Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

You and I have no greater need than the love of God. Without divine love only darkness, doom and despair would await us. Early in life many of us were reminded of the love of God. Little songs fell from our lips as the message registered in our hearts.

“Jesus loves me! this I know, For the Bible tells me so. . .”

Simple little prayers were said, such as the following before meals:

“God is great; God is good. Let us thank Him for our food. In Jesus’ name–Amen.”

Jesus loves me. God is good. What simple childlike words yet how profound their meaning! Mature minds need to reflect on the powerful thoughts conveyed by these precious little sentences.

The love of God is what prompted the gift of His Son. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:6-8). “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 Jobn 4:9, 10).

God loved mankind even after the human race fell under the influence of Satan and plunged headlong into iniquity. Sin abounded, but the grace of God did much more abound (Rom. 5:20). Sin separated man from God. However, the Creator desired reconciliation. He loved mankind in general and every lost soul in particular. Therefore, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them” (2 Cor. 5:19). No person on earth deserved to be rescued from sin, but out of the matchless love of God came the gospel of grace. The apostles made known the gospel. As ambassadors for Christ they preached “the word of reconciliation,” urging sinful men to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:18-20).

It is the love of God that makes possible a way of escape from sin. It is the love of God that enables you and me to be children of God. “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God. . .” (1 John 3:1). Without God’s love there would be no inheritance in Christ.

It is sometimes assumed that when persecutions come, tribulations arise, and distresses overtake us, God has abandoned us and divine love has ceased. Paul raised the question, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” The world may point to our afflictions as evidence that our Master has ceased to care about us, but it is not so! In all our sufferings and hardships “we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.” The first-century Christians were taught to rejoice in tribulations. In our hardships we may achieve a glorious victory. “For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:35-39).

The love of God is reciprocal. John expressed this thought pointedly when he wrote, “We love him, because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). We are furnished with the strongest form of motivation for loving God when we remember that He loved us.

“Since the love of God has shed

priceless blessings on my head,

I have made it my own;

I w ill hide it in my heart,

that it never may depart,

It shall rule there alone.

“While His love burns true and bright,

we are walking in the light,

He has shown us the road;

We His glory must reflect,

lest our dimness and neglect

Keep some soul from its God.”

Redemption is the grand theme of the Bible. From the love of God proceeded the plan of redemption. It is the love of God that makes possible the daily provisions for our temporal necessities. We live because God loves. We have hope of a better life because God loves. We rejoice and take courage because God loves.

Truth Magazine XXII: 7, pp. 121-122
February 16, 1978

By Larry Ray Hafley

“The Rev. Dr. Herbert Higdon . . . in his first sermon to his new congregation” said, “I am a Baptist from head to toe, and I expect you to be Baptists from head to toe” (The Tennessean, Monday, May 1, 1977, p. 18).

Well, I did not know how much of the anatomy a Baptist included, but now I am informed that a complete Baptist is one “from head to toe.” The “Dr.” necessarily implies that one can be less than a whole Baptist-say, from head to kneecap. He expects them, though, to be Baptists “from head to toe.” What happens to a fellow who is a Baptist to his waist?

Baptist doctrine says the outer man (“from head to toe”) is a child of the devil and remains so until the resurrection. Only the inner man is saved, sanctified,, purified, and justified. The outer man is corrupt, polluted, and depraved. Which one is to be a Baptist “from head to toe,” the inner man or the outer man? It cannot be the outer man. He is a child of the devil. It cannot be the inner man. He cannot be baptized in water, and the only way to constitute one a Baptist is to baptize him. So, Baptists baptize the outer man, who is a child of the devil, and enroll him in the Baptist Church, “from head to toe,” I suppose. Who is it; what is it that is urged to “be a Baptist from head to toe”? Not the inner man, he cannot be immersed in water; not the outer man, he is a child of the devil; who, then?

An Apostolic Expectation?

In expecting “his congregation” to “be Baptists from head to toe,” the “Rev. Dr.” expects something which no New Testament writer ever expected. “And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:26). King Herod Agrippa II said, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Baptist?” No, excuse me,. .”a Christian” (Acts 26:28). Peter said, “If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf,” or “in this name” (American Standard Version, 1 Pet. 4:16). We would be happy to see the text where anyone in the New Testament was expected to be a Baptist from head to shoulder blades, let along “from head to toe.” I have been reading the Bible for a few years, and if there is a passage that talks about “a Baptist” I have failed to find it. If it is to be found, will some Baptist please send it, along with a one way ticket to a Baptist altar-call service? I will not be making a return trip if such a passage has escaped my attention.

Truth Magazine XXII: 7, p. 121
February 16, 1978

By Weldon E. Warnock

Each proponent of a personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit assumes the very thing to be proved. He reads the passages that deal with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (or at least to him they seem to) and proceeds to assume they teach a personal indwelling.

Proposed Proof-texts

(1) One passage that is frequently used is Acts 2:38. That verse states, “Repent, and be baptized . . . .for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” The verse does not say that one shall receive the direct, personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It says that the person who repents and is baptized “shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” This is what the passage states and all that it states.

Grammatically, the “gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 2:38 may be the Holy Spirit, Himself, or it may be what the Holy Spirit gives. The Greek, “tou hagion pneumatos,” may be either objective genitive or subjective genitive. If it is objective, it means the Holy Spirit, Himself. If it is subjective, it is what the Holy Spirit gives. Being unable to determine which grammatical structure is correct in the text, we must decide the matter by doctrinal truth. Since the Bible does not teach a personal indwelling, Acts 2:38 would most logically call for the subjective genitive, or, as we know it in English, the possessive case.

Let us examine some comparable Scriptures. John 4:10 speaks of the “gift of God.” Ephesians 4:7 has “gift of Christ.” In both passages, the genitive (God, Christ) is clearly the giver. God and Christ give believers something. In like-manner, the Holy Spirit could just as plausibly be the giver rather than the gift, Himself. Hence, Peter is saying, “. . .ye shall receive the Holy Spirit’s gift.”

My conviction is the gift of the Holy Spirit is salvation that is contained in the promise of verse 39, salvation being a consequent result of remission of sins. This is not redundancy as remission of sins and salvation are not equivalents. Paraphrasing, Peter is saying, “Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive salvation from the Spirit. For the promise of salvation is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” This promise was, “. . .whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21).

If it could be proved that the Holy Spirit was objective genitive in Acts 2:38, there would still be the problem of determining whether the gift was literal or metaphorical. We have already seen that persons are often used in the Bible, metonymically, and, therefore, the Holy Spirit could be put for the effect. Hence, a personal indwelling has not been established, even if the gift of the Holy Spirit is objective genitive.

(2) Another proposed proof-text is Acts 5:32. Peter said, “And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.” This verse has reference to the miraculous witnessing of the Holy Spirit in the first century Christians when miracles were in effect. The Holy Spirit witnessed to the validity of the Word which the apostles and prophets preached (Jn. 15:26; Mk. 16:20; Heb. 2:34). There is no personal indwelling in this text, but by metonymy, the Holy Spirit is put for the miraculous endowments.

(3) Several other passages are used to try to establish a personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Such passages as Lk. 11:13; Jn. 7:38-39; Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 6:19; Eph. 1:13-145; 1 Jn. 3:24 are employed to prove (?) the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We cannot deal with each one of these verses due to the limitation of space. But read the passages and notice that not a one of them, or any others, says one word about a personal indwelling. This point is assumed, and an argument built on an assumption is no argument at all.

Functions Attributed To A Personal Indwelling

After assuming that the Holy Spirit personally dwells in us, some try to find activities and functions for the Spirit to perform, separate and apart from the Word of God. They cannot imagine the Holy Spirit being dormant and inactive while He lives in children of God. So, they try to find something for Him to do. Let us consider some of the functions they attribute to the Holy Spirit and see if they are substantiated by the Scriptures.

(1) “He sheds abroad the love of God.” Romans 5:5 is quoted as proof. The verse states, “. . . because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” This passage, however, simply states what is done and not how it is accomplished. Love for God is learned through the gospel which was dictated and directed by the Holy Spirit. The phrase, “by the Holy Ghost,” simply means that the Spirit is the agency. John said, “We love him because he first loved us” (1 Jn. 4:19). We can only know of God’s love through the gospel and we love God as a result of learning of His love.

(2) “He helps our infirmities.” Romans 8:26 is the proposed Scripture for this affirmation. Paul said, “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” Nowhere in this text is there a hint of the Spirit doing something upon us or in us. The verse’s application is what the Spirit is doing in heaven, not in the human body.

Too, there has been much discussion as to whether verse 26 has reference to the human spirit rather than the Holy Spirit. It is the translator’s judgment on occasions whether the Greek word, “pneuma,” should be translated with a capital (S) or a small (s). It is difficult to imagine that the Holy Spirit has groanings (pains), as the verse indicates. The Spirit is not in pain. Human beings do have sufferings and afflictions, though.

(3) “He strengthens the inner. man.” Paul wrote, “. . .to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man” (Eph. 3:14). In this text, “by the” Spirit,” expresses agency. The Spirit strengthens, but this verse does not tell us how. The Bible plainly teaches that strength comes through the Word of God which was revealed by the Holy Spirit. Paul wrote, “. . . .increasing in the knowledge of God; Strengthened with all might. . .” (Col. 1:10-11). Strength follows knowledge of God. Paul told the Ephesian elders, “I commend you to God, and to . the word of his grace, which is able to build you up. . .” (Acts 20:32). The Word, as clearly stated, builds us up, strengthens us, and not a direct operation of the Spirit.

(4) “He guides and directs.” Luke wrote of Paul and his companions, “Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, after they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not” (Acts 16:6-7). It is affirmed that the Holy Spirit is still leading and directing our lives in a direct and immediate way.

Reportedly, one man claimed that the Holy Spirit led him from one street corner to another street corner where a ready audience was waiting to hear him preach. Another person, through prayer, had the Holy Spirit to reserve a parking space for him in a congested area. The Holy Spirit caused a preacher to miss his plane in order for him to preach to a person in a certain city. But friends, the days of miracles have ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-13). We had just as well say that there are inspired teachers, discerners of spirits, workers of miracles, miraculous faith, wisdom and knowledge, etc., as to say that men today are directly influenced by the Spirit of God. The claim of direct guidance of the Holy Spirit is nothing more than an assertion which cannot be proved by the Bible, nor demonstrated in practice.

(5) “He illuminates the Word.” This is a strange and peculiar position in view of the fact that the Holy Spirit gave us the Word by inspiring men to write it. Was not He able to express Himself clearly the first time without having to tell us later what He meant? The whole idea is preposterous and it reflects upon the ability of the Holy Spirit.

David said, “Through thy precepts I get understanding. . .” (Psa. 119:104). He did not need direct illumination in addition to the Word. Paul wrote, “Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph 5:4). Let us read the Scriptures and get understanding. Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit is illuminating the Word of God, for which group is=He illuminating the Scriptures? There are several religious sects who claim Holy Spirit illumination. Since all of them contradict one another, which one of them is the Holy Spirit working through?

In conclusion, we quote what Foy E. Wallace, Jr. so aptly stated, “That the Spirit of God enlightens and converts sinners; comforts and strengthens saints; that love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness; meekness, fidelity, self-control, are all the fruit of the Spirit, we learn not from inner consciousness, but from the Word. of God. The modus operandi-the mode, the medium, the how-is the Word of God . . . .Independent of the Word we could never know ‘whether there be any Holy Spirit.’ All the knowledge of God, Christ, salvation and spiritual influence comes only from the Word of God. Apart from the inspiration of the apostles and prophets it is impossible for spirit to communicate with spirit except through words. God and Christ never personally occupied anyone; and for the same reason the Holy Spirit does not personally occupy anyone” (The Mission and Medium of the Holy Spirit, by Foy E. Wallace, Jr., p. 7).

Truth Magazine XXII: 7, pp. 119-121
February 16, 1978

By Morris W. R. Bailey

We continue our study of the subject of handling aright the word of truth, as it relates to the matter of considering every text in the light of its context. In the discussion of the issues that have been debated during the past thirty or more years relative to sponsoring churches and church support of institutional homes, the efforts on the part of some brethren to defend the above practices have been surprising, to say the least. I say, surprising, because they have been made by men who have been supposedly familiar with the concept of studying every text in its context. Yet in many ways they have proven to be as adept as perverting scriptures by taking them out of their setting as any sectarian ever has been. One scripture that has received such treatment is

James 1:27

This verse says, “Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and the widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself (himself-K. J. V.) unspotted from the world.” Recently, during a question period after a sermon, the preacher was asked regarding the authority for the church to build and maintain institutional orphan homes from its treasury. The above passage was cited, and the greater part of the audience thought that the matter was thereby settled. This is a typical example, for it seems that James 1:27 is almost invariably the passage that is quoted in support of the above practice. We are told that the institutional orphan home is just “a method” that the church uses in discharging its obligation to “visit the fatherless.”

What Is An Orphan Home?

In view of the fact that so much has been said about the orphan home’s being a “method,” it will be necessary at this point that we define the terms “method” and “home.”

1. The word, method, is defined by Webster as; “Regular arrangement of things, system, order.” Certainly no one would deny that the church is authorized to use “methods” in the form of orderly arrangement, or system, in carrying out its work.

2. The word “home” presents some difficulty, however, in view of the fact that it has been used very loosely, with some brethren using it first in one sense, and then suddenly using it in an entirely different sense, all of which has resulted in a great deal of confusion. Let us notice some of meanings that have been given to the word “home.”

(a) It is sometimes used to mean the family unit, consisting of husband and wife-with or without children. Thus when a man and woman marry it may be said that a new home has been established. Conversely if one or both of the parents die, or if divorce occurs, we say that the home has been broken. This is a permissible use of the word “home.”

Much has been said about restoring the children’s home in the case of the death of parents. But it must be obvious to anyone, unless blinded by infatuation for human institutions, that the placing of a child in an institutional home would not be a restoration of the home that the child had lost by the death of its parents. Certainly that is not the conception of the word, restoration, that brethren have entertained, when they spoke of restoring the New Testament order. If so, almost any protestant denomination could claim to be a return to the ancient order.

(b) The word “home” is sometimes used with reference to the house where one resides. We speak of buying a home, and of owning a home, and of providing a home for the destitute. When used in this sense its meaning is usually extended to include food and clothing. Again, this is a permissible use of the word “home.” And certainly no one would deny that orphans need a home in the way of shelter, food, and clothing. It is not to such that brethren object when they oppose church support of orphan homes.

(c) There is, however, a third way in which the word “home” has been used in the charters of incorporated institutions. And it is this institutional use of the word that has been responsible for much of the confusion that has grown up around the subject. As an example, let us note the following facts as gathered from the charter of Boles Orphan Home, which is typical of most institutional homes.

In one article of the charter we find this statement of identity. “The name of this corporation shall be Boles Orphan Home, Greenville, Texas.” Please note: It admits it is a corporation, yet calls itself a home. Other articles give its principal place of business, the number and names of its original directors with their required qualifications. The above features thus serve to identify the nature of this institution, both as to what it is, and what it is not. It is not the church, neither in the universal sense nor in the local sense, therefore not in any sense. It is not the natural home (husband, wife, and children). Nor can it be said to be a restored home. This is obvious from the use of the expression, in loco parentis with regard to its relationship to the children in its care which means “in place of parents.” But that which stands in place of a thing is not the thing itself. If my car breaks down and I use a bicycle in place of it, the bicycle is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a restoration of my car. It is only a substitute. So neither can a chartered corporation operated by a board of directors be a restoration of the natural home that the child lost through the death of its parents. It is only a substitute.

But of special interest is the fact that the above mentioned home is not a method of child care, but an institution that uses methods. This is evident from the following statement of purposes.

“The purposes of this corporation are to provide a home for destitute and dependent children, and to secure possession and control of other like children from time to time as said corporation may deem proper, for the purpose of providing them with a home and sustenance.”

Please note that this corporation, which calls itself a home, exists for the purpose of providing a home in the form of shelter and sustenance. It is thus obviously not a method, but a human institution that stands between the church and the care that is provided, and itself using methods. Such an institution (the corporation) could exist for a hundred years and not a mouth be fed, nor a body clothed if it did not use methods. From that standpoint it sustains the same relationship to the church in the matter of benevolence that the missionary society sustains to the church in the field of evangelism.. Yet it is such a corporation as this that some brethren profess to see in James 1:27.

This use (or misuse) of the above passage reminds me of a statement made by N. B. Hardeman so many years ago. Speaking of the unfounded assumptions of evolutionists, he said: “They assume first, the existence of matter. Then they assume the existence of force. Then before the brakes can be applied they assume that blind force acted on dead matter to produce life.”

This is, of course, too much “assumption” for the rational mind to accept. But it is no more unfounded than the assumptions that some brethren have made regarding James 1:27. First, they assume that this passage is directed toward the church. Then, they assume that it calls for a human corporation. Then, before the brakes can be applied, they assume that the church must support this human institution, otherwise it does not believe in practicing pure and undefiled religion. This is just too much assumption to make church support of a human institution scriptural.

The Context

Let us now look at the context of James 1:27. Whose responsibility is the visiting of the orphan and the widow? The context clearly shows that it is not the church that is under consideration, but the individual. The preceding verse (26) says, “If any man thinketh himself to be religious, while he bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.” It was in this context that James said, “Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and the widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself (himself, K. J. V.) unspotted from the world.”

The substance of these two verses is obviously a contrast between vain religion and pure and undefiled religion. But of whose religion? Whose religion is vain? That of any man, not the church, but any man (the individual) who bridles not his tongue, but deceives his own heart. It is such a man’s religion that is vain. Does it not follow, then, that James is still discussing the religion of a man when he speaks of visiting the fatherless and widows, and keeping oneself unspotted from the world as the mark of pure and undefiled religion? If not, where is the evidence of the switch from the individual to the church?

Please note, too, that it is the one that keeps unspotted from . the world that is charged with the responsibility of visiting the fatherless and widows. But this one is identified by the personal pronoun, “himself” (K. J. V.) Pronouns always refer back to an antecedent noun, either previously stated or implied. In this case the antecedent of “himself” of verse 27, is the “man” of verse 26.

Whatever other verses may teach regarding the responsibility of the church toward the orphan and widow, it is not taught here. When considered in its context, James 1:27 has no reference to church action, but to that of the individual; it is a perversion of the scripture when it is used to justify church support of a human benevolent corporation.

Truth Magazine XXII: 7, pp. 118-119
February 16, 1978