Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

The horrifying mass suicide of hundreds of men, women and children led by the charismatic, but demoniac self-styled prophet, Jim Jones, staggers the imagination. Why did the nightmare at Jonestown take place? How can so many be so vulnerable? What causes the entrapment of otherwise intelligent youth into surrendering their ability to think clearly and independently? Why is cultism on the rise? Many are searching for answers: Anthropologists, Sociologists, Psychiatrists, are all responding. Can they give us the answers? Knight News Services have pointed out that “our psychological theories are inadequate to cope with the cult phenomenon.” They may be right. As Joan Beck says, “that inexplicable tragedy in the Guyana jungle can’t simply be written off as an isolated aberration” (“aberration” means an act of wandering from the right way; deviation from truth, Jt., Quote from News and Courier, Charleston, S.C.). As the Associated Press points out, Foreign Press, Nov. 22, 1978, sees its roots in the 1960s, “the era that spawned both the `flower children’ and the evil of Charles Manson.”

More and more, as I look back at Guyana, I am convinced that the answer lies in the word “aberration,” departure from truth. Certainly, to some degree at least, social, political and religious factors have their part in contributing to the phenomenon of cultism. However, I do not believe that cultism results from collective irresponsibility. I am tired of hearing people blame society for the lawlessness of individuals. This “passing the buck” is not a thing in the world but a failure to recognize that the real problem is a loss of individualism. People no longer afford the luxury of a conscience so they avoid personal responsibility. It is like the Bay of Piegs invasion, when afterwards President Kennedy asked, “How could we have been so stupid?” What Kennedy failed to see was that group thinking can produce prodigious blunders that any individual can avoid (Karl Menninger, Whatever Became of Sin? p. 112). Perhaps Anna Russell’s sardonic jab is appropriate here: “At three I had a feeling of ambivalence toward my brothers, and so it follows naturally I poisoned all my lovers. But now I’m happy; I have learned the lesson this has taught; that everything I do that’s wrong is someone else’s fault” (The Crisis in Psychiatry and Religion, O. Hobart Mowrer, p. 49). It is sad that sin and the notions of guilt which once served as restraint have been eroded by the presumption that the individual has less to do with his actions than assumed. What this writer is trying to say is that the dilemmas of cultism are more and more the expression of internal personal moral problems instead of external social, or environmental complexities. Sure, there is always some environmental determination (1 Jn. 2:15-17; Rom. 12:1-2), but what right have we to exclude individual determination (2 Cor. 5:10, etc.)? Guyana: do we blame Jim Jones or the threat of a neutron holocaust? No, it is the failure of the individual as a creature of choice to make the right decision at the right time. There would never had been a tragedy at Jonestown if individuals had not let the blind lead the blind!

Searching For Roots

Misfits from scattered backgrounds are flocking to the cults. They have already shown disrespect for God, parents, seniority and authority, even the Bible itself. We are going through an antinomian revolution! Having rejected God’s Word as archaic and obsolete as far as modern man is concerned, mankind is adrift on the sea of uncertainty. Biblical morals are outdated and outworn. Ethics? Who cares any more? “We live in the here and now, and we are living it up! Experience (more on this later) and effectiveness, these are the watch words today. We want a new morality. Old-fashioned sin is out.” Listen friend, whether you accept it or not, sin haunts our age. There is nowhere to go but to the Lord (Jn. 1:29; Eph. 1:3, 7; Gal. 2:12-13). Sin may be a weary word to you, but as Bernard Murchland says, “the reality it signifies is energetic and destructive” (Whatever Became of Sin?, p. 209). Rob your soul of Biblical convictions if you wish, but something will take its place. Yes, you will find something new, a new life-style perhaps. Leave God and what He says out of your life, and as surely as I type this article, you ultimately will be disappointed in life itself. Man left to himself is altogether vanity (Psa. 39:5). He cannot be established by wickedness (Prov. 12:3). It is not in man to direct his steps (Jer. 10:23). Mankind need roots and the search goes on, but the roots you need are behind you, in God and His Word (Prov. 12:3b). All else is vanity (Prov. 12:14-15; Eccl. 1:2). So it is: a rootless youngster migrating in Winter may drift by Spring into any one of a dozen cults.

Experience Over Knowledge

This writer sees something else as he looks at modern cultism (Thanks to Earl Radmacher’s “Relational Theology-or Theology That Relates?” Ministry, November, 1978). But first observe that God’s Word furnishes man completely in every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Only Truth will free and give roots (Jn. 8:31-32; 1:17; 14:6). It is adapted to man whose disposition and general makeup is as it has been since Adam (I am not advocating inborn sin). Apostolic teaching applied to the first century man, but it also applies to us. For nineteen hundred years, mankind’s spiritual needs have been the same. That is why the New Testament is relative today. External circumstances, have changed, but sin is still sin (call it crime or sickness if you wish). Morality is not something you discover based upon the situation. It is taught (Tit. 2:11-14), it does not come by external circumstances. It must be learned! Christianity is a teaching religion. It involves the mind (1 Cor. 1:21; Mk. 16:15-16; Rom. 10:13-17).

Instead of objective reasoning regarding Truth, the religious today are relying more and more on personal experiences as authority. “I would not exchange the way I feel for all the Bibles in the world” is a thread-bare argument demonstrating pure subjectivism. Experience is not authority even though subjective emotionalism has replaced the proper role of objective Truth. Calvinism’s faith as a gift (irresistible grace in the form of the direct operation of the Holy spirit on the heart apart from the Word), the charismatic movement, no patternism among brethren and modernism’s distrust of our plea for restoration New Testament Christianity as “let’s-go-back defeatism” have all contributed to subjective emotional authority. Disturbing results of what we are talking about are seen in “churches of the Lord” whose numbers are speaking the language of Ashdod. We now hear brethren talking about “giving my testimony” and “witnessing.” We see churches like the Cross Roads in Gainsville, Florida with their unstructured emotionalism in the form of candle-light services, chain prayers, circled hand-holding exercises, etc. It is all heading in the same direction: experience as authority. No wonder young people cannot find a “theology” that relates. Some of our brethren are, indeed, practicing the philosophy of Howard Ervin, popular Baptist charismatic leader, who says, “experience, not logic, lets us know who Christ is.” Can you imagine trying to convince someone of the historical Christ by saying, “I know Christ exists because I talked to Him this morning”? Here is the secret of Jim Jones’ mind control: pressure of experimentalism. Our society is driven more and more by the authority of experience than the experience of authority.

Do our brethren really know that true experience grows out of sound doctrine? Have we allowed reason and logic to become dirty words? Do you not see that in theological circles the rational is presumed to be shallow and the irrational interesting, often profound and usually true? Who was it that said, “The man who has an experience is never at the mercy of the man who has an argument”? The weakness of experience over knowledge is obvious: it is the same reasoning used by those who claim they have found the answer in transcendental meditation, ESP, Hare Krishna, the People’s Temple Group and other bizarre cults.

Conclusion

It is the same plea: Back To The Bible! Book, chapter and verse precede experience. Call it what you wish: “legalism,” “propositional theology,” whatever. One thing is certain. We cannot sacrifice Truth on the altar of interpersonal relationships. The early church did not turn the world up-side down by telling people about their personal experiences or how to discover the ecstasy of the Spirit-filled life (better-felt-than-told experience). They preached the Word (Acts 8:4), Christ (Acts 8:5), and people like the Samaritans “believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ,” and “they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12). Evangelism is not centered on what happened to the individual, but on the proclamation of the gospel. No, we are not overlooking the principle of a “new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17), “joy” (Phil. 2:18; Acts 8:39) or “fruits of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22-26). I know that in many of our assemblies our worship has become stereotyped and formal, but spontaneous unstructured emotionalism is not spirituality.

Experience that is not founded upon truth (how many times must we say it?) lacks proper moorings and sets us adrift on the hopeless sea of subjectivity. “I am sure no new theology can really be theology, whatever its novelty, unless it expresses and develops the old faith which made those theologies that are now old the mightiest things of the age when they were new” (Peter Taylor Forsyth, Positive Preaching and The Modern Mind, p. 6). Experience must remain the effect, not the cause.

How sad that hundreds involved in the People’s Temple Group allowed themselves in the jungle of Guyana to be led blindly into an untimely death in this life and hell hereafter. They, because of subjective experience, looked for a theology that relates. Instead, they let the blind lead the blind. “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 Jn. 4:1).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 5, pp. 87-89
February 1, 1979

By Bill Imrisek

In man’s quest for truth he must always recognize the usefulness of Paul’s maxim, “Test all things; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). Truth has nothing to fear from investigation. And a man has nothing to lose by putting his faith to a test. If his faith is built upon truth, he can only strengthen his faith as he sees it withstand the challenge. It will endure; he cannot lose it. And if, perchance, his faith proves to be false, he still comes out the winner, for the exposure of error manifests truth, and he has truth to gain.

But truth must be measured by some yardstick. For the Christian, that yardstick is God’s word (John 17:17). To test all things and hold fast to what is good, as Paul commands, we must look to the depository of truth, the Holy Scriptures, which will equip us “for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). If the Scriptures can lead us to identify “every” good work, whatever is “good” will be authorized in its pages. Likewise, whatever cannot be found authorized in the Scriptures must be discarded as false, and cannot be considered “good” from the viewpoint of the Author of truth, God Himself. By this yardstick we must measure our faith. This is a test that no man should fear to make, for he has nothing to lose and only truth to gain.

The belief that will come under our investigation in this study is the claim of the Roman Catholic Church that it is the one church that Jesus founded. Let us notice this claim as it is presented by one of its own writers.

Jesus Christ founded one Church and defined and described it so plainly that it can be recognized at any time, at any place in the whole world, That Church is the Catholic Church (What Every Catholic Should Know, by Hugh J. O’Connell, p. 7).

That Christ founded one Church – and that the Catholic Church – is simply proved by matching the description which Christ gave of the Church He was founding with the Catholic Church as it has stood for more than nineteen hundred years. Here, again, the least talented and least educated human being can find the proofs and be convinced by them, provided he be of good will and open mind (O’Connell, p. 8).

This is the claim as presented by the Catholic Church, and as such we wish to examine it and to see if it is true. We feel fully qualified to meet this task, believing that none will class us below the “least talented and least educated,” and seeing that we have no desire but to examine this claim with “good will and open mind.”

Allowing the Scriptures to be our guide, we will not deny the assertion that Jesus founded only one church. This is a true statement (Eph. 1:22-23; 4:4-6). And since Jesus is the Savior of that church (Eph. 5:23), we must determine which church is the church that Jesus built. Is it the Roman Catholic Church? Or is it another?

Matthew 16:15-19 marks the first time that Jesus mentions building a church. Here He describes the very foundation upon which this church was to be built. As He converses with Peter, Jesus asks, “But who do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Then Jesus ansered and said, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to thee, but my Father in heaven. And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

“Upon this rock I will build my church.” It has been the claim of Catholics that this “rock” was Peter. Others claim that the rock referred to is to be understood as being the subject of Peter’s confession, Jesus Christ. Which is it? In a passage such as this which has produced much controversy, it should not be our intention to force the passage to say that which we wish for it to say, but rather to examine it intelligently in the light of other Scriptures which touch on the same point. Truth will not contradict itself.

The apostle Paul assists us by telling us, “For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 3:11). This passage is explicit and clear, and it leaves no doubt as to the nature of the foundation upon which the church is built. If the church is built upon the “rock” and the foundation upon which the church is built is Jesus Christ, then the necessary conclusion is that Jesus is the “rock” of Matthew 16:18. This excludes Peter from being the foundation of the church.

Again, Paul explains to us that the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20). Since Jesus has already been described as constituting the only foundation, Paul is here speaking of the apostles and prophets as being instrumental in laying that foundation (see 1 Cor. 3:10). It is this foundation upon which the church is built.

Rather than Peter being the “rock” upon which the church is built, he is described as the holder of the keys (Matt. 16:19), as were the other apostles (Matt. 18:18). Keys are a symbol of authority and also provide the means of admittance. To the apostles was committed the responsibility of proclaiming the gospel (laying the foundation) and, thus, directing people of the means by which to gain admittance into the Lord’s church.

The manner, therefore, by which we can determine which church is the church that Jesus founded is by determining and recognizing which church is built upon the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets. This foundation of faith has been laid once for all (Jude 3). The curse of God is upon all those who would tamper with it in any way (Gal. 1:6-9). We must determine which church is built upon the apostolic foundation.

In examining the claims of the Catholic Church we do not wish to misrepresent its beliefs and practices in any way. We desire to be honest. The Catholic Church has felt that it has been a subject of misrepresentation many times in the past. To the degree that this is true, the cause of truth has suffered. Truth cannot be arrived at until the whole truth is presented. We should always strive to be as honest as possible with all men, especially when truth is at stake. To guard against misrepresentation we shall accept the suggestion of the Catholic Church that we represent its doctrines by stating them in its own words.

The dogmas and practices of our Church are not hidden things. They may be found clearly set forth in hundreds of easily accessible books-in the elementary catechism and in the popular explanations of Catholic belief as well as in the works of learned theologians. Why is it, then, we wonder, that the literary genius who contributes to our current magazines does not prepare himself for his task by trying to ascertain precisely which the Catholic Church teaches before he attempts to criticize her teachings or to write a description of her rites and ceremonies? Why is it that the great minds that are called upon, as infallible authorities, to explain matter Catholic for certain encyclopedias do not first acquire a definite and accurate idea on their subject. Why is it again, that hardly a minister of religion can be found in the churches of our separated brethren who can give a clear and truthful statement of the Catholic beliefs and practices which he unsparingly condemns in his Sunday sermon? It would seem reasonable to expect that a man who poses as an expert in any particular line would not fall into gross error everytine that he writes or speaks about his speciality (The Externals of the Catholic Church, John F. Sullivan, p. 248).

The criticism of this writer may be justified. But so that we will not fall into this error we will seek to represent the Catholic position by quoting from only Catholic sources to identify its doctrines. These quotations will be made from Catholic publications which bear the “imprimatur” of the Catholic Church. This Latin word means “let it be printed,” and is its official declaration that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error from the viewpoint of Catholic doctrine. Thus, we can be sure that what we read represents their true teaching. Likewise, all Biblical quotations will be from a Catholic Bible (the Confraternity Version), lest anyone charge that a Catholic Bible reads differently. All the books from which I quote are books which I have in my own personal possession.

We therefore ask, “Is the Roman Catholic Church apostolic?” We shall pursue this question at some length in the articles to follow.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 5, pp. 86-87
February 1, 1979

By Mike Willis

The conflict between the people of God and the devil and his disciples is as old as the creation of man. Ever since man was created and given a commandment by God to obey, the devil has been trying to persuade man to disobey the Lord. Conflicts have been inevitable. The conflicts necessarily involve the false prophets of the devil and the true disciples of God. Their two doctrines must come into conflict with each other.

The Lord’s church has fought one battle after another through the centuries in an effort to keep the church separated from the forces of Satan. Our own generation has not been without its conflicts between the devil and the Lord, as fought by the soldiers in each’s army. Somewhat over a century ago, the troops were aligned over the introduction of mechanical instruments of music in worship and the church support of missionary societies. Later, the forces assembled for battle again over the doctrine of premillennialism. Then, about twenty-five years ago, the battle was fought once again. On this occasion, the issues were such things as church support of benevolent societies, reward motivation as a means to increase the attendance, and other such false doctrines. The lines were drawn and the battles were fought.

This was not the end of all wars between God’s people and the devil’s people. Indeed, we are already in the throes of another great conflict. This time, the issue concerns the subject of fellowship and salvation. Some are advocating fellowship with any baptized believer in “any segment of the restoration movement” (others open the. door for fellowship with Baptists). They have justified this through the acceptance of the Calvinistic doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account. The lines have been drawn and the battle is being fought. The battle is raging.

As we witness the battle in all of its fury, we are reminded of the Christian’s responsibility when Satan’s forces and God’s people come into conflict. Every Christian has a responsibility to take out his sword of the Spirit and fight! Yet, not all have done so. Some of the brethren have not given much support to the valiant men who have sought to stop the spread of this heresy among us. Because of that, I would like to consider some of the statements regarding Edom’s conduct toward Israel when Israel was under assault as a means of seeing our responsibilities in this battle.

A Study of Obadiah

The book of Obadiah was probably written about 845 B.C. during the reign of Jehoram, king of Judah. During the reign of Jehoram, Edom had revolted against Judah (2 Chron. 21:8-10). Later, the Philistines and Arabs allied themselves to fight against Judah “and carried away all the substance that was found in the king’s house, and his sons also, and his wives” (2 Chron. 21:16-17). During this battle, Edom allied themselves with Judah’s enemies.

The atrocious act which they committed can be better understood when one remembers that the Edomites were descendants of Esau, the brother of Jacob. The animosity and hostility which characterized the early relationship between these twin sons of Isaac and Rebekah reflected and hatred between the two nations which descended from their loins. Edom refused to allow Israel passage through their borders as they journeyed toward Canaan (Num. 20:14-21; 21:4). Saul fought the Edomites and subdued them (1 Sam. 14:47); David stationed garrisons there (2 Sam. 8:14; I Kgs. 11:15-16). Despite the fact that the Edomites were brothers to the Israelites, when the Philistines and Arabs attacked Judah, they took the side of Judah’s enemies (v. 11), rejoiced in their suffering (v. 12), looted their land (v. 13), and slew the Jews who escaped their enemies (v. 14).

Because of the atrocities committed against the Jews, God raised up the prophet Obadiah to rebuke them for their failure to come to the assistance of their brethren and for taking their stand with the other side, the enemies of Israel. Here is God’s rebuke through Obadiah:

For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shah he cut off forever. In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou wast as one of them (vs. l0-11).

The Edomites sinned grievously against their brethren the Israelites by taking their stand, lending their support and encouragement to the enemies of Israel.

The Application

In the most recent controversies over the grace-unity movement’s doctrine of fellowship andthe Calvinism espoused by them, some of our brethren have committed exactly the same sin against those engaged in fighting for truth as the Edomites committed against Israel. Yet, few seem to be concerned about these men. To my knowledge, nothing has been written about those who “stood on the other side” and acted “as one of them” through the conflict.

During those years, many were heard to say, “I agree with what they (meaning such men as James Adams, Cecil Willis and Ron Halbrook) are saying but do not like their methods.” Frankly, I did not agree with all their methods either. It should be added, however, that neither would they agree with all of my methods. None of us are totally agreed about when is the best time or what is the best manner of saying a given thing. These brethren have not called upon brethren all over the country to defend their tactics in assaulting the forces of Satan. They have, however, called upon all other brethren to fight the enemy of all righteousness. If some of our readers know of a better way to assault the forces of Satan and expose the men propagating the doctrines of the devil, let him show us that better way.

I am not claiming perfection in my methods, nor have I heard anyone else claim perfection in his methods. I have even read where one or two had to print a public retraction because of something which they said in print. Yet, they were involved in trying to destroy the false doctrines being preached by the false men among us. Some who have been so loud in their criticisms of another’s methods need to look at themselves rather closely to see if they might have committed the same sin as Edom committed! In the day of the fight, did you stand on the other side? Were you as one of the enemies?

It is one thing to disagree with another person’s method while standing united with them in doing what you can to assault the enemy of all righteousness. It is quite another thing to leave the impression, because of your constant complaining about the methods of those who are fighting the battle, that you oppose the very battle being fought. Some complained so loudly about the methods being used to fight this great battle that those who were pushing these false doctrines were left with the distinct impression that these men were on their side. Some were indeed as “one of them.”

Even today, others are trying to leave the impression in principle that there is some kind of middle-of-road position available for us in which we do not have to be so radical as to name the men who are teaching the false doctrine among us, although we can stand opposed to the damnable heresies. False doctrines are still being spread by false teachers. Frankly, I cannot understand why some editors think that they are standing for the truth when they criticize those who are rooting out and exposing the heretics among us but are doing nothing themselves to salvage churches and men being led astray by these false men. Indeed, so far as I can tell, they stand as “one of them.”

In an attempt to be more specific about what it takes to be guilty of the sin of Edom against Israel, let me enumerate some of the things which I have seen in the recent conflict which leads me to believe that some of my brethren are guilty of the sin which Edom committed.

1. The defense of false teachers. During this recent conflict, some brethren who want to be considered as sound defended false teachers totally. Some journeyed many, many miles to rise to the defense of false teachers. Others in print, did virtually the same thing.

2. Assaulting the ones who were defending the truth. Not only did brethren defend the false teachers, others assaulted those who were trying to expose the heresies taught by these false men. The publication of Falth Magazine is the most blatant example of this, but it was by no means the only example of this. The pages of Gospel Guardian under the editorship of William Wallace were filled with the assaults against men such as James Adams, Cecil Willis and Ron Halbrook for their exposure of the heresies taught by Edward Fudge, Arnold Hardin, Leroy Garrett, Carl Ketcherside and others. Others who have traveled across this country have heard numerous men bad-mouthing these same people. Their complaining was so great that some were left with the impression that they did not stand opposed to the false doctrines that were talked about.

3. A refusal to fight. Some men lended support to the other side by refusing to stand for what they knew was right. If a man is doing all that he can to oppose the false doctrine, that does not mean that he has to come out in print in a paper published among brethren with a “me-too article,” but it does seem like to me that a man needs to be preaching on the subject, talking with other people about it, warning others about these doctrines and whatever else that he can do to prevent the spread of this heresy. The man who refuses to take his sword from the scabbard when the war is in force, has lent his support to the other side.

Perhaps there are other ways of lending one’s support to the other side, which I have not enumerated. One thing is clear in my mind, however, that is that the person who is guilty of lending his support to the other side has transgressed the holy commandment of God and stands condemned by the Word of God found therein.

Conclusion

I am not calling upon all men in the brotherhood to rally to the defense of Truth Magazine. We are, however, calling upon brethren to defend the truth, to propogate the truth and to oppose the heretics who are assaulting the very gospel of Christ. The errors that have been spread by the grace-unity movement are errors that are not confined to any one given locality. Consequently, it is going to be necessary for brethren to spend time studying these doctrines and teaching on the subject with reference to this conflict just as certainly as it was with reference to institutionalism, church-sponsored recreation and a variety of other damnable heresies which have affected the church. It is my prayer that conscientious brethren everywhere will look at themselves to see if they lent their support to the cause of truth rather than, as Edom did, “acting as one of them.”

Truth Magazine XXIII: 5, pp. 83-85
February 1, 1979

By William V. Beasley

As far as your eternal soul is concerned, are you ready to die and stand before God in judgment? If you say “No” or “I don’t know,” then you do not “know that ye have eternal life” (1 John 5:13). Your soul’s salvation may indeed depend upon your knowing concerning “eternal life.” This is, according to 1 John 5:13, something we can know.

Begotten of God (1 John 5:1)

The statement, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God” (5:1) is not speaking of a speculative, wavering belief, but of a firm persuasion that causes one to obey Jesus Christ completely. The gospel of John, written by this same John, shows that to truly believe is to obey: “He that believes on the Son has life eternal; and he that is not subject to the Son shall not see life . . .” (John 3:36, Berry’s Greek-English Interlinear, pp. 248-249). A genuine belief that “Jesus is the Christ” will cause one to turn from sins in repentance (Luke 24:47), confess the name of Jesus (Matt. 10:32; Rom. 10:10), be buried with Him in baptism (Rom. 6:4) and to present his body “a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God” (Rom. 12: l; see also Rev. 2:10).

Love Of God And Brethren (1 John 5:1-3)

If we love God (“him that begat” – 5:Ib), we will also love His children (“him . . . that is begotten” – 5:1b), our brothers and sisters in Christ. Do you love the children of God? John tells us how to know: “Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do his commandments” (5:2), Many of God’s commandments to us involve His other children (Matt. 18:15; Gal. 6:1, 2; Eph. 4:25). We are commanded to love one another (John 13:34; I John 3:23) and to live as an example to others (Matt. 5:13-16; Rom. 14:21). Love for God is always shown by obedience (5:3). It is not possible to love God while living in disobedience. We can test our love for God: “How much do I love God?” and “How much do I obey God?” is really one question. This, brethren, is not a subjective test.

Faith Is The Victory (1 John 3-5)

If obedience to God is a heavy burden, a cause of grief, our faith is weak. Through faith we can overcome the world, temptation, trials and afflictions. Through faith we can bear the otherwise unbearable (see Rom. 8:18).

Witnesses To Our Faith (1 John 5:6-9)

Jesus Christ came “by water and blood” (5:6). .Jesus vas first acknowledged to be the Son of God at His Baptism (Matt. 3:17), and while on the cross both blood and water flowed from His side (John 19:34). In each of those, the Holy Spirit bore witness to His Sonship. At His baptism the Spirit descended as a dove (Matt. 3:,16) and by His resurrection Jesus was shown to be the Son of God (Rom. 1:4; 1 Pet. 3:8).

There are “three that bear record in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost” (5:7, KJV). The Father bore witness verbally twice (Matt, 3:17; 17:5) and also at the crucifixion (three hours of darkness, earthquake, rending of rocks, splitting of the veil of the temple). The Word, Jesus, bore witness to His Sonship (1 Tim. 6:13; Matt. 27:11). The Holy Spirit bore witness, as we have already noted, in the baptism and resurrection.

There are also “three that bear witness in earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood” (5:8, KJV). The Spirit continually witnesses through the word written at His direction by the apostles (John 16:13; 20:30f). The waters of baptism, not of Jesus but of penitent believers (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38) are a witness that Jesus is God’s Son. The blood, as commemorated by the fruit of the vine in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23-26) is the third witness. The witness of God is greater than man’s witness (I John 5:9) and God’s witness in that Jesus is His Son.

“Witness In Him” (1 John 5:10-12)

When one truly obeys the gospel of Christ, changes are brought about in His life. These changes serve as a witness. Paul’s change in his manner of life was witness to the validity of his conversion. The change in our lives is such a witness. The lack of change or refusal to obey calls God a liar. Life is “in his Son” (5:11; see Gal. 3:27). If we do not have Jesus, we do not have life, but abide in death.

Conclusion

Do you know concerning eternal life? Do you believe that “Jesus is the Christ?” Do you love the brethren (i.e., love God and keep His commandments)? Is faith your victory over the world? Do you have the witness of a reformed life? Are you “in His Son” where there is life? If you do not know, you can, yea must, do something about it.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 5, p. 82
February 1, 1979