Truth Magazine

By Earl E. Robertson

Often we talk about a legacy of some certain individual. But most of the time the subject has to do with material substance. I am persuaded that a spiritual legacy is of greater value than all of the material things in the world. All of us should be intently interested in leaving something worthwhile as we travel through this world. Fathers and mothers who are rich in this world’s goods and make provisions that their own children inherit it all, really have left nothing to their children if this is all they leave.

What could Herodias leave to Salome after having lived before her in wantonness and having instructed her as she did concerning John the Baptist (Matt. 14:1-12)? Just as Herodias had instructed her daughter to do wrong, others have done so too. It is said of Ahaziah, the son of Ahab (and perhaps his mother was Jezebel), “he also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab; for his mother was his counselor to do wickedly” (2 Chron. 22:3). The boy hardly had a chance in this world having such a background.

Worthy women like Eunice, Lois, Mary, Elizabeth, Phebe, and Dorcas are described in Proverbs 31. These women have a real legacy! Such is not accomplished without aim. Such cannot be achieved in one day; it takes a life time.

What are you and I leaving for the next generation? Will we be remembered like the above named women and Paul, Abel, John and others who gave all for that which is worth all? Or, shall we be remembered as fathers and mothers who did not give stress and emphasis to worthy things for our children? When we are gone will they remember us as being unfaithful to the Lord? Will they remember us as being unfaithful in attending services of the congregation? Will they remember us as being stingy with the Lord in both time and money? Will they remember us as Christians, real Christians? Will they remember us as people who really wanted the truth of God on all subjects? What are you leaving? What is your legacy? Don’t forget that dead men speak (Heb. 11:4). Quit making excuses and telling lies; become a worthy father or mother.

The next generation will be much better in its relationship to both God and man if the present generation will honor God and truth as the Bible instructs. Our lives will not have been spent in vain provided we do right; but if we fail, the next generation would be better off had we not lived!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, p. 146
March 3, 1983

By Weldon E. Warnock

We are hearing a great deal about “collectivities.” That is a big word that might need defining for us country folks. I could not find it in the Bible, so I had to go to Webster’s dictionary for the meaning. Webster says that “collectivity” means “the quality or state of being collective.” That definition did not help a bit until I looked up “collective.” Webster defines that word to mean “of, as, or characteristic of a group; of or characteristic of individuals acting together; common to several or many; as, the collective effort of the students.” Now we can see what a collectivity is. It is individuals acting together.

But well-meaning brethren are telling us that individuals may not scripturally act together in teaching the word of God, other than in the local church. Such would be an unscriptural collectivity, we are told. It seems their objection is to the pooling of money of two or more individuals to teach the Bible. Apparently, they do not oppose the collective action of energy, labor and time – just money.

A brother may spend a whole week in research and in writing an article for a religious journal (a collectivity of workers and writers), but not a dime may be sent to the same religious journal to promote its welfare. Pshaw! This is the most convoluted logic I have ever seen. The sin becomes the collective action of money rather than the time and labor expended together.

You brethren who oppose individuals acting together to teach the Bible are going to have to quit using someone else’s journal to present your views on the scripturality of collectivities. You are utilizing an individual collectivity to oppose an individual collectivity. Some consistency! In fact, you must quit writing anything for anybody else’s religious paper in order not to violate your own rules. You must start your own paper, write all the articles, do all the work, and then you will have individual action. The only alterative to this is to write exclusively in church bulletins.

As to the scripturality of collective action of individuals teaching the Bible, the home is a good example of such. Both father and mother may work collectively to teach their children the word of God (Eph. 6:4; 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15). In so doing, they may want to use a tutor or a Bible department of a high school or college in furthering their child’s knowledge of the Scriptures. While the child is studying science, history and English, he also has the opportunity to study about God and the Lord Jesus Christ. The school is a business – educational business – collectively working together in both secular and religious education. Of course, the “collectivity” brethren cannot agree with one another about the school. Some say the school wherein the Bible is taught is a collectivity and others say the school is not a collectivity. If the school is not a collectivity it is the biggest operation of everybody doing his own thing that I know anything about, anywhere.

We see collective action in the case of Aquila and Priscilla. When Apollos was erroneously preaching the baptism of John, Aquila and Priscilla “took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:26). This–was collective action. Paul and Silas engaged in collective activity in praying and singing together while they were in jail at Philippi (Acts 16:25). Peter and the six Jewish brethren were collectively involved when they went together to the house of Cornelius in order for Peter to preach the gospel. These examples should settle the matter, but they most likely won’t for some brethren who only see collective action when dollars and cents enter the picture, except when a debate is involved. The Jenkins- Willis Debate was conducted in an individual collective arrangement and the opposition to that has been as quiet as the thief in the night.

Brethren, the same passage that allows us to use our energies and time to work together in a collectivity is the same passage that allows us to use our money in the same work. I stand amazed at the number of issues that are continually created which alienate and polarize brethren. Some are afflicted with “issue-itis.” Seems like Romans 14 does not have a place anymore in our relationship and treatment of one another. All issues are made to appear to be the most emergent situation since the Jerusalem conference.

In the midst of some trying to crystalize every disagreement that arises among us (such as collectivities, Sunday night communion, weddings in the meetinghouse, Bible colleges, woman’s covering, women teachers and several other things), we have, to some degree, lost sight of the great and pressing need to preach the gospel to the lost.

Certainly, real and threatening issues to the faith must not be ignored, but every point of disagreement, regardless of how small it may be, does not deserve the limelight of our attention. The time is way past due that conservative brethren join hands in love and respect for one another and in the words of Jesus: “Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest” (John 4:35).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, p. 145
March 3, 1983

By Lewis Willis

So you had better hold on to your wallet! You know, the Lord surely has changed. He used to be concerned about souls and spiritual things. Now, if you listen to Roberts long enough, all He ever seems to be interested in is money. Everything that God says to Roberts and his buddies involves sending money. He never seems to have enough. A current country music song tells about the big bucks baseball and football players make and it speaks of the preachers who are always asking for money for the Lord. The song says to send the Lord’s money to the preacher’s mailing address!

These money grubbing preaching have bilked the public out of so much money that every new campaign is looked upon by the world as funny. They supposedly represent the cause of the Lord. However, with very little effort to conceal their disgust, comedians have made them and religion the brunt of their humor. I think I can safely say that God doesn’t find it very funny!

The latest, most preposterous, fund raising effort comes from Oral Roberts. The Cleveland Plain Dealer (1/18/83) reports that “millions of letters” are being sent out to “his hundreds of thousands” of “prayer partners,” seeking more money. You will recall that in 1981 he reported seeing a vision of a 900-foot-tall Jesus standing over his City of Faith Medical Center. That “vision” in 1981 “generated millions of dollars in donations.” It is not particularly surprising that he suddenly had another contact with the Lord with the same purpose in mind.

His latest encounter with Jesus (which was far more pleasant than the one he’s going to have with Him at the judgment) was a seven-hour conversation. Now I know you’re not dumb – everyone knows you’ve got to be very special to the Lord for Him to take seven hours with you. Oral Roberts is a very special person – if you don’t believe it just ask him! The newspaper article says Jesus appeared to him “and told him God had chosen Roberts to find the cure for cancer. . . and other dread diseases.”

Many people are unaware of the magnitude of the undertaking which has Roberts in such dire financial straits. A few years ago, he decided to raise funds to build City of Faith Medical Center at his headquarters in Tulsa, Oklahoma. This consists of a 60-story diagnostic clinic, a 30-story hospital and a 20-story research center – a total of 110 stories of medical facilities under the supervision of a “faith healer.” This is roughly equivalent to delivering control of the Lord’s church into the hands of atheist, Madeline Murray O’Hare.

Some younger people do not know the Oral Roberts’ history. He has not always been a successful T.V. evangelist. He used to go into towns virtually unnoticed by the press. He got his start as a tent-meeting preacher. He traveled all over this country, putting up his tent on vacant lots, preaching and inviting all the sick people of every town he was in to come out to be healed. Every time he could get someone to say he had healed them, he publicized it till he and his listening audiences began to believe it. As he grew in popularity and power, he changed his approach. Today, instead of having people line up to be healed, he builds 110 stores of medical facilities and has them line up to be treated by doctors. Every treatment room on every floor of his 110 story facility cries out that Oral Roberts is a fraud! If he could heal people then, he can heal them now. The fact that they’re laying in a hospital bed under the care of a doctor proves he no longer has the power to heal or he never had it to begin with. Take your pick! If he can still do today what he did years ago, all he needs is a 9 x 12 room with a canopy covered sidewalk for the line of sick folks waiting to get into the room. Such a departure in approach from healing line to hospital bed might seem strange, but it is rather understandable. You were not invoiced by his accounting department for the services he rendered in his “healing line.” But, you can be certain you will be invoiced for his medical service in Tulsa. What has happened here is he has begged people to build him a facility which will perpetually enrich him. Unfortunately, millions will be too blind to see that. If American industry could figure a way to implement his tactics successfully, unemployment could be solved in a minute.

“The financially troubled project” has to have a new transfusion. And, wouldn’t you know Jesus was on the spot, ready with a quick solution. I know this is so, Oral Roberts said it was! These millions of “prayer partners” have been told that the Lord wants them to give $240.00 each ($20.00 per month for one year – I wonder if he accepts VISA or Master Card?). Roberts quoted the Lord as saying: “Tell them this is not Oral Roberts asking (for the $240.00), but their Lord.” Now let me think, when the Lord asks something of us, what do we call it? Is it a command, or is it optional? Oral Roberts’ devices makes Judas look like the Lord’s best friend.

Hold on to your chair! I hope this doesn’t shock you, but the Lord has spoken to me too and He told me that Oral Roberts is a liar! Actually, what He said is that He has revealed Himself to man (1 Cor. 2:11-13). The Lord further told me that that revelation will make man perfect, furnishing him unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:15-17). His revelation is said to be “the perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25), providing us with “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). That revelation also told me about false teachers being among us, making merchandise of us (2 Pet. 2:1-3). It tells us to try the teachers with that revelation to determine who the false prophets are (1 Jno. 4:1). Finally, the revelation tells us that God is no respector of persons (Acts 10:34), that is, what He says to one of us, He says to all of us. And, God did not tell me what Oral Roberts said He told him. Roberts said God showed respect to his person and the Bible says He doesn’t do that. What the Bible says is, “Let God be true, but let every man be a liar” (Rom. 3:4). So, I tested what Roberts said with the Bible and Roberts came out on the short end of the stick! The Ephesian church tested some of its teachers and “found them liars” (Rev. 2:2). I tested Roberts and got the same result.

One of our members told me Roberts’ claims ought to be subjected to technical analysis to establish their truthfulness. I know he’s not opposed to technical procedures – he’s building 110 stores worth of technical facilities. This member volunteered to pay the costs of a polygraph test on Roberts any time he would be willing to submit himself to it. He can even take the test in Tulsa! All he has to do is express his willingness to do so. The following letter was mailed to him under date of January 25, 1983, asking if he is willing to take the test:

Dear Mr. Roberts:

Your conversation with the Lord regarding your selection to find the cure for cancer and other dread diseases, has received broad press coverage in this country. In our area, almost every television and radio station, as well as most newspapers, have noted the incident in some manner. Unfortunately, many of these reports have been “tongue-in’cheek” in nature and they have given the enemies of the Lord occasion to blaspheme. His Name and Cause have been subjected to ridicule by skeptics who perceive this as but another, though very dramatic, fund raising scheme.

I am aware that the Lord and His Apostles were looked upon skeptically by their peers. However, insofar as possible, they sought to eliminate as much skepticism as they could. Due to those efforts, Luke noted that such notable miracles as the resurrection were established “by many infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3). The miracles of the Apostles were “manifest” in such a way that the Jews announced, “we cannot deny it” (Acts 4:16). Inasmuch as your recent seven-hour conversation with the Lord is so widely doubted, may I suggest that every possible thing be done to establish its validity? Many technical advancements have been made since the days of Jesus which could help in establishing the truth of your conversation. Such things as polygraph tests are used by law enforcement officials to determine facts in their investigations. May I suggest such a test be taken at your earliest opportunity, with the results being broadly circulated, to quieten those who speak against the Lord? A member of this church has offered to pay all costs of such a test upon your expression of willingness to submit to it. We will make all arrangements with the independent agency that will administer it.

I realize that such actually amounts to the proving of your integrity. However, when your integrity is established, the force of your declaration is greater. If millions of dollars are sought to build a technical center such as you are building, a simple technical test could quickly establish that such is of God and not of Oral Roberts alone.

The church here has had live, call-in radio broadcast on the air in Akron for almost five years. We have a rather large audience for each Sunday morning’s hour long broadcast. I would like to invite you to join us on the air for a discussion of this matter. A trip to Akron would not be necessary. From your home, you could talk with us by telephone. We are on the air from 8:05 until 9:00 A.M. Akron time. Though this would be a non-paid interview, in the interest of Truth, I solicit your favorable response to our invitation.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding these two matters, at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely

(Signed) Lewis Willis, Evangelist

However, you might heed this advice: Don’t try holding your breath until he agrees to take a lie-detector test. I was just thinkin’ – the monument to his memory on earth, and the lying schemes with which it is being built, will prove to be, in part, at least, his curse when he stands before God in the judgement.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, pp. 143-144
March 3, 1983

By Dan King

When Paul addressed his second letter to the Christians at Thessalonica, he did so in the midst of feverish excitement. Some measure of this excitement may be explained by what he had written in his first letter. In writing about the second coming of Christ and other matters having to do with the end of the present order of things, the apostle evidently touched upon a tender spot for some of his readers. They were people who enjoyed delving into the future and so were crazed by these delightful tidbits, some to the point that it was all they cared about. Paul had talked of Christ’s coming with His saints (3:13); he told them not to be concerned about their departed love ones who had died in the Lord, since they would also share in the resurrection when Christ came again in glory (4:13-18); and he had warned of the sudden doom of the wicked at the return of Jesus on account of their lack of preparation (5:1-11, also 23). Either Paul was misunderstood about these matters, or else someone had maliciously circulated a rumor or letter suggesting this return, about which he had had so much to say, was imminent (1 Thess. 3:6-12). However it happened, a number had apparently forsaken work to become dependent upon the church for their survival (2 Thess. 3:6-12). This may have been the first case of people becoming frenzied about the subject of eschatology or “last things,” but history on this count has repeated itself many, many times.

This matter of the “Man of Sin” has itself proven a thorny question about which much ink has been spilled and many long and tedious arguments made. That is true in spite of the fact that Paul intended his remarks to settle the matter for the brethren at Thessalonica. With the language of a removed future, he spoke of the arrival of a figure upon the scene of history whose dark shadow would fall upon the church and remain there until the very coming of Christ. Who this person was (or is to be) has troubled expositors throughout the centuries. Many elaborate theories have been spun to reply to the question. It is the purpose of the present article to pursue the inquiry, noting the various possible identifications and concluding with what we deem to be the appropriate answer to the problem. We believe that it has too often been the case that students have been overly concerned about hurting the religious feelings of someone else and too little concerned with making the right choice among the alternatives. We shall try not to fall prey to that temptation in the present study. It is not our desire to injure the sensitivities of others, either, but the truth ought to be of paramount importance on this issue as on all others which touch the faith once delivered to the saints.

Preliminary Comments

In 2 Thessalonians 2 Paul warns that Christ will not come until the appearance of the “Man of Sin” or “Son of Perdition.” He also specifies that his coming is to be attended by a falling away. The term apostasia is used by him to refer to this event. It is the Greek equivalent ofour term “apostasy” and the word from which our term derives. It appears that there is obvious and intentional connection to be made between its usage here and in 1 Timothy 4:1 where Paul writes that “in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons . . . .” There is little likelihood that he would have in mind two separate apostasies, even though it is true that in 2 Thessalonians 2 only the “Man of Sin” is mentioned. The “Man of Sin” figure is himself merely a single feature of a much larger phenomenon which Paul alludes to as “the falling away” (2 Thess. 2:3). The fact that apostasy has occurred makes his appearance possible in the first place and allows it to continue and even prosper in the second.

We may summarize the outline of what Paul has to say about the “Man of Sin” and his arrival with the following:

(1) He arises out of the great apostasy or rebellion (v. 3).

(2) He is a person; more specifically, a man (v. 3).

(3) He is an object of worship and veneration by his own wish (v. 4). In this way he compares favorably with the person described in Daniel 11:36, though the two are not the same.

(4) He sits in the temple of God boasting his own godhood (v. 4).

(5) His appearance is encouraged by the “mystery of lawlessness,” already at work in Paul’s own time (v. 7).

(6) He is only revealed after that which restrains is removed (v. 7). When mentioned in the abstract, the neuter, impersonal, “that which” is used. When mentioned in personification, the masculine gender, “he who” is used. In all probability this refers to the principle of order which restrains the working of evil. So long as that order which God ordained remains intact, he is hindered from making his appearance.

(7) He is not overthrown until the parousia (“coming” or “presence”) of Christ (v. 8). Whether this is to be taken as referring to the second coming of Christ or of some “return” for purposes of judgment is a question answered differently by different writers. Mention of God’s coming judgment upon the Jews in I Thessalonians 2:14-16 and the accompanying use of the word parousia in v. 20 of the same chapter has led to speculation that in both cases he means the same thing. But parousia in v. 20 has no obvious connection with what Paul describes in vv. 14-16. Moreover, the excitement at Thessalonica was not over the fall of Jerusalem and collapse of the Jewish state, but had to do with the return of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead in Christ (cf. 1 Thess. 3:13; 4:13-18; 5:1-10, 23-24). The idea that the fall of the Roman Empire is under consideration has even less to be said on its behalf.

(8) His own “coming” (parousia) is “according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders” (v. 9). Fake miracles thus characterize the reign of the “Man of Sin.”

(9) His continued success in keeping followers in his control and under his spell is based upon the “working of error,” lies, and the carnal desire to enjoy the pleasure of unrighteousness (vv. 10-11). False doctrines, and those who love to believe them and are devoid of the love of truth, are what sustain him and his position.

The expression “Man of Sin” is replaced in some of the ancient manuscripts by “Man of Lawlessness.” Some exegetes have concluded that this is the preferable reading, being that it seems to fit in better with v. 7-8. But lawlessness is failure to conform to the law of God and this is what sin is (I Jn. 3:4). I, therefore, fail to see that there is a great deal of difference which of the two possible readings is elected. The other phrase used to describe this person, i.e. “Son of Perdition,” is both textually and definitionally secure. The meaning, as Moffatt’s translation bears out, is “the doomed one.” Hell is his eventual place.

Paul’s first motive for introducing the discussion of this figure is also worth noting here. He attempts by introduction of the “Man of Sin” to wean the Thessalonians away from the idea of absolute immediacy in dealing with the subject of “last things.” Christ will not come “except the falling away come first.” For him it becomes a simple matter of God requiring more time to fulfill a prophetic forecast than imminency will allow. Thus, if it may be shown that this prophecy has seen its realization, then nothing has remained from the time of its fulfillment to the present hour that would hinder the return of the Lord.

What makes difficult our efforts at specifically identifying the one under consideration is the fact that no one of the views which has been put forward is able to take every part of the prophecy literally. This is not at all odd in dealing with prophecy for it is regularly filled with symbolism. But to many people the very fact that a view requires some close study and a text does not yield its meaning upon first glance gives them the impression it is somehow less legitimate than it would be otherwise. In the case of the “Man of Sin” one soon finds out that no one can take -literally every part of what is found here and that everyone must learn to live with the essential, though at times complicated, nature of biblical prophecy.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, pp. 140-141
March 3, 1983