Truth Magazine

By John McCort

The psalmist David exclaimed, “I will praise thee; for I am fearful and wonderfully made” (Psa. 139:14). As scientists continue studying the human body, they are discovering how intricate and well-organized the human body actually is. Scientific technology has been able to point out the fact that the human body is not a chaotic, disorganized mass but is a very well designed and well organized object.

The evidence of design has been magnified by some recent research done on the human eye.

The human eye is such a wonderful optical instrument that it has long been pointed to as an organ too complex to have evolved by chance. Recent research has served to re-enforce this argument. Experiments have been conducted to determine the ultimate sensitivity to light of the human eye. The amazing result is that an eye may be stimulated by as little as six quanta of light. A quantum of light is an extremely small amount of electromagnetic energy. It is the smallest packet of energy of which light consists. It is the ultimate in smallness. The research results indicate that the alteration by light of only two or three molecules in the eye results in the brain receiving an impression of light. This is as close to ultimate sensitivity as can be desired. This incredible sensitivity is evidence of the high level of perfection of nature. However, still more remarkable is the fact that two or three molecules must be affected to produce a sensation of light. Sometimes molecules break down spontaneously. If the brain did not require the coincidental breakdown of two or three, the brain might be deceived by false impressions of light coming from the accidental death of a molecule instead of the arrival of a quantum of light. How likely is it that this wonderful organism was produced by a series of lucky accidents? The odds against it are staggering (Paul Zimmerman, Darwin, Evolution, and Creation, p. 93).

The evidence of supreme design is found everywhere from the vastness of the universe to the most minute particles of matter. Everything is suspended on a delicate balance. How could anybody but a fool say there is no God!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 41, p. 667
October 16, 1980

By Lynn Trapp

Brethren who oppose the use of a plural number of drinking vessels in the Lord’s Supper have for years tried to make an effort to fit the figure of speech, metonomy, into their scheme of things. These brethren seem unable to avoid seeing some significance to the drinking vessel which the Lord “took” (Kittel says it was “. . . the pitcher which stood filled on the table . . .,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 6, p. 148) when He instituted the supper. Therefore, these brethren have devised a series of “rules” which they believe govern this figure of speech. These “rules” were recently given by Richard D. Frizzell in the Old Paths Advocate (Jan. 1, 1980, pp. 3, 9-10). He said,

From the above definitions of Metonomy we learn several facts about this figure of speech: (1) The object named is not the thing suggested; (2) There is a real object, not an imaginary one, named; (3) both the thing named and the thing suggested-must exist; (4) In metonomy of the “container for the thing contained” the container named must contain the thing suggested; and (5) One can only suggest the contents of as many cups as he names (p. 9, emphasis his, LT).

I should point out that no qualified grammarian has ever been produced who confirms these “rules.” Instead, they have been contrived and devised, most likely by Ervin Waters. E.W. Bullinger says, “No one is at liberty to exercise any arbitrary power in their (figures of speech, LT) use . . . . There is no room for private opinion, neither can speculation concerning them have any authority” (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. xi). I propose to demonstrate that Frizzell’s “rules” are “private opinion” and “speculation,” therefore, they have no authority:

“Rule” number one says, “The object named is not the thing suggested.” This statement is very true except for one thing – the application made by brother Frizzell is totally incorrect. First, he contradicts himself when he says, “So do not let the big word Metonomy frighten you. It simply means that two things are suggested to the mind by the mention of one of them which readily suggests the other” (p. 9). 1 am not “frightened” by the word metonomy, but I am frightened by brother Frizzell’s use of it. He tells us that the thing named is not the thing suggested, and then does an about face and tells us that it is the thing suggested. Thus, he gives the word “cup” both figurative and literal significance at the same time, a thing impossible in metonomy (even though sometimes, when the thing named has to be present, such as a drinking vessel to contain liquid, it still has no significance in the metonomy). The points of Frizzell’s “rule” are that the object named is not the thing suggested and, in addition to this, the object named does not have significance in the sentence in which it is used as a figure of speech. Please notice some specific cases. (All the passages used are listed by Bullinger as illustrations of Metonomy of the Subject under the sub-heading of “container for the thing contained.”) Deuteronomy 28:5 says, “Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl.” In this passage the basket and the kneading bowl are used to represent their various contents; and yet, no special blessing is upon the containers themselves, but the produce of the land which they would contain. In Psalms 49:11 where the “inner thought is, that their houses continue forever,” the houses, which are put for the “households,” have no significance. “They do not desire that their houses, i.e. buildings, continue forever, but that their families do. (See also 1 Tim. 3:4)

The second “rule” is that “there is a real object, not an imaginary one, named.” I would ask here, when the “altar” (Heb. 13:10) is named to suggest the sacrifice of Christ, what “real object” is being named? If it is the cross, then I would ask in what sense one applies the word “altar” to the cross? The cross is a figurative altar, but it is not a “real” altar. David said, “Thou doest prepare a table before me in the presence -of mine enemies” (Psa. 23:5). What “real” table is named in this passage? What significance is there to the “house” and “tent” of Proverbs 14:11? Do the wicked only live in houses and the upright only in tents? The scriptures, written by the inspiration of God, do not substantiate Frizzell’s “rules.”

The third “rule” listed by brother Frizzell says, “both the thing named and the thing suggested must exist.” The only thing wrong with this “rule” is that it is just not so. Edom was told that they would drink of “the cup” (Jer. 49:12). The thing suggested by reference to “the cup” is the punishment by God mentioned in verses 7-11. I, personally, know of no “real” drinking vessel which could contain an intangible like punishment. Perhaps Frizzell can tell us what “real” cup is named in Jeremiah 49:12. This point can be seen even clearer in the prophecy of Ezekiel (23:31-33). The content of the cup is “horror and desolation” (v. 33). No “real” cup exists and no “real” cup is being named. Real drinking vessels do not contain horror and desolation; they contain only tangible objects like liquids. In fact, it would be as impossible to put horror and desolation into A real drinking vessel as it is to put love and devotion into a bottle.

“Rule” four maintains that “the container named must contain the thing suggested.” In this “rule,” Frizzel says that because “cup” is named, a bottle, a pitcher, or a bowl cannot be the drinking vessel used in the Lord’s supper. I ask, must the cup always contain fruit of the vine in order to be the “cup of the Lord”? Webster defined “drink” as to “a. swallow . . . b. to take in . . . c. to take in or receive in a way suggestive of a liquid being swallowed.” If the container must always contain the contents, then one has not drunk the “cup of the Lord” unless he “swallows” or “takes in” a drinking vessel containing the fruit of the vine. If not, why not? But, again, the scriptures will not substantiate this “rule.” Noah’s house (Gen. 7:1) was told to enter the ark. In .this case, the “household” (the thing suggested) is contained by the ark and not the “house” (the thing named). Since Proverbs 14:11 mentions the “house of the wicked” and the “tent of the upright,” are we to understand that all wicked persons must be contained in one (see “rule” 5) house and all upright persons must be contained in one tent? Surely, the folly in such reasoning is clearly evident.

Brother Frizzell’s last “rule” – “one can only suggest the contents of as many cups as he names” – is more devoid of proof than all the others combined, and yet, this is the one they must prove in order to make metonomy fit their doctrine. Jacob asked Laban, “But now, when shall I provide for my own house” (Gen. 30:30)? In spite of this, we find that his “house” was contained by, at least, four different and separate dwelling places (Gen. 31:33), not any one of which was a “house.” The father of Moses was of the “house of Levi” (Exod. 2:1); but, surely, we are not expected to believe that the great number of Levi’s descendants, which must have been living in the time of the captivity, were all dwelling or being contained in one house. Yet, according to Frizzell, since only one house is named, only the contents of one house could have been suggested. But it gets worse! Ezekiel mentions those from the “house of Togarmah” (Ezek. 27:14). Togarmah was the greatgrandson of Noah. Can you image how large the building would have been in order to contain the family of Togarmah in the time of Ezekiel? Further, Joshua 13:6 mentions the “hill country” of Lebanon. Since only one hill is named, we are to believe that there is only one hill in Lebanon? Obviously, as Bullinger suggests, “hill” is named to suggest the “mountainous region” (p. 575). Also, the “grave” of Isaiah 38:18 cannot be stretched to mean that all the dead persons in Isaiah’s time were interred in one grave. This so-called “rule” makes absolutely no sense, scriptural or otherwise.

Brother Frizzell’s “rules” have all fallen by the wayside in the face of scriptural facts. He and his brethren will have to search elsewhere for substantiation of their divisive “one drinking vessel” concept, for metonomy gives them no hope; it rather establishes that “the cup” is not the literal drinking vessel, as far as significance is concerned, but is the contents, the fruit of the vine.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 41, pp. 666-667
October 16, 1980

By Earl Robertson

The word of man’s creator is not silent concerning the duties which lay heavily upon the man. The philosophy of unisexualism can never truly destroy the identity of man with his inherent characteristics and responsibilities as opposed to the female. The will of God makes the difference!

God created them male and female (Gen. 1:27; 5:2; Matt. 19:4). He did not create two males. He did not create two females. God made them male and female. He made the male, Adam, first and then made the women for the man (1 Cor. 11:8, 9). The woman is the weaker vessel and must look to her husband as being in control of her (1 Pet. 3:7). Peter says the husband must dwell with his wife “according to knowledge.” Vincent says, “With an intelligent recognition of the nature of the marriage relation.” Peter says “giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel.” Aponemontes is a present active participle and is rendered “giving” in this verse. This word is not used any place else in the New Testament. It is used in the sense of the husbands’ dwelling with his wife, and is said to literally mean, “to portion out, and is appropriate to the husband as controlling is to be meated out to the wife.” This must be true because of the headship of the man (Eph. 5:23), and the Biblical demand for the wife to submit to her husband (Eph. 5:24, 33). Paul wrote, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord” (Co. 3:18). The very fact that in this husband/wife relationship there is the divine injunction for the wife to reverence and submit to her husband lies the headship of the husband. That headship is respected by godly wives; but, rebellion obtains in the eases where the wife either disbelieves what the Bible says about this relationship, or she simply flaunts the divine rule and impudently obtrudes on sacred ground where angels fear to tread. In this, she rudely and/or clandestinely arrogates to herself rule for which there is no justification, bringing upon herself dishonor and failure and finally judgment itself. The husband must assume headship.

The lack of respect for God’s order of creation has produced the state of irreverence in which we see unisex, sodomy, prostitution and every other sexual vice – as prevalent as in the Hellenistic world. But the godly can change this!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 41, p. 665
October 16, 1980

By William C. Sexton

Recently in response to the article, “Can Christians Identify `False Teachers’?” (Truth, 11-22-79, p. 5), I received the following note from Iowa – the name is unimportant in this context, the concept and teachings are what I wish to deal with here.

Bill,

According to your own definition of “False Teachers” (Truth 11/22/79, 9th paragraph), you are guilty, for you have not reached a state of perfection in doctrine. The scriptures do not use the term as you do. I will explain if you are interested. Let me know. If you hang on to this idea, you will excommunicate your wife!

Now, let us look at the 9th paragraph of that article and see if an unbaised mind will reach the same conclusion:

It is clear to the unbiased mind, I believe, that these authorities of the Greek word who translated ‘false teacher’ understand the meaning to be describing the person who is teaching something claiming it to be of God when in fact it is not l Consequently when any of us teaches things claiming that such is from God and it is not, then we are `false teachers.”

If one is familiar with some of the teachings that are going around and have been advocated for the last decade or more, he sees the fallacy of this man’s thinking, immediately: the distinction between doctrine and gospel theology is at the heart of it! Such cannot be sustained by the scriptures, however, and such needs to be seen for what it is – an effort to liberalize the teachings and sanctions of God’s people to accept whoever claims to have been baptized. We challenge each reader to give adequate consideration to the contents of these claims and the consequences of following that course.

I sent the following note to this Iowa accuser:

________________ Name,

Your judgmental proclamation of me is untrue, a lie, having no basis other than your theological presupposition. There is not one word in the article where I made “a state of perfection in doctrine” as the standard. Instead, I affirmed that the scriptures are the standard, not man’s own subjective feelings.

Christ says, “If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him and if he repent, forgive him” (Lk. 17:3). I rebuke you in the name of Christ for charging me falsely (2 Tim. 3:3, “false accusers”) and call upon you to “repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of throe heart be forgiven thee” (cf. Acts 8:22).

I am interested in truth, but not in any more judgmental proclamations of ( Name), for I have received enough of

them – in that you have sent me several envelopes filled with such over the last couple of years. Remember?

1. I believe that the scriptures are all “inspired of God,” as they claim to be (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). If you don’t believe that, then any discussion about what is said therein would be unprofitable until we discuss that (cf. John 17:17). Your writings leave me thinking you don’t.

2. I believe that the scriptures were written to be understood (Eph. 3:3-4). If you disagree with that, then we’d need to discuss that, before concerning ourselves with the meaning of passages. If we can’t understand the writings, then it is foolish to spend time in that regard, and much of the theological proclamations I see have that underlying principle involved.

3. If “false teacher” is only the person with an impure motive, can I and you identify one? Must we read hearts to do so? Do you claim to have heart reading ability? I don’t have that ability myself! Did the Lord tell us to be aware of “false teachers,” to do something that we can’t possibly do?

Sincerely, William C. Secton

Conclusion

I have corresponded with brethren for nearly ten years, now, who have been advocating the doctrine-gospel distinction theology. I find it strange how un-reasonable very intelligent men can be when they accept a position and get all wrapped up in it, as these have done. A folder filled to the brim is in my file of a “certain brother’s” materials, letters from him wherein he is trying to persuade me that the first part of Mt. 28:19-20 must be understood alike but that the last part is impossible of being understood alike! He argues that the whole basis of division in the “brotherhood” (yea, in the whole of Christendom) is due to the failure to make this distinction.

If one will go to his concordance and look at the word doctrine – didache – he will find that people obeyed it in becoming “free from sins” (Rom. 6:16-18) and that the disciples “continued in” it, growing and learning what to do as Christians (Acts 2:42). Likewise, if one will look at the word gospel – euangelion – he will find that it refers to that by which one is “saved,” receiving the forgiveness of sins (Mk. 16:15-16; 1 Cor. 15:Iff) and that which one must continue to believe and accept, not accepting a “perverted” gospel (Gal. 1:6-10). We will be judged according to the “gospel” that Paul preached (Rom. 2:16). Paul was ready to “preach the gospel” to those who were at Rome, called saints (Rom. 1:15, 7).

So, the distinction that is made by “certain brethren” is artificial, humanly devised, designed to sustain some man developed theology! The presupposition is that man needs to be united when it comes to becoming a child of God, a Christian; but, then division is inevitable and cannot be otherwise. So, we ought to just accept each other without regard to differences in beliefs and/or practices. Yet, why are they so hard on us who differ with them? Reasonable?

After having discussed with some elders and a preacher one night in Wichita, in which one of the elders who was a English professor at WSU and who had argued that my view of Gal. 1:6-10 was wrong because we could not expect people to understand alike, I though “how silly” for the man to say I was wrong on the interpretation. If it was not possible to understand alike, then how did he know but that my view was not right? It seemed to me that he was arguing for something that could not possibly be right: for if I was wrong and he could discern it, then he was saying that what he was arguing for was wrong – because he. did know that I was wrong: we did have to agree! Is this not a case of “wise” men becoming fools (cf. Rom. 1:22, 21) and will not progress be made in the same direction of those Paul lifted up as bad examples?

Beloved, who is guilty of error, according to the scriptures? He who goes onward and fails to abide within the confines of revelation (2 John 9; Rev. 22:18-19). That revelation is complete, understandable, and practicable! Respect it and benefit from your response to it, beloved.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 41, p. 665
October 16, 1980