Truth Magazine

By William V. Beasley

As John draws the epistle of First John to a close he tells us why it was written: “These things have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God” (1 John 5:13). People today, as in the first century, are interested in knowing their spiritual condition. Thus, a study of this epistle is in order to “know.”

Basis Of Our Faith (1 John 1:1-4)

The epistle of First John begins, as does the fourth gospel, with a statement of the deity of Jesus Christ. Both look back to “the beginning,” and both speak of the divinity of Him whom we through faith accept as our Savior. John speaks of the basis of our faith as something which he knew by his physical senses (saw, heard, touched-1 John 1:1, 3). Our faith is based on the testimony of eye, ear and hand witnesses. Jesus, after His resurrection, told the disciples “see” and “handle” (Luke 24:39) that they might know. Like Peter, John could have said, “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables. . .” (see 2 Pet. 1:16-21).

It is possible for our physical senses to deceive us; courts prefer more than one witness. When numerous witnesses respond telling of physical senses (see, hear, handle; or as in the case of Matt. 14:16ff all five senses involved) we are forced to believe. When we see men, the apostles and many others, whose whole lives were changed by what they saw, heard and handled and their testimonies agree, we must accept it or, as N. T. Caton says, “admit the chief of absurdities, viz.: an effect without a cause” (A Commentary and an Exposition of the Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude, p. 142). The apostles did not deliver ought by hearsay, human tradition or conjecture.

Through the testimony of the eye, ear and hand witnesses we have fellowship with the apostles (witnesses), the Father and the Son (1 John 1:3b). Such fellowship (which includes our forgiveness, adoption as children of God, promises of eternal life, etc.) is the completeness of joy (1 John 1:4).

Basis Of Our Fellowship (1 John 1:5-10)

The message from Jesus is that “God is light. . .” (1 John 1:5), i.e., God is the source of all light (physical and spiritual). There is no mixture of light and darkness with God. The Devil and his angles are spoken of as darkness (Eph. 6:12; Luke 22:53; Col. 1:13) and those who obey God are “saints in light” (Col. 1:12).

Fellowship with God is based on walking in light (Psa. 119:105; John 1:4-9; 8:12). It is a lie (1 John 1:6) to claim fellowship with God while walking in darkness, but if we walk in the light we are cleansed by the blood of Jesus. This is not a one time shot (baptism) but is continuous action-we must continue walking in the light of God’s word.

The one claiming sinlessness is deceived (1 John 1:8). Some people see in this the same idea as in 1 John 1:10, but it would seem that the present tense indicates more. We can receive forgiveness and for a while live above sin. Experience tells us that we will stumble and need forgiveness again. If “the truth is not in us” the blood of Jesus does not cleanse us. In verse 9, we find our belief about verse 8 strengthened. One translation reads, “If we keep confessing our sins. . .” (The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude, R. C. H. Lenski, p. 392). We are commanded to “confess our sins” (1 John 1:9). This means far more than to say, “I have sinned.” We must confess, even to God, our specific sins: “I have lied, stolen, lusted, etc.” To claim sinless perfection is to call God a liar (1 John 1:10). Sin is a common denominator of all responsible (age of responsibility) individuals (Rom. 6:23).

Conclusion

Can you, from our study thus far, ” know that ye have eternal life?” If you cannot know that you do have eternal life, it may be a strong indication that you do not have eternal lite. Is your faith based on the eye, ear and hand witness of the apostles? Are you walking “in the light” of God’s word? Do you “keep confessing” you sins? If not, you know concerning salvation, but it is not to “know that you have eternal life,” but that you do not have it.

Truth Magazine XXII: 45, pp. 730-731
November 16, 1978

By Bobby Graham

In response to a reply to my article by Bill McMilleon, Brother Willis has requested that I provide my own reply. I do so without any acquaintance with the respondent or hard feelings toward him.

In that the members of the Revision Committee were extremely modernistic, denying the verbal inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Jesus, and other matters (including the virgin birth of the Christ), I still affirm that their production, which omits italics where they have inserted words of their own, has served as a vehicle for modernism. This does not mean that each person using the RSV has fallen prey to the liberal influence of the men, but that their work would undermine basic Bible doctrines such as those mentioned. Furthermore, my article did not state that the RSV denied the deity of Christ or the inspiration of the Scriptures, as the respondent charged: it said that “the translators were extremely modernistic, denying the inspiration of the Bible and the deity of Christ.” Such was stated to provide information on the revisers to show how they could so mishandle the sacred text. I know that passages on both doctrines can be cited, and that they will teach both Christ’s deity and the Scripture’s inspiration. Such was not the point of the original article. Some who use the ASV or the KJV have not accepted the basic doctrines presented in them and have espoused modernistic ideas in spite of them, but who would really deny that the RSV, with the faults already noted, is not more risky? For more information on the absence of italics in the RSV, as well as its substitution of a noun for a pronoun quite often, its free renderings, and its omissions, the reader is referred to Oswald T. Allis’ Review or New Translation?, where such matters are explored more fully than this article could do.

In reference to the respondent’s taking exception to the RSV’s lack of italics, note that his comments concerning “thee” and “thou” do not begin to get to the issue. His reference to newer manuscripts since 1611 is correct, but it does not justify the omission of italics. The material in the pages of Allis’ book (published in 1948 just after the completion of the RSV) will show the mishandling that occurred through the omission of the italics. He notes in his book that italics would not suffice in some of the free renderings. The reader has the right to know what the Lord said, not what the revisers thought He meant; but the reader is deprived of such information in some passages through the failure to use italics.

The respondent asked whether I agree with the doctrine of the translators of the KJV? I am certain that I do not on some matters, but I do on the matter of inspiration, deity of Christ,- and those affecting the manner in which they handled the texts available to them. More and better manuscripts have admittedly been found and used for the ASV, but the modernistic bias of the RSV’s revisers prevented their work from being done as well as it could have been done.

I understand that the Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 could be “young woman” in some instances. Such is not possible in this passage, however, in that (1) the prophesied event’s being a sign rests on the virginity of the woman involved and (2) the Greek word in Matthew 1:23 eternally settles the matter-it is virgin! One passage hardly ever presents the full truth on a subject, but one passage dealing with this subject can surely reflect the bias of the revisers, especially when they did not treat the Hebrew almah in its other Old Testament occurrences. What about Luke 1:34, which definitely leaves the wrong impression?

While the word in Matthew 5:17 does have the meaning of abolish or annul, Jesus obviously meant more here. The coming mentioned in the verse refers not to the specific act of coming as fulfilling the Law and the prophets, but making it possible for such to be done: “I came not to destroy, but to fulfill.” It is true that Jesus was born, lived, and died under the Law, just as it is true that he came to abolish it through fulfillment (meeting every demand, obeying every precept, and bringing each prophecy to pass). He did not come to set aside the Law or to disregard it, hence to manifest a destructive attitude toward it; but He did come to abolish it, just as he appeared to put away sin by his sacrifice (Heb. 9:26). Did His appearance put away sin? No, but He appeared to put away sin! According to Ephesians 2:15 and 2 Corinthians 3:13, He did abolish the Law!

The instances of the RSV and the principles followed by the revisers cited in this article show it to be a dangerous translation, even though it has some good passages and some usefulness. The purpose of the original article was to point out some of its failings, not to uphold every verse of the KJV or the ASV.

Truth Magazine XXII: 45, pp. 729-730
November 16, 1978

By Bill McMilleon

Every once in awhile throughout the maze of brotherhood publications an article appears in order to show that the Revised Standard Version of the scriptures is a perversion or at least an inferior translation. One such article was recently found in Truth Magazine (June 19, 1978) by Bobby Graham. It is with this article that I take issue.

Allow me to say at the outset that I find Truth Magazine an interesting and necessary publication for our times. I have enjoyed many articles therein by brother Graham with which I can heartily agree. I have read articles in other magazines with which I have disagreed but have never taken the time to put pen in hand and write out my thoughts. So this is my first attempt. I can only pray that brother Graham will have no hard feelings because it is his article on which I choose to make my writing debut.

Objections Answered

First of all, brother Graham charges that the RSV has served as a vehicle for modernism since its publication. Well, I consider myself a “conservative,” if we can scripturally use that term, yet I use the RSV extensively. I would even go so far as to say that even though I use the RSV that brother Graham and I would not differ in our beliefs on the divinity of Christ, the necessity of baptism, the possibility of apostasy and a host of other important doctrines. I have used the RSV during the majority of my Christian life (8 years) refute teachings of the Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons and others. I have found it sufficient in every case.

Brother Graham begins by attacking the translators of the RSV saying that they were extremely modernistic. This may be true, I do not know. But allow me to ask this question: Does brother Graham agree in doctrine with the translators of the King James Version? I am sure he does not. If I am wrong I will humbly retract the statement. The question is not whether we agree with the doctrine of the translators but rather “Did they give us a reliable translation?” This is what we will examine, time and space permitting.

Let us begin with brother Graham’s assertion that the RSV does not provide italics whenever words have been supplied. He says this gives no indication where the text spoke or the translator spoke. Let us look at the other side of the coin and see some facts about the KJV. First, the translation was made in 1611 and the King’s English was used which was the common mode of communication for that time. The “thee” and “thou” were not used as terms of respect toward God as can be seen by the fact that both these terms were used in reference to individuals also. They were merely the common terms of speech used in 1611.

Secondly, much more evidence in the form of earlier manuscripts have been unearthed since 1611 to give us a more reliable text. The manuscripts were used in giving us the RSV.

Thirdly, let me ask brother Graham a question: If I read the KJV omitting the italics will I be reading the original text of the scriptures? He will have to answer in the negative so he need not reply personally. Neither we nor anyone else has a copy of the original manuscripts. We have copies. In all, more than 4500 copies of the original manuscripts but not one original. We come to a knowledge of the true word of God through careful examination of the most reliable copies and by cross comparison of manuscripts. Through these methods, we get our translations.

Brother Graham insists that the RSV denies the inspiration of the Bible. The only way I can refute brother Graham on these points is to merely quote the RSV and let it speak for itself. Second Timothy 3:16 is in the RSV and it says, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness.” Another passage found in the RSV is 2 Peter 1:20 which says, “No prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (RSV).

He also insists the RSV denies the deity of Christ. But what does the RSV say? “Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:27, 28). Notice John says Thomas called him (Jesus) his God. Let us not forget John 1:1 also, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God” (RSV). There are many other passages we could quote but for lack of space we will let these suffice for now.

In his third paragraph brother Graham insists another major fault lies in the RSV’s attack (?) on the miraculous conception of Jesus in Mary’s womb. His proof is the Hebrew word that is rendered “virgin” in the KJV in Isaiah 7:14 is rendered “young woman” in the RSV. I am not an authority on the original languages but the articles I have read concerning this passage indicate that the Hebrew word can be rendered either way. The RSV has a footnote that says it also can be translated as virgin. But this is not the point. Let me ask brother Graham another question: Do you believe that you can come to a knowledge of the truth on any Bible doctrine by merely looking to one passage of scripture? I may be assuming too much but I believe he would agree that we have to look at every passage that we can find on a given subject .before we can come to a correct conclusion. I will progress on the grounds that my assumption is correct and leave it to him to tell me if I am wrong about his method of interpretation. Now then, what else does the RSV say about the birth of Christ besides what is found in Isaiah 7:14? Matthew 1:18 says, “Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way, When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was, found to be with child by the Holy Spirit, ” Verse 22 puts the whole thing together saying, “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet; Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son” (RSV) Does this sound like the RSV “attacks” the miraculous conception of Jesus? I will leave it to the reader’s judgment. Notice also Luke 1:26, 27 where it is twice mentioned that Mary was a virgin.

He claims that the RSV “butchered” Jesus’ relationship to the Law and prophets in Matt. 5:17 by having him saying that he came not to abolish but to fulfill. What would brother Graham have us accept? The KJV does not relieve him of the difficulty. The KJV says, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law . . . .” The RSV says, “Think not that I am come to abolish the law . . . .” What is the difference? “Abolish,” in Websters Collegiate Dictionary means, “to destroy completely,” exactly the term the KJV uses! The point is His coming was not to abolish the law. His coming did not do away with the law, else the law would have done away with at his birth or at the very latest the beginning of His ministry. On the contrary, we know from Gal. 4:4 that he lived under the law and was subiect to it. The abolishment of the law was accomplished by His death (Col. 2:14; Eph. 2:15). The new covenant could not come into effect until His death (Heb. 9:16, 17).

Now we arrive at his final argument. He objects to the omission of the final paragraph (verses 9-20) of Mark 16. This was true in the earlier editions of the RSV. I presently have in my possession a copy of the latest RSV and it includes the total text of Mark 16. It is not a footnote or in italics as in earlier copies of the RSV. Since his argument here is outdated it need not be replied to.

Conclusion

In conclusion let me say that “perversions” can be found in any translation including the KJV. This happens when we take one verse and claim the whole version poisonous because of implications of the one verse. This can also be done with the KJV. For instance, in the KJV, 1 Cor. 10:24 reads, “Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.” This perverts true Christianity! Here is a command to covet and that in the KJV! We know this is not the case, but how do we know? By reading the rest of the translation and understanding how this language was used in 1611. If we will but “study to show ourselves approved of God” we will be able to “rightly divide the Word of Truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).

Truth Magazine XXII: 45, pp. 728-729
November 16, 1978

By Mike Willis

Every man should have the knowledge of salvation and the blessed assurance that should he die he would go to be at home with God. Yet, how does one know when and if he is saved? This has been a question asked by many through the years. Indeed, this has been a question frequently answered by the preachers. who restored New Testament Christianity in this country. They preached on this subject repeatedly, although they titled their lesson differently. Rather than entitling their lesson “How Can We Know That We Are Saved?” they called their lessons “The Evidence of Pardon.” Yet, they grappled with the idea of how one can know that he is saved.

Feelings Are No Evidence of Salvation

Many people rest their assurance of salvation squarely upon their own personal sensations despite the fact that the Bible repeatedly warns that personal feelings are not absolutely trustworthy. Sometimes people feel a certain way about a matter as a result of testimony that is unreliable. They experience all of the feelings which one would experience if the testimony was reliable. For example, when Absalom plotted the death of Amnon, he invited all of his brothers to a sheepshearing feast in Baal-hazor. While Amnon was there, Absalom’s servants killed him. The word came back to David that Absalom had murdered all of the king’s sons. “Then the king arose, and tore his garments, and lay on the earth” (2 Sam. 13:31). David felt the same way as he would have felt had the testimony which he had heard been true. Judging from his personal feelings, all of his children except Absalom were dead. Yet, his feelings were not based on reliable evidence; they were based on false testimony.

That the same thing might happen with reference to personal salvation is abundantly clear from the case of Saul of Tarsus. Saul had a clear conscience until the time that Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus. Speaking of the time when he persecuted Christians, Saul said, “I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 26:9). He lived in all good conscience (Acts 23:1) during the time that he was a persecutor, blasphemer, and injurious person (1 Tim. 1:13): Despite the fact that he thought that he was in a saved relationship with God, he was lost and doomed to hell. No man better illustrates the truth of the proverb “there is a way which seemeth right unto man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12; 16:25) than does Saul of Tarsus. His personal feelings produced no salvation.

Feelings are simply a result of testimony; they say nothing about the truthfulness of that testimony. A man may certainly experience all of the emotions which come with salvation without experiencing salvation. Someone may give him the false testimony regarding what he must do to be saved (such as “worship Buddha”) resulting in that man feeling saved (indeed, experiencing all of the emotions which come with true salvation) without him ever being saved. Hence, the fact that one has experienced certain feelings is no guarantee of salvation. Believing that one is saved does not save that person.

Salvation Through God’s Pardon

We must remember that salvation from sins occurs when God forgives us of sins. Forgiveness of sins occurs in the mind of God. God is the one who was sinned against; He is the one who has the right to grant pardon and forgiveness. What goes on in my mind with reference to me feeling forgiven does not say one thing about whether or not I have been forgiven! Let me illustrate this point. Suppose that a man sat on death row in prison for having committed some crime. Pardon could be granted to that man by the governor; the governor has the legislated power to pardon a criminal. However, in order for that man to be pardoned, the governor would have to grant the pardon. After finding out about that pardon, the man would normally rejoice. Later, he would be released. However, let us reverse this situation as is often done in conversion. Let us suppose that this man sitting on death row tried to convince the guards to release him because he felt that he was pardoned, although no communication from the governor to that effect had been issued. Would the guards release him? Absolutely not! The pardon must be granted before the man can be released.

With reference to salvation, God must grant the forgiveness of sins (the pardon) before the feelings which a man has have any meaning at all. Yet, how does one receive the word of pardon from the Lord? Obviously, God does not issue a formal decree sent down from heaven to an individual to let him know that he has been forgiven. Yet, our knowledge of salvation must come through God’s statement of salvation. That is done through the written word of God, the Bible.

In the Bible, God has promised salvation to man conditionally. When man meets those conditions, God has promised to save him. When we learn what those conditions are and meet them, we can know that we are saved because God has promised to save the man who meets them and He cannot lie. Hence, our assurance of salvation rests squarely upon the promises of God.

Divine Conditions For Salvation

In order to be saved, man must have his sins forgiven through the blood of Christ which manifests God’s grace. Obviously, man cannot save himself. Hence, to be saved he must comply with the conditions laid down by God to receive His proffered grace. In order to be saved, man must obey the gospel. It is dangerous for a man not to obey the gospel, Peter wrote, “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” (1 Pet. 4:17-18). Damnation will be given to those who do not obey the gospel (2 Thess. 1:7). In contrast, our obedience to the truth purifies our soul (1 Pet. 1:22) as we meet the conditions for receiving God’s grace.

Specifically, the conditions for receiving salvation are as follows: (1) Believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15-16). In order for a man to be saved, he must believe the glorious gospel-the good news of salvation by grace through faith in Christ. (2) Repent of sins. The conditions for salvation include the repentance of sins. Paul told the Athenians, “And the time of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31). (3) Confession of faith. In order to be saved, a man must confess his faith in Jesus. Paul wrote, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:9-10). (4) Be baptized. As another condition for receiving God’s. grace, Jesus has required that a man be baptized (immersed) in water. In response to the Jews on Pentecost who asked what they had to do to be saved, Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38).

These are the divine conditions for receiving the forgiveness of sins. Through these acts of obedience, elsewhere called “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26), one meets the conditions for receiving forgiveness of sins. Let it be clearly understood that one cannot earn his salvation through these means. Rather, these are simply the conditions for receiving the free gift of God’s grace.

Knowledge of Salvation

I can know that I am saved when I meet these divine conditions for receiving God’s grace. God has promised salvation to those who so respond to His offer of grace. I know that I have the salvation which He has offered when I have responded in this fashion to His grace. My assurance of salvation rests squarely upon the promises of God; His divine veracity is at stake in my salvation.

On the other side, I can have no assurance of salvation so long as there is one part of God’s conditions for receiving His grace with which I have not complied. If I have not repented of my sins, I cannot have an assurance of salvation; if I have not confessed faith in Jesus, I cannot have an assurance of salvation; if I have not been immersed in water, I cannot have an assurance of salvation. The man who promises salvation to a man who has not met the conditions laid down by God for salvation promises more than God has promised. The only assurance which the man who had not met these conditions can have of salvation is only so much as mere man can give. There is no divine assurance of salvation to any one who does not meet the conditions for salvation.

The only genuine assurance of salvation which a man can have is that which comes through God’s holy word. Only when I learn the conditions laid down for salvation as revealed in that word and comply with them can I know that I am saved. There is no assurance of salvation through any other means.

Truth Magazine XXII: 45, pp. 723-725
November 16, 1978