Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

The Bible points out many interesting facts about love in I Cor. 13. After showing how excellent and indispensable love is, Paul personifies love by attributing to it the qualities and actions of a person.

Love has been defined as active good will toward another. The Corinthian Christians were torn with divisions, strife, envying, lawsuits, and other indications of carnality. They needed to learn the conduct that love produces, so Paul represents love as behaving in certain ways and possessing certain attributes (vs. 4-7).

Love Suffereth Long

in the exercise of His divine love toward man, the love that prompted the gift of His only begotten Son, God is longsuffering. Think of how patient He was in dealing with the rebellious Israelites in the long ago. Think of how “the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah” (1 Pet. 3:20). And remember, even today, “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).

The Christian who learns to love others as the word of God teaches will bear long rather than be impatient. Longsuffering is named in Gal. 5:22 as a part of the fruit of the Spirit. Many events and pressures in day-to-day living tend to irritate us. If we can but walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called, we shall show “longsuffering, forbearing one another in love” (Eph. 4:1, 2).

Preachers have a special need for longsuffering. Timothy was instructed to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). We can no more force an immediate change in one’s life, or a sudden change in a congregation where unfavorable conditions have developed over a period of years, than we can plant a seed in the soil on a given day and force it to produce a full-grown plant the next morning! Love does not act with destructive haste. Love suffers long.

Love Is Kind

Some people take pride in being brutally frank. It may be that their brutality is more conspicuous than their frankness. We should be able to speak in a very straightforward manner and still do it with gentleness and sympathy. Kindness is no hindrance to our speaking our convictions with boldness.

Love is not harsh. Love is not ill-natured. Love is not mean and vicious. Love is not ugly and hateful. Love is not vindictive and full of spite. It is the reverse of all that shows unkindness.

Paul wrote to the saints at Ephesus, “And be ye kind one to another, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you” (Eph. 4:32). Kindness is reflected in politeness, simple courtesies, acts of goodness, expressions of warmth or tenderness, and feelings of gentleness. We are taught of God to “be pitiful, be courteous” (1 Pet. 3:8).

Love Envieth Not

The Greek word translated “envieth” in 1 Cor. 13:4 “denotes to be zealous, moved with jealousy” (Vine). Sometimes people seethe and boil inwardly because of the successes, attainments, and possessions of others. Preachers are sometimes zealous against other preachers due to their ability and success. Instead of thanking God for men who excel in the good work of preaching the gospel, they turn green with envy and attempt to discredit others who have superior ability. Some brethren act as rivals of other brethren with whom they should join hands in the great work of God’s eternal kingdom, and the contentious rivalry is nothing more than plain envy.

To borrow the wording of the Amplified New Testament, “love never is envious nor boils over with jealousy.” Love delights in the welfare and happiness of others. Love rejoices with others who rejoice. Love makes us appreciate others who have risen to heights that we may never attain.

Love Vaunteth Not Itself

To “vaunt” oneself is to boast or brag. There are people who remind one of the proud peacock that struts to display itself. We admire the beauty of the peacock, but somehow we find it difficult to admire the man or woman who acts in a vainglorious manner. Even children soon get wise to a “show off.”

How utterly repulsive is the person who constantly directs attention to himself, bragging and singing as his theme song, “How Great I Art.” How disgusting is the attitude of one who sees himself as the finest person with whom God has graced the earth since Jesus came!

Remember this: love does not brag. Love possesses modesty and true humility.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 19, p. 295
May 7, 1981

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Under the caption, “May a Church Draw Interest on Its Money?” brother Daniel Holloway takes issue with my reply to this question which appeared in the January 29, 1981 issue of Guardian of Truth.

Banks are now offering their customers a rate of interest on checking accounts. Obviously, a current issue is before us and, before concluding that it is unscriptural for churches to receive interest because it is equivalent to unscriptural schemes to raise money, we need to study several aspects. As brother Holloway’s objections are examined, I appreciate this opportunity to present some considerations, in addition to those which appeared in my answer column of January 29, 1981.

We all agree that the primary and sacred purpose of the church is to preach the gospel. The world is to be evangelized now – the need is urgent, and this work can only be accomplished by each local church doing its work to its fullest capacity, utilizing its resources to its maximum. Churches are not to accumulate money except for emergencies and contingencies which prudence demands that we not ignore. Churches are not to build up nest eggs, but rather they are to use the Lord’s money to the fullest extent to do the Lord’s work. The motive of the church is not to make money on its resources (assets) but to fully expedite its sacred purpose.

Economics is relevant to a correct understanding of our question. A most important concept which is intrinsically involved in this discussion is the time value of money. To illustrate this concept, which would you prefer, a thousand dollars now, or a thousand dollars ten years from now? The answer is obvious. One thousand dollars now is more valuable because your proper use of it increases its value over the ten years. This concept (the time value of money) is the principle involved in Matt. 25:27. The parable of the talents is not a command, example of implication of anything relating to the subject except to teach this principle. The Lord recognized the time value of money. This parable teaches us to be responsible for the maximum use of our abilities. This is the very substance of stewardship. The good steward will make the best use of what is entrusted to him. This question is now in order. Can we encourage the maximum utilization of our collective abilities and, at the same time, ignore the maximum use of our collective funds which are stored up for contingencies and emergencies (1 Cor. 16:1, 2)? We all recognize the church’s sacred mission; therefore, we should do all we can to fully expedite it.

Brother Holloway fails to make a distinction between church promoted schemes to raise money (bazaars, rummage sales, or speculative investments that could lose money) and a church receiving interest on funds it already has in a checking account. There is a vast difference in these money raising schemes and a church accepting an interest rate from the bank. This is what our brother fails to see. This rate of interest is guaranteed by the very entity that prints the paper and establishes that the paper is legal tender. This eliminates speculation – it is guaranteed!

Furthermore, our brother cannot accept the idea of a church receiving interest on money it already has in the checking account, but he approves of a church selling its property (old meeting house, preacher’s house, equipment, etc.) at fair market value, realizing a substantial gain. Is this consistent?

It appears that brother Holloway has a real problem: How to fully utilize the resources of the church to fulfil its divine mission, and at the same time, ignore the time value of the money (Matt. 25:27). While all of us should be concerned about the influence anything wrong may have on a congregation, we should also be very concerned that we do not exert our influence upon a congregation to lose its money. It is not the business of elders to make money for the church but it is their responsibility to not lose money.

I appreciate the fine attitude of brother Holloway and I can somewhat sympathize with him, because at one time, I occupied the same position that he does on the question considered; but, we must not bind where God has not bound. Also we must avoid extremes, like the young preacher I was told about who objected to the church selling the preacher’s house for more than the church paid for it many years ago. Perhaps he wanted to buy it for himself!

(Editor’s Note: I appreciate the fine attitude manifested by these two brethren in this discussion. I would like to add one thought for consideration to this discussion. We recognize that when a man makes an interest free loan to the church that he has made a donation to that church. We also recognize that the money which we deposit in a bank is used by that bank to make loans. When a church deposits several thousand dollars into an account (as is done, for example, when a church is saving to purchase a property), the bank uses that money to make loans. The church is making an interest free loan to that bank if it does not receive interest on that money. Brother Holloway states that he is opposed to a church making money in some way other than the first day of the week contribution and is, therefore, opposed to churches which draw interest on their accounts. I want to know if he is opposed to a church making a donation to a bank, a secular business institution. That is exactly what has occurred when a church has $20,000 – 30,000 on deposit in a non-interest bearing account. It seems to me that brother Holloway’s position would force him to take the position that a church could deposit its money only in a safety deposit box and draw money from that box each time it needed some of the money.)

Guardian of Truth XXV: 18, p. 282
April 30, 1981

By Daniel L. Holloway

In the January 29, 1981 issue of Guardian of Truth, brother Hoyt Houchen dealt with the following question: “Is it right for a church to loan a bank money and draw interest on it?” Generally, I consider his answers to be quite sound from a scriptural standpoint. Also, I have been impressed with the clarity and wisdom with which he writes. However, I do not believe that he answered correctly when he said that “it is right to receive a small payment of interest.” I am writing in response to his answer inasmuch as I am concerned about the influence it may have on congregations. While I am limited in understanding matters of economics and banking, I do trust that my reasoning will be sound and in accord with God’s word. Should anyone show me wherein I have misinterpreted the scriptures on this matter, I will be glad to endorse brother Houchen’s answer.

In his first paragraph, brother Houchen says that the church is not to “seek out business enterprises for the purpose of investing and realizing a financial profit.” He continues, “On the other hand, a church may sell its own property and receive a price that is commensurate with the market price of that property . . . .” He concludes, “There is a difference in such transactions and the church planning and devising schemes whereby it can make money.” With this, I am in complete agreement. However, he then says that interest does not seem to be in the latter category. The only difference which I can see is one of extent or rate of return – normally, a business enterprise would mean more money than would interest. After all, what is the reason for loaning money to a bank if not to make money?

The first argument which brother Houchen sets forth to support his conclusion is that interest rates do not begin to equal the rate of inflation and that, as faithful stewards, we cannot sit by and allow the Lord’s money to lose in value. This implies only that churches may draw interest to maintain the value of the Lord’s money. It appears to me that economic conditions have nothing to do actually with whether or not a church may draw interest on its money. Let us keep in mind that the Lord’s American money continues to be worth just as much as anyone else’s American money. And what if the economy was to deflate? Then the Lord’s money would be worth more. Surely, no one believes that we should dispose of some of it to keep its value from changing. We have already noted that it is permissible to sell church property at market price and receive a profit. Are we to say that it is all right for the value of the Lord’s money to increase but wrong for it to decrease?

Brother Houchen refers to the slothful servant in Matthew 25 who was told by his lord that he could have put his money to the bankers that it might have drawn interest. Several points can be made here. First, the text does not say that the lord’s money had decreased in value due to inflation. As far as we can tell, its value had remained the same. Actually, the lord was concerned with making money. Furthermore, if the parable authorizes churches receiving interest on their money, it also authorizes their involvement in business enterprises. Notice, the lord was pleased with the two who doubled his money by investing it in trade (Matt. 25:16-23). The lesson of the parable is that we should faithfully serve God according to our ability. Certainly, this includes using the Lord’s money wisely in His work, but it says nothing about the way in which the Lord’s money is to be accumulated. Again I say, economic conditions have nothing to do with whether or not a church may draw interest on its money.

Brother Houchen then reminds us that banks make use of money deposited in them by loaning it out. Thus, interest amounts to a “small payment” for the use of one’s money. His conclusion is that if churches may deposit money in a bank, they are likewise authorized to receive interest. As we consider this, let us look to the scriptures to see what they do authorize. We recognize that God has given us a means for acquiring money for carrying out the Lords’ work. That means is the free-will offering of the saints (1 Cor. 16:1, 2; 2 Cor. 9:7; Acts 4:34-37). Inasmuch as the collection is authorized, it necessarily follows that there is authority for keeping it somewhere. When a church deposits money in a bank merely to have it in a safe place, its actions are authorized. So long as the bank is conducting legitimate business, it seems that the use which they make of the church’s money is of no consequence to the church. However, if a church loans its money so as to receive interest, it is doing more than putting its money in a safe place. Though operating on a smaller scale, it is seeking to make money as are churches which invest in business enterprises.

I ask of brethren that they carefully consider this question in light of God’s word that they might follow the right course.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 18, p. 281
April 30, 1981

By Johnny Stringer

John’s Affirmation

When John the Baptist was baptizing people in the Jordan River, he affirmed that Jesus, being far greater than he, would administer two baptisms which he could not administer. Whereas John baptized in water, Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Matt. 3:11). The baptism of the Holy Spirit is of great interest to religious people, and there are those today who are convinced that they have received this baptism. Hence, it is important that we examine the scriptural teaching on this subject.

Some believe that the fire which John mentioned (Matt. 3:11) is connected with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is not so, for John was in the midst of a discussion of judgment in which fire was the means of punishment. He was specifically addressing Pharisees and Sadducees, urging these wicked people to produce good fruit (vv. 7-9). In verse 10, he warned of the punishment they would receive if they failed to bring forth good fruit, affirming that a tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and cast into fire. Having said that, he spoke of Jesus’ ability to baptize with fire (v. 11). Then, in verse 12, he pictured Jesus as one who would separate the wheat from the chaff, and burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. This was a picture of judgment. It is obvious, therefore, that the fire discussed in this context is the fire of punishment. The fire of verse 11 is the same as the fire of verses 10 and 12. In verses 10-12, John spoke of fire three times. The first and last time obviously refer to the fire of punishment; it is to ignore the context to deny that the same is true of the fire in verse 11. It is a horrible thought to be baptized (immersed) in fire. John was warning the Pharisees and Sadducees that Jesus would indeed do this to those who did not bring forth good fruit.

John also mentioned that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit. To be immersed with the Spirit would be to receive abundant and overwhelming spiritual influences. John was indefinite as to whom Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit. Obviously, not all in his audience would be, for some would be immersed with fire because of their failure to bring forth good fruit. John’s audience was mixed. Some would receive the baptism of fire; others would receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. John’s purpose waste not to identify specifically who would receive each baptism; rather, his purpose was to stress that Jesus would administer two baptisms which he himself could not administer.

Promised and Given to Apostles

To learn specifically who would receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, we must look to Acts 1 and 2. Acts 1:1-8 deals with what Jesus told His apostles after His resurrection, before He ascended into Heaven. It is made clear in the first four verses that Jesus was talking to His apostles. Speaking to the apostles, Jesus told them that they would soon be baptized with the Holy Spirit, and that they were to wait in Jerusalem for the fulfilment of that promise (vv. 4-5, 8). It is significant that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was never promised to any specific persons other than the apostles. The remaining part of chapter 1 discusses the ascension of Jesus and the activities of the apostles in Jerusalem as they waited for the baptism of the Holy Spirit which had been promised them.

In chapter 2, we read that they received that for which they had been waiting – the baptism of the Holy Spirit. On the day of Pentecost (a Jewish holy day) they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. The Spirit’s coming resulted in a sound like a mighty wind, the appearance of cloven tongues like fire, and the ability to speak in tongues. Verses 5-I1 make it quite clear that the word “tongues” in this passages means “languages.” The apostles were miraculously enabled to speak in foreign languages which they would have been unable to speak without the Spirit’s aid. Sometimes we use the word “tongue” to mean “language.” For example, we might say that Spanish is someone’s native tongue.

It was only the apostles who received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on that day. Since there were 120 disciples together in Jerusalem (Acts 1:15), some maintain that all 120 received the baptism of the Spirit on Pentecost. This is false. In the first place, Jesus clearly did not promise it to all 120, but to the apostles only (Acts 1:1-8). In the second place, when Acts 2:1-4 says that they were all with one accord in one place and were all filled with the Holy Spirit, the ones referred to as “they” are the apostles. This is seen by reading the last verse of chapter 1. Note how the passage reads, beginning with the last verse of chapter 1: “And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place . . . . And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 1:26-2:4). In the third place, the apostles are the ones mentioned in the discussion regarding the things that took place on Pentecost. Verse 14 says that Peter stood up with the eleven. Verse 37 says that the people addressed their question to the apostles. If all 120 disciples received the same thing the apostles did, why did the people address their question to the apostles only? In the fourth place, while it is plain that the apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, those who claim that all 120 received it cannot give one scintilla of evidence that they did. Actually, it is not my obligation to prove that the 120 did not receive it; it is their obligation to prove that the 120 did receive it. Until they do so, I cannot accept their groundless assertion.

There are those who believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is for all Christians. Where is the passage that says so? They cannot produce it. We read of the promise being made to the apostles and we read of the apostles receiving the baptism of the Spirit, but there is no scriptural promise that all Christians would receive it. Those who claim to receive it today should note that the baptism of the Holy Spirit resulted in certain effects which could be seen and heard by observers (Acts 2:33). If these effects are not seen and heard when they claim to receive the baptism of the Spirit, we are compelled to deny that they have received it. The effects on Pentecost included a sound like a mighty wind, the appearance of tongues like fire, and the ability to speak in foreign languages. These effects are not seen and heard today. Nonsensical jabbering is heard, but that is not a 42nd cousin to the tongue speaking of Acts 2. Experts in language who have tested modern day “tongue-speakers” confirm that they speak no language whatever.

Finally, it should be noted that baptism of the Holy Spirit is not the baptism which saves and is involved in conversion. Whereas Christ administered baptism of the Holy Spirit, the baptism taught in the Great Commission as being necessary for salvation is administered by men, not by Christ (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:16). Furthermore, whereas the baptism of the Holy Spirit was a promise simply to be received and enjoyed (Acts 1:4), the baptism that saves is a thing which we are commanded to do (Acts 2:38). Also, a study of Acts 8:35-39 clearly reveals that the baptism involved in conversion is water baptism. In enumerating the various things which Christians have in common, Paul said there was one baptism (Eph. 4:4-6). There is only one baptism which we all have in common; that is not Holy Spirit baptism, but water baptism.

Although Christians we read about in the New Testament generally did not receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, many did receive the Spirit so as to have supernatural powers. Our next article will discuss these.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 18, pp. 279-280
April 30, 1981