Truth Magazine

By Dan Walters

In regard to Brother Jeffery Kingry’s review (June 22) of my review (March 2) of an initial article of his on poverty (Sept. 15, 1977), I shall first deal with his arguments and then with his personal attack on me. Brother Kingry maintains that since he was not writing on the welfare system, I should not have brought it up. In fact he attacked the slogan, “I fight poverty-I work,” and the songs and jokes about the “welfare Cadillac” as examples of a wrong attitude toward the poor. Surely Brother Kingry is aware that the first slogan was a direct reaction to the late President Johnson’s War on Poverty; the latter slogan is a reaction to welfare abuse. By attacking these slogans, he implied that we should not ridicule the wasteful Federal welfare program, since that is the only thing these slogans were ever intended to do.

The Federal statistics he uses to “prove” widespread poverty in America are from 14 to 18 years old, and thus obsolete. Professor Martin Anderson of the Hoover Institution in a recent study, Welfare: The Political Economy of Welfare Reform (Hoover Press, Stanford, Calif.), demonstrates that real poverty in the U.S. has been practically abolished. The government is now spending a quarter of a trillion dollars annually to help poor people.

I do not say that a person has to sell all he has before he can be helped. I do say that he should sell expensive luxury items before he should present himself as an object of charity. The basic cause of poverty is sin, not always of the poor themselves, and as long as we live in a sinful world we cannot eliminate the causes of poverty. A rich nation like the U.S. can provide a free living for the poor, at tremendous monetary and human costs. Whether it should or not is a political question with some moral implications.

The churches of New Testament times helped those of their own who were in need; churches today must do the same. However, there are far fewer needy persons in modern America than in the old Roman Empire. This allows us to use more of our money for evangelism and edification. But if Brother Kingry had his way he would take all Christians off government welfare and put them on church welfare. He does not attempt to defend this novel idea in his second article. Neither does he defend his notion that special collections taken from individuals are unscriptural.

Because I had the audacity to disagree with him, Brother Kingry charges me with (1) being abusive and judgmental, (2) failing to meet the Holy Spirit’s requirements, (3) walking “not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel,” (4) having despised the poor, (5) being ignorant and prejudiced, (6) engaging in public foolishness, (7) being wrong, guilty of hardness of heart, and in need of repentance, (8) decreeing “unrighteous decrees” and writing “grievousness.” This personal attack will not help his cause or his reputation as a writer. I at least have the comfort of being in good company, since he earlier attacked brethren Yater Tant and Bryan Vinson as “bigots.” I have no charge to make against Brother Kingry other than to say that I am innocent of the eight charges above, which makes him at least mistaken.

If Brother Kingry regards me as a knave and a fool, that is his business, but it is of no interest to the readers of a gospel paper who want to study issues, not personalities. Brethren ought to be able to disagree on the exact application of scriptural principles without considering one another as outcasts. It is one thing to press a point with firmness, it is another thing entirely to slander a brother in Christ. I always regret a situation such as this because it lends support to the view that brethren ought not to engage in public controversies and debates. Remember that it is not the debate that is to blame; it is the poor attitude of some debaters.

Truth Magazine XXII: 35, p. 570
September 7, 1978

By John McCort

In the last few years most liberal preachers have become unwilling to discuss institutionalism in public debate. Those few who are still willing to defend their beliefs have taken a very strange position. They will not sign their names to a proposition that names a specific institution. They will not, for example, specifically defend Boles Home or the Herald of Truth. The only thing they will debate is the principle behind these institutions. A case in point is the debate that is to take place this spring between Connie Adams and Clifton Inman.

Recently I had a discussion with a prominent liberal preacher. I asked him why he would not defend a specific orphans home. He said, “I don’t want to have to defend the abuses that have characterized many of these institutions.” In essence what he was saying was that he could not think of one institution that he would be willing to defend.

It is a sad commentary indeed when these preachers can not find one good example of what they are trying to defend. Is it not sad that the institutions that divided the body of Christ are now past the point of public defense? Out of all of the human institutions the liberals have invented why is it that they can not find at least one that can be defended in public debate?

What is the cause of these abuses. I believe a contributing cause is the centralization of power and funds. Many of these orphan homes are nearly self-sustaining now because of investments they have made with the money given by local churches. One orphans home even loaned money to New York City! They have farms, oil wells, gas leases, investment properties, etc . . . . It is very embarrassing to these liberal preachers when the budgets of their pet institutions are exposed. It is embarrassing to find that about $300,000 a year is spent by the Herald of Truth just to beg more money. It is very embarrassing to find that less than 50 percent of the Herald of Truth budget actually goes into the production of films. Personally, I have not found the scriptural authority for the Lord’s money to be used to loan New York City $25,000 or for the church to get into any kind of business.

Why Won’t They Debate?

I fail to understand why the liberals will not debate any longer unless they realize that debates will only cause them to lose members. Many preachers are hiding behind the fact that their elders do not want them getting involved in debates of this kind. I can make one guarantee: if the elders where I preach refuse to grant me permission to defend the truth in a public manner they would have my immediate resignation. I could not work in a situation where my efforts to spread the gospel were being stymied.

Truth Magazine XXII: 35, p. 569
September 7, 1978

By John McCort

In the last 25 years there has been quite a bit of discussion over whether the church can render benevolent assistance to non-Christians out of the church treasury. Our institutional brethren have long defended the practice of general, unlimited benevolence. They use such passages as Gal. 6:10, Jas. 1:27, Matt. 25:36 to defend their practice. Such passages, though, apply only to what the individual can do in benevolence and not the church.

There is only one passage in the New Testament that is obviously speaking of church action which could possibly be referring to the practice of unlimited benevolence. That passage is 2 Cor. 9:13. It reads, “While by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto all men.”

Their main argument centers around the phrase “all men.” The distribution (benevolence) was made unto them (saints) and unto all men. Their argument is that the church sent benevolence not only to the saints but also unto all men. This passage is the pivotal point around which the wheel of unlimited benevolence turns. The whole question stands or falls on this passage.

The key phrase in this passage is “all men.” One very significant point is that the word “men” is in italics in the King James Version. The word “men” is omitted in all major translations. For example the American Standard Version reads, “and for the liberality of your contribution unto them and unto all.” Any word in italics is a word which has been supplied by the translators. All major translations after the KJV left out the “men” and thus the translators must have felt that the “men” was not implied in the text.

The Greek word for “all” is pantas. Pantas, defined, means, “all of a like kind, everything.” It has no inherent reference to humans. It just means all. Sometimes it can be referring to all mankind but at other times it does not. Context must determine its usage.

The following are some passages in which pantas (or its derivatives) obviously refer only to saints. “And he gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, unto the work of ministering, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all (pantes) come in unity of the faith” (Eph. 4:11-13). The “we all” obviously is the church or saints. “But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all (pantes) . . .” (Gal. 2:14). Paul rebuked Peter before other saints; not the whole world. “Them that sin rebuke before all (panton)” (1 Tim. 5:20). Again, we are to rebuke sinful Christians in the presence of other Christians that they might be in fear.

Literally 2 Cor. 9:13 means that the benevolence being given by the brethren at Corinth was unto them (the saints in Jerusalem) and unto all other saints who were in like circumstances. If the “them” of 1 Tim. 5:20 is saints and the “all” are other saints then why can not the “them” of 2 Cor. 9:13 be saints and the “all” be other saints in like circumstance?

Context

Context must determine the usage of any Scripture. Look very closely at the context of 2 Cor. 9:13. “. . . and take upon us the fellowship of ministering to the saints” (2 Cor. 8:4). “But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want that their abundance may be a supply for your want; that there may be equality” (2 Cor. 8:14). It would be impossible for there to be economic equality among all alien sinners in Jerusalem. Thus it becomes apparent that 2 Cor. 8:14 could not be referring to a benevolent contribution to all alien sinners in Jerusalem but only to the saints. Since 2 Cor. 8:14 and 2 Cor. 9:13 are referring to the same contribution it is obvious that 2 Cor. 9:13 could not be referring to a benevolent contribution to all mankind in Jerusalem and elsewhere. “For as touching the ministering to the saints . . .” (2 Cor. 9:1). “For the administration of this service not only supplieth the want of saints . . .” (2 Cor. 9:12).

The Bible says that the benevolence was raised for the saints (1 Cor. 16:1-3), was sent to the saints (Rom. 15:25), was received by saints (Rom. 15:26), and supplied the wants of the saints (2 Cor. 9:12). If this benevolence was given also to non-saints then Paul misapplied those funds because they were intended to relieve the needs of the saints.

Rom. 15:25-31

Rom. 15:25-31 is discussing the same benevolent contribution sent to the saints in Jerusalem as was discussed in 2 Cor. 9:13 (cf. 2 Cor. 9:1-2; 1 Cor. 16:1-6; Rom. 15:26). Rom. 15:25-31 acts as a divine commentary on 2 Cor. 9:13. The apostle Paul wrote, “But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints” (15:25). Nothing was said about going to minister to non-saints as well. He said further, “For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem” (15:26). Again, nothing is said about non-saints.

“It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things” (15:27). Those sending the contribution (Gentiles) were made partakers of spiritual things with those receiving the contribution (Jerusalem saints). Paul argued that if they shared in spiritual things they also ought to share in carnal things such as money. Here is the key point. The sending brethren and those receiving the benevolence shared in spiritual things. Non-Christians do not share spiritual blessings with Christians (Eph. 1:3). Since all spiritual blessings are in Christ that means that those sending and those receiving must all be in Christ. The word for “partakers” in 15:27 is the Greek word ekoinonasan. This is the Greek word for fellowship. In the New Testament fellowship never refers to a relationship a Christian sustains with a non-Christian (2 Cor. 6:14; Eph. 5:10).

Paul prayed that he “may be delivered from them that do not believe in Judea” (15:31). If Paul was giving money to non-believers why did he pray to be delivered from them? “. . . that my ministration which I have for Jerusalem may be accepted of the saints.” Paul prayed that the benevolence would be accepted by the saints. He never mentioned the fact that unbelievers might not accept the gift.

Fellowship

“. . . and for your liberal distribution (koinonia) unto them, and unto all men.” The word distribution is also translated contribution in the ASV. It is the Greek word koinonia which is the Greek word for fellowship. Thayer comments, “. . . used of the intimate bond which unites Christians” (Thayer, p. 352).

Fellowship never refers to a relationship that a Christian sustains with a non-Christian. “. . . for what fellowship (koinonia) hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?…Or what part hath he that believeth with the infidel?” (2 Cor. 6:14-15). In 2 Cor. 9:13, our institutional brethren have saints having fellowship with non-saints which is an unscriptural position .

“. . . that ye also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ . . . But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another . . .” (1 John 1:3, 7). Our fellowship with one another is based on us having prior fellowship with God. Since non-saints do not have fellowship with God then we can not have fellowship with them. Thayer further comments that the benevolence of 2 Cor. 9:13 was a proof of fellowship.

Prayer

2 Cor. 9:14, “And by their prayer for you, which long after you for the exceeding grace of God in you.” According to the institutional view the “all men” of 2 Cor. 9:13 was non-saints. In 2 Cor. 9:14 the “their prayer for you” refers back to the “all men” of 9:13. If the all men were non-saints, then non-saints were praying to God in behalf of the apostles which is not characteristic of nonChristians. Those praying for the apostles were also longing after the apostles. (9:14) Yet Paul prayed that he might be delivered from the unbelievers in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:31). Why would Paul pray to be delivered from unbelievers who were longing afterhim? That just does not make sense unless the “all” of vs. 13 is saints.

Parallel Passages

The liberals make a very complicated argument based upon some alleged parallel passages. They cite such passages as Gal. 6:10 where it reads, “As ye therefore have opportunity do good unto all men, especially those of the household of faith.” The all men of Gal. 6:10 is obviously non-Christians. They also cite 1 Thess. 3:12; 1 Thess. 5:15; and Acts 5:11 where “saints” and “all men” are mentioned in the same passage. Their basic argument is that in the passages where saints and all men are used in the same passage that the all men cannot refer to other saints (cf. 2 Cor. 9:13).

This argument does not hold true. For example 1 Tim. 5:20, “Them that sin (saints) rebuke in the presence of all (pantes, other saints) . . .” (compare the them and the all of both 1 Tim. 5:20 and 2 Cor. 9:13). Gal. 2:14, “But when I saw that they (Peter and other saints) walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter (saint) before them all (pantes; the church, other saints) . . .” (cf. 1 Cor. 16:16; 2 Cor. 13:2; 1 Cor. 15:7-8).

They make a very arbritrary argument that Gal. 6:10; 1 Thess. 3:12; Acts 5:11; and 1 Thess. 5:15 are the only passages in the New Testament which are parallel to 2 Cor. 9:13. This is not true. Acts 2:44-45 has more things in common with 2 Cor. 9:13 than those other passages. “And all that believed were together (saints) and had all things common (koina) and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men (pasin) as every man had need.” In this passage it is obvious that the all men were believers. Both passages contain the root derivative koina which is the Greek word for fellowship. In both passages church benevolence is the subject. Both passages contain both saints and all in the same passage. Since the all men of Acts 2:44-45 is saints, then why can not the all men of 2 Cor. 9:13 also be saints?

One thing that is obvious is that Gal. 6:10; Acts 5:11; 1 Thess. 3:12; and 1 Thess. 5:15 are all speaking of individual action. Not one of these passages speak of money. These passages do not speak of the treasury being used to aid non-Christians. Therefore, according to the rule of parallel passages Acts 2:44-45 is a truer parallel to 2 Cor. 9:13 than all these other passages.

A close examination of 2 Cor. 9:13 reveals that this passage does not authorize the church taking money out of its treasury to aid non-Christians and, thus, the general benevolence position is false.

Truth Magazine XXII: 34, pp. 555-556
August 31, 1978

By Mike Willis

Having rejected the Calvinist doctrine of predestination and election, we now propose to consider what the Bible actually does teach is predestined and what the Bible actually teaches about election. That the Bible actually does teach on these subjects is apparent from a cursory consideration of some of the following passages:

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified (Rom. 8:28-30).

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will (Eph. 1:3-5).

Let us consider these passages and a few others to see exactly what the Bible teaches about the doctrines of predestination

and election. We are not interested in this article about the Calvinist perversions of these doctrines; we are only interested in what the Scriptures actually teach about the subject.

God’s Work Through Jesus Christ

From beginning to end, the Bible is concerned about God’s work through Jesus Christ. God predetermined from the beginning of all time to redeem mankind through His Son Jesus Christ. Hence, when we begin to speak about the doctrine of predestination, we begin by recognizing that God’s predetermination was to save men through His Son. It was God’s will that Jesus die for our sins; hence, Peter stated on the day of Pentecost, “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” (Acts 2:22-23).

God’s plan for the salvation of man was predetermined from the beginning. When man sinned, God began to work to save him. He planned to do this through the sending of Jesus Christ. God took upon Himself the form of a man and dwelt among us. He even endured the agonies of Calvary that we might be redeemed from our sins. If we will but remember that this is the primary thing predetermined by God, and not the salvation or damnation of specific persons, we will have moved a long way in understanding a difficult subject. Now, let us look at some of the specific passages which teach about predestination and see what has been predetermined.

Ephesians 1:3-14

Please open your Bibles to this passage and specifically examine the individual verses which I mention in this discussion. Space will not allow me to reproduce the verses at this place. Let us, therefore, notice what God has chosen in this passage:

1. To bless us through His Son. The thing which God has predetermined is to bless all men through the Son of God. Notice the specific statements: (a) “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ (v. 3); (b) “According as he hath chosen us in him . . .” (v. 4); (c) “having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ . . .” (v. 5); (d) “. . . wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved” (v. 6); (e) “in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins. . . ” (v. 7); (f) “that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ” (v. 10); (g) “in whom also we have obtained an inheritance” (v. 11).

Hence, God predetermined the realm in which men would be saved-in Christ! No one can be saved, blessed of God, except in Christ our Redeemer. The predestination which we read of in the Scriptures, therefore, is God’s predetermined plan to give all of His spiritual blessings to mankind through His Son Jesus Christ.

2. To have those who are redeemed in Christ to be holy and without blame (v. 4). God has not only predetermined the realm in which men would be saved (in Christ), He has also determined the character of those who will be saved. Those who will be saved must be holy and without blame. Man is “without blame” through the forgiveness of sins made possible through the precious blood of the Lamb of God. Having his sins washed away through Christ’s blood, man stands before God with6ut blame. His character is that of a saint; he tries to walk in moral purity. All of this, God predetermined before the first man was ever saved. He predetermined the character of those whom He would save. God never thought about saving the man who rebelliously walks in wickedness; He predetermined to save those who walk in moral purity.

3. To adopt these who are saved in Christ as children (v. 5). The text reads, “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ . . .” (v. 5). God also predetermined that those who would be redeemed through Christ would receive the adoption as sons. (See Gal. 4:1-6 for further discussion of the idea of adoption as sons.) Again, we read nothing about a specific person being chosen for salvation and another person chosen for damnation through the arbitrary will of God. Rather, we read what God predetermined to do for those who were saved through Christ-to adopt them as children.

4. To gather together in one all things in Christ (v. 10). In addition to the things previously mentioned as being a part of God’s predetermined will, Paul added, “that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ . . .” (v. 10). And this is what God has done. He brought together both Jew and Gentile in one body through Jesus Christ. Regarding this, Paul wrote, “And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby” (Eph. 2:16). What God predetermined to do was to save both Jew and Gentile in the one body (the church) through the one Savior, Jesus Christ.

5. To obtain an inheritance (v. 11J. Verse 11 reads as follows: “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” God also predetermined to grant an inheritance to those who are redeemed through His Son.

Notice, in summary, what Eph. 1:3-14 teaches. It does not teach that God predetermined before the foundation of the world and without consideration as to what He might see in man (such as faith and obedience to His will) to save a given individual and to damn another. Rather, God chose His plan for the redemption of man through Jesus Christ and the blessings which He would grant to men through that Christ.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This passage gives some people a good bit of trouble. Let us begin by noting who is spoken of in this passage. They are variously described as “them that love God” and “them who are called.” Those who love God are those who keep His commandments (Jn. 14:15, 21, 23); the call which God gives to men is through the gospel (2 Thess. 2:14). Hence, we are not discussing some men who received some kind of secret divine call in some mysterious way. We are discussing those who have heard the call of the gospel and obeyed it.

God, before the world began, looked ahead and saw that certain persons would obey His word and that others would not. I do not mean that God foresaw that some would and some would not obey; rather, God foreknew exactly who would and who would not obey His word. Yet, foreknowledge is not predetermination. Furthermore, for God to foreknow what a man with free will is going to do is no more difficult for His almighty power and omniscience than for Him to know what a mere robot would do. Hence, I see no problem in admitting that God knew before the world ever began all persons who would be saved and all who would be lost. To teach that God predetermined both of these groups, however, causes untold problems for the disciple of the biblical text.

Now, here is what God predetermined: “for whom He did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son” (v. 29). God predetermined before the world began that those who would be obedient to His will would be conformed to the image of His Son, i.e., that they would receive the same resurrection body as His Son received.

Here are the other things which God has done for this group: (1) Called them. This has occurred through the preaching of the gospel. Paul later wrote, “whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess. 2:14). Those who are going to be saved have all been called through the preaching of the gospel. None else can be saved. (2) Justified them. God predetermined that this group would not only be called but that they would also be justified, i.e., made to stand without sin before the law. He did this through remitting their sins. (3) Glorified. These persons who chose of their.own free will to be obedient to the Lord’s will, God has predetermined to glorify. This, of course, refers to God’s plan to give us a home with Him in heaven.

Conclusion

We see now what the Bible doctrine of predestination actually is. There is nothing in these verses ‘which remotely intimates that God personally chose every man who would be saved without regard to whether or not that person would be obedient to His will or not. Nor, is there anything which intimates that God arbitrarily decided to damn men without regard to their disposition toward Him. Rather, God’s predetermination concerns His work through His Son and His plans for those who obey Jesus.

Truth Magazine XXII: 35, pp. 563-565
September 7, 1978