Truth Magazine

By Earl Robertson

Peter wrote, “Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:17, 18a). These two verses stress the tremendous conflict between truth and error, right and wrong, salvation and damnation.

The apostle having written to them makes them without excuse for sin. Seeing ye know these things assures the availability of the evidence. Peter was aware that the testimony was in their hand. From this evidence, they could know the truth. Truth can be understood and known. Peter says they “know” these things. Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Knowing the truth should cause these Christians to be on guard. They are told to “beware”; they must not take chances with their priceless possessions. If they intend to keep their souls safely they must be on guard, discerning the distinct difference between bright truth and insidious error. Peter distinctly stresses the fact of the possibility of apostasy, saying, “being led away with error.” What power Satan has! “Being led” is passive in voice, showing what the devil can do with an unguarded soul. The devil knows God’s truth saves sinners and causes saints to grow (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:21; 1 Pet. 2:2), so his objective is to lead us away from God by leading us away from the truth. He does this with error. The devil has his own messengers constantly peddling his own lies, but calling such truth (John 8:44; 2 Cor. 11:13-15). Silly saints fall from their steadfastness by allowing Satan to so use them. It is high time that all who wear the name of Christ wake up (Rom. 13:11).

Peter emphasizes the antithetical behavior demanded in apostolic doctrine for all saints: “But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord . . . .” This is the secret for victory. You must decide your life and destiny! Grow in God’s favor and knowledge of Jesus. Learning and then practicing what you know is the way this is done. It is the whole process of Christianity; it is the constant move in the right direction (Col. 3:17).

Guardian of Truth XXV: 10, p. 146
March 5, 1981

By Robert F. Hendrix

A Bible class discussion was taking place and the teacher was trying very hard to put across the idea of sacrificing for the Lord in one’s life as a Christian. When attention had been duly called to the fact that the first century Christians had been tortured by being burned at the stake, the teacher asked the class, “How many of you would actually stand up and be shot to death, if enemies of Christ were persecuting all known Christians today, and had ordered all Christians in this audience to stand and be identified as His followers?” One student spoke up after a long thoughtful silence and said, “I think the number would actually be few, but I was also thinking that some might be more willing to stand up and be shot than to stand up and live for Christ daily.”

Paul wrote, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service” (Rom. 12:1). Did Paul know whereof he spoke? We answered with a firm “Yes,” in consideration of his relating some of the things he had gladly suffered for the cause of Christ. Of the Jews, he had on five occasions received 39 stripes in separate lashings, three times he was beaten with rods, once he was stoned and left for dead, three times he suffered shipwreck, a night and a day he had been in the sea, in perils of waters, robbers, in perils by his own countrymen, by false brethren, and in the wilderness. He had experienced for righteousness sake, weariness, painfulness, hunger, thirst, cold and nakedness (2 Cor. 11:23-30). Yes Paul knew what it meant to follow Christ in living for him. He had indeed “denied himself and taken up his cross and followed” Jesus (Matt. 16:24). Could it be that this was in the student’s mind who expressed the idea that more people might be willing to stand up and be shot for Christ than would stand up and live for Christ daily! Paul wrote on another occasion, “. . . nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved men, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20).

If you and I will be followers of Christ as Paul followed Him, we too will obey the Lord’s plan of salvation faith, repentance, confession of Christ, and baptism, Acts 9; 22:16; Mk. 16:15, 16; Rom. 10:9, 10; Acts 2:38) as did Paul, and will gladly suffer for him, as we faithfully serve him daily. Jesus assured us that we would be blessed for our obedience to His will. “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:10-12). Paul thought more of obeying Jesus, than he regretted the scorn and ridicule of relatives who would belittle him for leaving the Jew’s religion to become a Christian. He dared to live a pure and righteous life morally, even though it was not the popular thing to do in his day, and gladly bore ridicule for so doing because he stated, “. . . or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10). It was also Paul who taught Christians to “live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world” (Tit. 2:11, 12) as we deny ungodliness and worldly lusts.” This takes determination, courage, prayer, and the help of Christ “who strengtheneth us,” if we would daily bear our cross in following Jesus in living the good moral life. To follow Christ as Paul followed Him, we will say with Paul, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (Phil. 4:13). For the love of Christ and His cause, let us dare to be different from this sinful world in which we live. By growing in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18), let us feed on the sincere milk of the word (1 Pet. 2:1, 2), add to our faith (which led us to obey the gospel, 1 Pet. 1:22) “virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love” (2 Pet. 1:5-11), and “do good unto all men, especially those who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10). Let us continue in the light (1 John 1:7-10), being faithful unto the end (Rev. 2:10); then we can face death with the same assurance of confidence and hope which Paul expressed shortly before he passed from this life. Yes, living for Christ as did Paul, will enable us to die as did Paul with the blessed hope he expressed when he wrote these words to Timothy: “For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day (2 Tim. 1:12, 13). “For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing” (2 Tim. 4:6-8).

Guardian of Truth XXV: 10, pp. 145, 156
March 5, 1981

By Gary Fisher

“One of the most significant features of twentieth century religious life has been the phenomenal growth of Pentecostalism.”(1) Since many of our religious friends and neighbors are now Pentecostal, and since we have a responsibility to teach them the gospel, we need to become familiar with the Pentecostal church. This article will discuss the history, organization and doctrines of Pentecostalism. A future article will compare Pentecostal doctrinal teaching with the Bible.

History

“In historical perspective, the Pentecostal movement was the child of the Holiness movement, which in turn was a child of Methodism.”(2)Methodism began in the 1700s on account of the teachings of John and Charles Wesley. One of their most distinguishing beliefs was a distinction they made between ordinary and sanctified Christians. Sanctification was thought of as a second work of grace which perfected the Christian. Also, Methodists were generally more emotional and less formal in their worship.

By the late 1800s most Methodists had become quite secularized and they no longer emphasized their distinctive doctrines. At this time, the “Holiness movement” began. It attempted to return the church to its historic beliefs and practices. Theologian Charles Finney was one of the leaders in this movement. When it became evident that the reformers were not going to be able to change the church, they began to form various “holiness” sects. These sects attempted to return to true Wesleyan doctrine. Among the most important of these sects were the Nazarene church and the Salvation Army.

“The Pentecostal movement, with beginnings from 1901 to 1906, represented a theological division within the Holiness movement. That division was essentially caused by a controversy over the evidence required to prove that one had been baptized with the Holy Spirit.”(3)The precise beginning of the Pentecostal movement is usually traced to Charles Parham, a Kansas preacher, who began in 1901 to preach “`glossolalia’ as the only evidence of one’s having received the baptism with the Holy Ghost and who taught that it should be a part of `normal’ Christian worship.”(4) One of Parham’s students, a black preacher, W.J. Seymour, went to conduct a prayer meeting in Los Angeles in April, 1906. He soon rented an old Methodist church building at 312 Azusa Street and a massive revival was started. The distinctive feature of this revival was Holy Spirit baptism with evidence of speaking in tongues. “The Azusa Street revival is commonly regarded as the beginning of the modern Pentecostal movement. Although many persons had spoken in tongues in the United States in the years preceding 1906, this meeting brought this belief to the attention of the world and served as the catalyst for the formation of scores of Pentecostal denominations. Directly or indirectly, practically all of the Pentecostal groups in existence can trace their lineage to the Azusa Mission.”(5)

News of these activities in Los Angeles was carried in detail in Holiness papers and, in a few months, much of the Holiness movement had been converted to Pentecostal doctrine. In the South especially, many entire Holiness denominations became Pentecostal. Other denominations, especially Baptist, had many congregations that were converted to this new doctrine. Pentecostalism spread very rapidly, particularly among the economically under privileged and the blacks.

As the movement grew, serious divisions occurred. The first concerned sanctification. The “Holiness Pentecostals” believed that sanctification was a second work of grace, instantaneously received. Baptism in the Holy Spirit was thus considered the third step in the conversion process. Those converted from a Baptist background, on the other hand,- believed that sanctification was a finished work, progressively received. Other differences also helped polarize the two groups. Those from Holiness backgrounds believed the church should have a strong central government; “Baptist Pentecostals” believed in more congregational independence. In 1914, the Assembly of God was formed. Doctrinally, this group took a non-Holiness view of sanctification; organizationally, church government was congregational. “After 1914 the Pentecostal movement was to continue about equally divided between `holiness’ advocates of the `second work’ and `assembly’ advocates of the `finished work.’ “(6)

Another division, this one over the number of persons in the Godhead, began in 1913 when Frank Ewart began to teach that “there was only one personality in the Godhead — Jesus Christ — the terms `Father’ and `Holy Spirit’ being only `titles’ used to designate various aspects of Christ’s personality.”(7) These people believed that proper baptism was in the name of Jesus only and many of them were re-baptized in that name. In 1916, the Assembly of God officially rejected this doctrine and many individuals and churches left the denomination. In 1945, several small sects merged to form the United Pentecostal Church, now the largest unitarian Pentecostal denomination in the United States. Despite these divisions, the Pentecostal movement continued to grow rapidly.

“At about mid-century a new constellation of Pentecostal people appeared on the horizon …. The neo-Pentecostal movement appears gradually and increasingly to be assuming the name `charismatic.’ “(8) This neo-Pentecostal Charismatic movement is essentially an outburst of Pentecostalism in non-Pentecostal denominations. The groundwork for this movement was laid in the 1950s by the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International and David Du Plessis since they popularized the Pentecostal movement among non-Pentecostals. The exact beginning of the Charismatic movement is usually traced to St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in Van Nuys, California, where in 1960, the preacher, Dennis Bennett, introduced tongue-speaking to several prominent members of that church. From this beginning just two decades ago, the Charismatic Movement has spread very rapidly. This Neo-Pentecostal movement is similar to traditional Pentecostalism in that both emphasize Holy Spirit baptism with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. It is different in that it is a movement within traditional denominations. “There is very little if any interest in separating from old ecclesiastical structures and building new ones according to the Classical Pentecostal pattern. Rather, present institutions are to be `renewed’ by the Charismatic activity of the Holy Spirit as it affects the membership of a church or other group through the continued presence within the structure of individuals who have been baptized in the Spirit.”(9)

Pentecostalism today is a very significant religious movement represented by over 200 denominations and many individuals in traditional denomination. “Born in this century, raised largely among the poor, at mid-century entering the middle class, it is reputedly growing faster than any other modern Christian movement, and is increasingly pressing its existence upon the attention of the church and the world.”(10)“By the middle of the twentieth century, the Pentecostals were burgeoning into what some called `the third force in Christendom.’ Surveys of the worldwide Christian scene were revealing that three fourths of all non-Catholics in Italy were Pentecostals and that the majority of all Christians in South Africa were Pentecostals. Furthermore, the largest free churches in Russia, Scandinavia and France were Pentecostal . . “(11)

Organization

Organizationally, the Pentecostal movement is very diverse. There are over 200 Pentecostal denominations, the largest of which is the Assembly of God. Started in 1914, the Assembly of God believes in a two-stage conversion process and congregational government. The Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) and the Pentecostal Holiness Church are two of the most important Pentecostal denominations believing in a three-stage conversion process (sanctification being separate from both salvation and the Holy Spirit baptism). The United Pentecostal Church, formed in 1945, is the largest Jesus-Only church. The largest Negro body is the Church of God in Christ. Along with the numerous denominations there are many completely independent local assemblies.

The Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International (FGBMFI) is another important part of the organization of the Pentecostal church. It was begun in Los Angeles in 1951 by Demos Shakareian. The FGBMFI is a non-denominational fellowship of Pentecostal businessmen and professionals “who have set as their goal the evangelization of the world and the spreading of the message of the baptism of the spirit and the healing of the sick, as this is understood by Pentecostal healing evangelists, in non-Pentecostal circles.”(12) The FGBMFI has 1100 active chapters with 400,000 attending monthly and a one million dollar annual operating budget. The FGBMFI has formed a natural vehicle for the growth of the Charismatic Movement.

The Charismatic Movement itself has little official organization since it is largely a movement within traditional denominations. Religious publications and popular leaders provide a certain amount of informal organization.

Doctrines

Generally speaking, Classical Pentecostalism can be classified as “Arminian, perfectionistic, premillennial and charismatic.”(13) They usually view themselves as representatives of the first century apostolic movement.(14) “Neo-Pentecostalism is indebted to Pentecostalism for its inspiration historically, but it is more flexible in biblical interpretation and allows for a greater diversity in practice.”(15)

Specifically, the doctrine which makes Pentecostal churches unique is their belief in Holy Spirit baptism with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. It is this personal experience, and not doctrine, that holds the movement together. “Pentecostalism wishes, in brief, to be understood as experiential Christianity, with its experience culminating in the baptism of the believer in the Holy Spirit evidenced, as at Pentecost, by speaking in other tongues. This experience with the Spirit should continue, as in the early church, in the exercise of the spiritual gifts privately, and then publicly in the Pentecostal meetings where the gifts have their most significant sphere of operation.”(16)

In the next article we will give specific attention to the Biblical answer for these distinctive Pentecostal doctrines.

Endnotes:

1. W.E. Whalley, The Baptist Quarterly, Vol. XXVII, p. 282.

2. Vinson Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement In The United States, p. 115.

3. Ibid., p. 219.

4. Ibid., p. 99.

5. Ibid., p. 114.

6. Ibid., p. 153.

7. Ibid., p. 155.

8. Frederick D. Bruner, A Theology Of The Holy Spirit, p. 52.

9. Richard Quebedeaux, The New Charismatics, p. 9.

10. Bruner, p. 55.

11. Synan, p. 213.

12. W.J. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals, p. 6.

13. Synan, p. 217.

14. Bruner, p. 27.

15. Whalley, p. 287.

16. Bruner, p. 21.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bruner, Frederick D., A Theology Of The Holy Spirit, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, 1970.

Hollenweger, W.J., The Pentecostals, Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, 1972.

MacArthur Jr., John F., The Charismatics, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1978.

Quebedeaux, Richard, The New Charismatics, Doubleday and Company, Inc., Garden City, NJ, 1976.

Synan, Vinson, The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement In The United States, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, 1971.

Whalley, W.E., “Pentecostal Theology,” The Baptist Quarterly, Baptist Historical Society, London, Vol. XXVII, 1977-1978.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 3, pp. 38-40
January 15, 1981

By Bobby Witherington

Under the law of Moses, God spake unto Aaron saying, “Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statue for ever throughout your generations” (Lev. 10:9). In the following verse the reason is given as to why those who served as priests were to abstain from wine and strong drink, it being: “that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean.”

Being able to distinguish between things “holy and unholy,” between the sacred and the profane, or between God’s commands and the unrestrained impulses of the flesh, was vitally important while Moses’ law was in effect. Careful preparation was necessary in order to worship and serve God acceptably. Those who functioned as priests needed a clear head. Consequently, wine and strong drink were forbidden.

Nadab and Abihu “offered strange fire before the Lord,” and it cost them their lives (Lev. 10:1, 2). They did not “put difference between holy and unholy.” In fact, many believe their failure to make the distinction between the sacred and the common was due to their not abstaining from wine and strong drink. At any rate, whatever the reason, their disregard for things sacred resulted in their father’s household being reduced by two, and it is recorded in that portion of scripture which was “written for our learning” (Rom. 15:4). And one lesson we should learn from their mistake is the tragedy that befalls those who show disrespect for that which God has made holy.

Perhaps the most common application made of the principles which are set forth in Leviticus 10 has to do with the worship of God. Gospel preachers have repeatedly, and correctly, cited the example of Nadab and Abihu as an Old Testament example which illustrates the fact that God is a jealous God, and will accept no worship other than the kind which He has ordained. However, this principle applies in realms other than just that of scriptural worship. There are numerous things which God views as sacred, or “entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things” (The American College Dictionary, page 1067). Examples of such would include God’s name (Ex. 20:7), God’s word (Rev. 22:18,19) the Lord’s church (1 Tim. 3:15), and scriptural marriage (Matt. 19:6).

Of course, a strong conviction regarding the sacredness of the things just mentioned can only abide within the hearts of those who believe that God is and that the Bible is the word of God. When this faith is either supplanted or prevented due to the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis and the subsequent embracing of humanism or of atheism, then the almost vulgar “do your own thing” expression becomes the norm by which people pattern their lives. And one does not have to be very observant in order to realize that Satan’s lying propaganda in these matters is being heralded and accepted far more than are the sacred truths of God. Consequently, as we are forced to listen to the rantings and ravings, in consistent crescendo, of modern libertines, we find ourselves asking the question, “Is nothing sacred anymore?” And especially is this the case with reference to marriage, and everything connected therewith. To illustrate, we cite the words of feminist (?) Betty Friedan who has been called “the mother of the liberation movement.” In launching “stage 2” of her movement, she spoke disrespectfully of “the traditional family – mom at home, two kids, a bread-winning pop,” and stated that the family, though it is here to stay, “comes in diverse forms these days to keep up with social and technological change.” She and others of similar ilk envision these “diverse forms” of “family” life as including “families trying out marriage; families living under terms of renewable contract marriage; communes of adults with no children; . . . communes of adults with children; communes of older Americans of both sexes and single-sex communes” (Nov. 30, 1970 Independence, Missouri Examiner). In other words, with these ungodly feminists (?), whom many of our political leaders seem determined to subsidize, exonerate, placate, and accommodate, their concept of the family seems to be any relationship of humans in which “anything goes” – unless it is legitimate, decent, and respectable!

However, notwithstanding the contrary babblings of modern libertines, we affirm that whatever God has made sacred is sacred still, and is not made less so by the blasphemous denials so often heard in today’s society. And, as already stated, marriage, as God designed it, is sacred. But what is marriage?

Marriage is a union ordained by God. It was God who said, “it is not good that the man should be alone,” and it was God who made “an help meet” called “woman” for the man whom He created (Gen. 2:18-22). Marriage is a union of two people, one male and one female (Gen. 2:18-24). Marriage, as God designed it and as the Bible describes it, is not a union of homosexuals or of lesbians. Nor is it a commune of people of both sexes, or of one sex.

Marriage is a union of two people who were “free” to marry each other. Romans 7:3 is still applicable, it being: “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” Those who are “free” to marry include: (1) responsbile people who have never married and, (2) people who have been married, but whose mates are dead, and (3) those who have been married and, as innocent victims, put their mates away “for the cause of fornication” (Matt. 5:32; 19:9).

Marriage is a union of two people who formed such a union in accordance with the laws of the land. In all civil matters not inherently contradictory to God’s will, we must “be subject . . . unto the powers that be” (Rom. 13:1). Marriage is a union of two people, one male and one female, both of whom are free to marry, who have complied with the laws of the land, and which was consummated by their coming together in the.”one flesh” relationship (Gen. 2:24).

The fact that the union, as herein described, is sacred is suggested by the fact that it was God who ordained and designed marriage (Gen. 2:18-24) and it was God who “joined” the two together (Matt. 19:6). This is why God “hateth putting away” (Mal. 2:6), and why no person should dare put it “asunder.” Moreover, the sacredness of marriage is also suggested by the fact that inspiration used the husband-wife relationship to illustrate the relationship which exists between Christ and His church (Eph. 5:22-32).

More and more we hear it said that “the marriage question” will be the next big “issue” among brethren, and which will divide the people of God. In view of present conditions throughout the land, it would be foolish to question these dire predictions. But much of it could be avoided and averted if we could somehow educate people regarding what the Bible teaches concerning the sacredness of marriage, and motivate them to personally apply the biblical principles which were designed to regulate marriage. And, of course, those of us who are scripturally married should endeavor to make our marriage all that God intended that it be, and a worthy example for others to follow.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 3, pp. 37-38
January 15, 1981