). The wicked dead will also be raised at the same time (Jn. 5:28-29). Judgment will follow (Mt. 25:31-33).

III. Jesus Christ. “Jesus Christ is the Son of God, not God the Son. God is not a trinity (Matt. 3:17, 16:16; Jn. 20:31; Acts 9:20; 1 Cor. 11:3).” To underscore this point, Wierwille has written a book entitled Jesus Is Not God. Of course, we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, which is all the first four passages listed say. However, this does not preclude our believing Jesus is also God the Son. My father’s name is Walker. I am, thus, the son of Walker. He is Walker the father and I am Walker the son. So the terms can be used interchangeably. The Father is God (Eph. 4:6). The Son is God (Heb. 1:8). And the Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4). There is one God eternally manifest in three persons. The word “trinity” is not found in Scripture, but if this is what it is used to mean, then I accept it.

The term “son of” does not always denote “offspring” but sometimes means “of the nature and character of” (cf. Mk. 3:17; Acts 4:36). Jesus is the Son of God because He partakes of the very nature and character of God (Jn. 1:1; Phil. 2:5; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:3). The only passage that might give anyone some trouble is 1 Corinthians 11:3. This can be explained as either a reference to the difference of function between the Father and the Son in the scheme of redemption (Jn. 5:30), or the fact that when Christ was on earth in the flesh as a man He was subject to the Father (Gal. 4:4).

IV. Salvation. “Being saved, born again, eternal life is of God’s grace through Jesus Christ (John 3:16, Romans 10:9, 10), and not of works (Gal. 2:16, Eph. 2:8, 9) . . .not even water baptism.” This is typical denominational doctrine. Surely, salvation is by God’s grace – but not by grace alone! There is something man must do – believe and confess (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 10:9-10). Furthermore, being born again is inexorably linked to water in John 3:5. And the passages that make salvation conditioned on baptism are many -Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:26-27; 1 Pet. 3:21, etc.

It is admitted that we are not saved by works – works of the old law (Gal. 2:16) or works of human merit (Eph. 2:8-9). Yet, there is not a single passage of Scripture which affirms or even implies that baptism is such a work. In addition, we are justified by works, not by faith only; faith without works is dead (Jas. 2:24-26). Faith itself is a work which we must do (Jn. 6:28-29) – not a work of man which earns salvation, but a work of God which meets the conditions upon which God, through His grace, bestows salvation. So are also repentance, confession, and baptism (note Acts 8:35-40, 10:44-48). These are not “works of righteousness which we have done” (Tit. 3:5), but which God has commanded and we must obey (Rom. 6:17-18, Heb. 5:8-9).

V. Miracles. “God made available supernatural power through Christ (Eph. 1:17-21; John 10:10; 14:12; Acts 1:8; Mark 16:17-18).” It is true that God gave supernatural power to men – in the first century. Acts 1:8 was a promise specifically made only to the apostles (cf. vv. 1-5, 22). Mark 16:17-18 does not say that all believers would perform the signs, but that wherever the apostles went revealing the word and preaching the gospel to make believers (vv. 15-16, 19-20) the signs would follow. The purpose of the signs was to confirm the word as it was being revealed (Eph. 3:3-5; Heb. 2:1-4). Since the word has been fully revealed and confirmed, the signs have ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-10).

However, my friend in “The Way” said that the nine gifts of the Spirit of 1 Corinthians 12, especially tongues and healing, are for us today because of what Jesus said in John 14:12. But the “greater works” there do not refer to miracles because no one could do greater miracles than Jesus did (Jn. 3:1-2), unless he were also the Son of God. Rather it is a reference to the apostles’ work in preaching salvation to mankind through Christ’s death (Lk. 24:47), which Jesus could not do because He had not yet died. Nor do Ephesians 1:17-21 and John 10:10 speak of the supernatural power of miracles but the spiritual power of the gospel of Jesus Christ unto salvation (Rom. 1:16).

The last doctrine on the flyer, that “God does not cause sickness and death (Acts 10:38; Heb. 2:14; 3 Jn. 2)” is one with which we totally concur, although as pointed out above, He does not remove such by miracles today. However it is quite evident that the others reviewed are not in harmony with the truth of God’s word. Some, like the second and third, could have come from possible contacts by Wierwille with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, although there is no proof of this. The fourth is obviously taken from traditional sectarianism. And the fifth is derived from the charismatic movement. Because these ideas are in error, we should take the “sword of the Spirit” (Eph. 6:17) and seek out those who are caught up in them with the goal of “correcting them that oppose themselves; if peradventure God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth, and they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him unto his will” (2 Tim. 2:25-26).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 8, pp. 228-229
April 21, 1983

By Dudley Ross Spears

Paul wrote the church in Ephesus, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9). No inspired writer ever wrote more about salvation by God’s grace than did the apostle Paul. Some have said that. Paul invented the phrase “the grace of God.” Of course, Paul did not invent it as a personal expression; he was led by the guidance of the Holy Spirit to write about this profound theme.

Grace means “unmerited favor.” Salvation is something we cannot earn or merit. It is a gift of God to mankind. It is not a reward God offers for obedience to His will; it is rather God’s goodness and mercy extended to all who meet the conditions which He has set. Salvation is conditional and, therefore, God extends saving grace only to those willing to comply with the conditions. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as a sinner or a lost person. The Hebrew writer says, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Heb. 2:9).

Grace from God has appeared to all men. “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” (Tit. 2:11-12). Since the saving grace of God appeared to “all men,” does this mean that all men are saved by grace? Indeed not. No man is saved by grace who does not accept the grace God offers. It is “by faith” that the gracious salvation is accepted. The acceptance of God’s grace lies solely on man. God will not mold man’s behavior in such a way as to force acceptance.

Grace saves through faith. Whatever may be required by faith is mandatory to being saved by grace. Faith is something man must do; he is solely responsible for faith. Paul wrote, “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness . . .” (Romans 10:10). The literal wording here would be, “for with the heart it is believed,” or that the belief is exercised with the heart of man. Those who advocate the erroneous doctrine of God’s absolute sovereignty over the will of man cannot believe Paul’s statement. Faith is not a gift of God, it is a responsive act of man. Without God’s revealed word faith would be impossible, for faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17), but as one fine writer put it, “faith on man’s side is the mouth or hand by which the salvation is appropriated” (Cambridge Greek New Testament).

The only kind of faith that saves is working faith. Paul wrote to the Galatian churches, “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love” (Gal. 5:6). This is what might be appropriately called an “operable faith.” This is the only valid faith and anything short of it will not save. However, this work does not include anything about which a human being can boast. There are no meritorious or sacramental works involved. To love the Lord means one must keep His commandments (John 14:21). This includes a turning away from sin, an open confession with the mouth that Jesus is the Christ and submission to baptism in water for the remission of sins (Acts 17:30; Romans 10:9; Acts 2:38).

Salvation by grace through faith neither nullifies obedience nor eliminates grace. One must understand two important questions about such salvation. When is an accountable individual saved by faith and how is one justified by faith? Paul said that it is “not of works lest any man should boast.” There are some who erroneously understand this to include anything and everything men can do. Thus, they teach that there is nothing anyone can do to be saved and anyone who does anything is trying to earn salvation, thus nullifying grace. There are basically three things wrong with this view.

1. It is patently false. There is no scriptural support for it.

2. If there is nothing for individuals to do for the saving of their souls, how is it that God saves some and not others? Is God a respecter of persons? (Read Acts 10:34-35).

3. This view is directly contrary to what the New Testament plainly says about obedience to God’s commands (Heb. 5:9).

There is no greater truth than the fact that we are saved by grace – but there is no uglier falsehood than the assumption that we are saved by grace only. There is no instance in all of God’s holy word where anyone was blessed because of their faith before that faith became operative in obedience to God’s commands. Faith that does not obey does not save. It is a dead faith (Jas. 2:20-26).

In the transaction of a gift, there are two parties: the giver and the recipient. God is the gracious giver of salvation. He gives it through Christ to all who by faith will obey and thus receive the precious gift. Will you receive it now, dear reader, by a faith that will obey all God has commanded?

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 8, pp. 227, 241
April 21, 1983