Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

The poignant words that serve as our title were taken from Matthew 26:75. They are found in a passage that will serve to recall the situation to the mind’s eye. “And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out and wept bitterly.” Doubtless the great fisherman apostle never forgot that moment. Tears and time did not erase the agony and remorse of the regretful event.

Perhaps there is no connection; it may be but a coincidence of Scripture, if there be any such thing, but in the second epistle by the same apostle we find the repetition of the word “remembrance.” “Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance. . . . Moreover I will endeavor that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance” (2 Pet. 1:12-15). “This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful” (2 Pet. 3:1, 2). Peter once forgot the word of Jesus. It came crashing to his remembrance in a painful manner. When the Lord looked at him after that rooster crowed the third time, it pierced his heart, “and he went out, and wept bitterly.”

Could it be that Peter wanted no one to endure the thing that haunted him? He knew what it meant to be reminded of the words of Jesus. He understood the way of sin when the word of Jesus is forgotten. Therefore, he was not negligent to put the brethren “always in remembrance” of the word of God as delivered by the apostles and prophets. It is an engaging and intriguing thought. But regardless of whether or not that was the compelling idea behind Peter’s words, let us not fail to do as he urged, that is, remember the word of Christ. “Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against thee” (Psa. 119: 11).

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 9 p. 4
May 4, 1995

By Mike Rogacs

A recent article of mine, “Painful Observations,” appeared in the January 5, 1995 issue of this magazine. The results of that article have overwhelmed me. I wish to share some of my thoughts concerning those results.

Firstly, I wish to thank brother Willis for his agreement to print the article. The observations are blunt and painful and potentially controversial. I respect him for his work with GOT and thank him for his help in getting my thoughts aired.

What has overwhelmed me are the many letters, phone calls and comments of brethren both locally and elsewhere. In almost every letter there were comments of encouragement for me and/or thankfulness that I returned to faithfulness. Above everything else, these comments moved me deeply.

But that is not the point of this second article.

Briefly, I remind the reader that in “Painful Observations” I referred to the very obvious decline of growth in the Lord’s church and other unhealthy changes that have come to pass in the past quarter century. I attributed much of this to laziness, bickering among brethren, declining spirituality and other factors which make it look like the church is bent upon self-destruction. The result has been a hindrance to the main mission of the Lord’s people, teaching and saving souls, and also a decline in the vitality of the church itself.

In the letters and comments that resulted, a few brethren agreed with some of the observations, but the majority strongly or totally agreed.

The brethren who only partially agreed were preachers. All others (which included a few preachers, too) totally agreed. The preachers seemed bent upon justifying, or explaining why, these weaknesses and problems exist. It was suggested that I was too hard on my brethren. In one letter, a brother wrote that if some are leaving the church perhaps we should, indeed, reexamine our methods and motives. He went on to add, “But there have always been people leaving the church in disgust.” Well, of course! It is never right for brethren to “quit” or leave our Lord. But my point was that many people are leaving in disgust because of the bickering (locally and nationally), complacency, lack of zeal, the poor attempts at preaching to the lost and the lack of attacking the enemies of our Lord outside of the church.

Another preacher indicated that in a certain part of the country, congregations were shrinking because jobs were being lost and brethren were moving away. I remember brethren used to say that churches were not growing because the economy was too good! Actually, this observation only proves my observations. We are not teaching the gospel to the lost around us. If some brethren leave to go elsewhere (as they did in the book of Acts), all the better, if we were doing our work. The gospel would be spread elsewhere. And if brethren must move away, we would still be converting and growing, if we were doing our work. Instead, we seem to hope the saved will move to our towns to help our congregations grow.

Let me be blunt. We have become a church full of people who have made excuse making an art. We have become a church that has too many members who find it easier to fight among ourselves than to fight the enemy outside the church. It has become easier to preach to the “already saved” than to reach out effectively to the unsaved.

In contrast, read now some of the comments from the majority of letters. One sister, who said that in the seven years that she has read the Guardian of Truth she had not felt compelled to respond to any other article, wrote the following: “The spirituality (or lack thereof) of the church today frightens me. If you’re an alarmist, then an alarmist is what we need. May God send us more.”

This next respondent wrote a quick note on a post card and said, “I’m also distressed to learn of the all-to-frequent bickering and sniping by brethren instead of fighting the enemy.”

Another brother wrote, “I too am saddened by the flow some of the brethren are moving into. I believe your painful observations are well founded. Sadly, brethren in the U.S.A. have become at ease.”

Another brother, who said that he read the article three times, wrote, “I see the same things down here” in his part of the country. Among many other comments he added, “the problem is us, not the Lord or his word. We need to get up and get to work.”

And another: “Your observations were painful to you, me, and I have an idea to many others, too. Painful because they are true.”

There were many more such comments.

I have written these two articles out of the desire to motivate us all to reevaluate the condition of the church as it is today. There must be changes. I stand by every statement of my painful observations. And let it be clearly understood: I am not saying that we should compromise the truth. Those who really know me will confirm this. We must always teach against error among brethren. But I strongly believe that we have gotten lost in that effort. We must remember that, for the most part, the enemy is outside and not within. Too many of us are caught up in acting like “defenders of the faith” and seem to forget that we are to be “proclaimers of the faith.” The lost go untaught and unsaved, many of our brothers and sisters are discouraged, and the kingdom of our Lord is suffering and shrinking.

Let’s stop excuse making. Let’s figure out how to most effectively, and scripturally, reach the lost and let’s do it. The enemies of God who call themselves believers and have never known the truth are stealing away those who might believe if they were taught. Let’s fight those enemies of the truth. Can we do it or will we be doomed to continue the status quo?

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 9 p. 7
May 4, 1995

By Johnny Stringer

Review

We have shown that the Bible sets forth the general principle that women are to teach the word of God. We pointed out, however, that there are two passages which place a restriction on the woman’s teaching. According to 1 Timothy 2:9-10, the woman is to maintain her place of subjection to men. She may not teach in any circumstance in which she would be out of subjection to men. Having discussed that passage, we will now give consideration to the other passage emphasizing this restriction: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1. Context. In the letter of 1 Corinthians Paul dealt with problems that plagued the church in Corinth. In chapter 14 he addressed himself to the conduct of the Corinthians in their assemblies. His remarks indicate that their activities were not always edifying but were characterized by disorderliness and confusion. According to our text, women were contributing to the problem by the manner in which they spoke.

2. A Shame to Speak. Paul forbids women to speak because it is a shame for women to speak in the church. Yet, this same Paul commanded all Christians — including women  to sing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16); and singing is a form of speaking. It is clear, therefore, that not all speaking is shameful. If it were, it would be a shame for women to sing. Paul was obviously discussing a certain kind of speaking when he said that it was a shame for women to speak, and singing is not included in the kind of speaking that is shameful.

This is a simple verse, making it quite clear what kind of speaking is forbidden. After saying that it is not permitted for women to speak, Paul adds, “but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” Thus, speaking is contrasted against being under obedience. Obviously, therefore, the kind of speaking to which Paul refers is speaking which would cause the woman not to be under obedience (subjection). This is the reason singing does not fall within the realm of the speaking that is forbidden; scriptural singing does not cause the woman to be out of obedience. One would not contrast the woman’s participation in congregational singing against being under obedience. For her to lead the singing, however, would violate that principle and therefore would be included in the kind of speaking that is shameful.

It is a shame for the woman to speak in any way that would cause her not to be in subjection. Hence, she may not preach to an assembly that includes men, for the one preaching is in control of the study; he is not in subjection.

3. Asking Questions. Because it is a shame for women to speak so as to be out of obedience, Paul said that if the women had a question, they should ask their husbands at home. Depending on the situation and the attitude and manner of the one asking the question, a question may violate the principle of being in subjection. Questions may be asked in an insolent manner or in a way that is disruptive.

We do not know the exact situation at Corinth. We do know that in dealing with problems found in the assemblies at Corinth, Paul was discussing the matter of speaking so as to be out of subjection. Therefore, women must have been asking questions in a way that violated the principle of subjection.

Additionally, we can conclude that Paul was directing his remarks to a certain group of women who were causing the problem, for the command to ask their husbands at home could not be obeyed by all women. This command could be obeyed only by women (1) who had husbands and (2) whose husbands had access to truth they did not have. Inasmuch as Paul had just spoken to prophets, then said “Let your women …,” some have surmised that the reference is to the wives of the prophets. This may be so. It is difficult to imagine who else it could have been. One thing is certain: The command to ask their husbands at home is not applicable to women today. Women today do not have to ask their husbands at home; they have Bibles just as their husbands do. Husbands do not have any access to truth that their wives do not have.

Do not misunderstand. The command to maintain their subjection is applicable to all women. Paul taught that it is a shame for women to speak in the assemblies so as to be out of obedience. Certain women in Corinth perhaps the wives of the prophets  were violating that principle by the manner in which they were asking questions, and Paul told them to ask their husbands at home rather than to disrupt the assembly with their questions. Paul addressed a certain group of women because they were violating the principle of subjection, but the principle of subjection is binding on all women.

We do not know the specific details of the problem at Corinth. One possibility is that as prophets were revealing divine truths to the assembly, their wives were interrupting them with questions. Such would surely be out of place and disruptive. Whether or not that was the problem, the women were in some way asking questions in a manner inconsistent with their place of subjection.

Some use this passage as a basis for prohibiting a woman from asking a question in a Bible class today. This is a misuse of the apostle’s words. What is insubordinate in one situation may not be insubordinate in another situation. The fact that it was out of order to ask a question in the kind of assembly Paul was discussing in 1 Corinthians 14 does not mean it is out of subjection to ask a question in today’s Bible classes.

In the assembly described in our text, inspired men were revealing divine truth as the Spirit guided them. Today’s Bible class is a different kind of gathering. A group of people have gathered to study the Bible and to help one another in reaching an understanding. In that situation, it is not insubordinate for a woman to humbly ask a question or submit an idea for the class’s consideration. Yet, a woman in a Bible class can get out of line in the manner in which she asks questions or expresses her ideas. If she asks questions or speaks in an insolent manner, or speaks to the extent of dominating, she violates the principle of being under obedience. She must manifest a meek and quiet spirit.

Conclusion

The woman is to teach the word of God. The only restriction in her teaching is that she must not violate the principle of being in subjection to men. She may teach in any circumstance or capacity that is consistent with that restriction. She may teach classes consisting of women or children, for in such classes she is not in authority over men.

The woman may even teach men so long as she remains in subjection. In congregational singing, for example, she is involved in teaching others in the congregation, including the men (Col. 3:16). Priscilla helped teach Apollos (Acts 18:26). If a woman and her husband are discussing a passage at the dinner table, and the woman brings up a scriptural point that has never occurred to the husband, she has taught her husband; but she was not out of subjection when she did so. In a Bible class that is taught by a man, a woman may quietly and meekly make a point that enlightens some men who are present, but she has not dominated the class or taken control of it. If a woman thinks a man is in error on some point, she may discuss the matter with him without being in a position of authority over him.

Whereas God has placed only one restriction on the general principle that the woman is to teach, some brethren have added another restriction. They say that while she may teach her children at home, she may not teach in the church building or in a class arranged by the church. This restriction is not found in the Bible. In fulfilling its mission of teaching the truth, the church may utilize anyone who is scripturally qualified to teach; and faithful, knowledgeable women are scripturally qualified to teach classes of women and children.

Sisters in the Lord, learn God’s word, live God’s word, and teach God’s word. God has not gagged you; rather, he has given you the responsibility to teach. He has simply placed one restriction on you. Do not fret because of the restriction; it is unlikely you will ever do all the teaching you could do in accordance with that restriction.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 9 p. 8-9
May 4, 1995

By Bob Pulliam

In the Quran and Hadith we find the sacred writings of Islam. The Quran is the highest, and Hadith is second only to the Quran (obviously leaving the Bible far behind). And it is these writings that prove to be the weakest link in Islam’s claims of divine origin. If the Quran is from a divine source, we can expect it to be free from the errors seen in the works of men. Lofty claims are made regarding these to vindicate the religion of Allah. But alas, to claim success and prove such are two very different matters.

When the Bible is put to the test, it passes with flying colors (when examined objectively). One of the greatest tributes to the Bible is the amount of time spent by humanistic critics attacking it. They consume very little time attacking the Quran, Hadith, Book of Mormon, Watchtower publications, Christian Science writings, etc. The power of “Bible followers” is not the only reason for this. The critic attacks that which he sees as threateningly believable. It can truly be said that the truth of the Bible scares critics to their typewriters.

The Muslim will acknowledge the Bible to be an inspired writing. Truly, a good bit of the Bible is in the Quran. But which is to be accepted above the other? Many never think about it, but the Bible is actually supposed to be the basis for believing the Quran. After all, how do Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus become known as historical characters to be accepted and believed? The Bible is the source for such faith. Since the Bible is a basis for believing the Quran; the Bible should be preferred and accepted above the Quran. The Quran itself calls upon the reader to inquire of the “people of the Book” (Bible), to determine whether its contents are accurate (e.g. Sura 10:90-96, for “the Book” see Sura 5:70). Let’s examine the Quran and see how it compares with the Bible.

Conflicts with the Bible

The Bible clearly tells us that God took six days for creating the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:3.; Exod. 20:11). Such is confirmed by Jesus in Luke 13:14 when he pointed out that there were six days to work (leaving one for the Sabbath); and we clearly acknowledge such by the number of days in the week on our calendars. The Quran tells us that the world was created in eight days (Sura 41:9- 12). Now you can believe Moses, Jesus, and the calendar; or you can believe the Quran.

The Bible tells us that Noah and his three sons were saved in the ark; and that it came to rest on Mt. Ararat. The Quran tells us that one of Noah’s sons was lost in the flood (taking refuge in a mountain), and that the ark came to rest on EI-Judi (Sura 11:32 – 48).

The Quran conflicts with the Bible on several points concerning Abraham. The Bible cites Abraham’s father as Terah, but the Quran names Azar. The Bible tells us that Abraham settled in Canaan (Hebron), whereas the Quran would have us believe that he traveled as far as Mecca, over 700 miles southeast of Hebron! The Quran has Abraham sacrificing Ishmael rather than Isaac (which makes no sense inasmuch as Ishmael was the son of the handmaid). Muhammad only recalls the existence of two sons, whereas the Bible clearly tells us that Abraham had a grand total of eight sons. Several other discrepancies exist, but these suffice to show the Quran’s blatant inaccuracy regarding one of the best known figures of the Bible.

Nimrod is said to have thrown Abraham into a fire (Sura 21:680. Abraham was not yet born when Nimrod walked the earth (Gen. 5 & 11). Muhammad had the common seventh century Arabian trouble of keeping people in chronological order, and separated by the proper restraints of time (and the fire here is probably from Daniel 3:19-30, which occurred over fifteen hundred years after Abraham). Along this line, the Quran commonly has people, who lived thousands of years apart, interacting as if they lived together. A divinely inspired work should not be this difficult to swallow.

Names are commonly incorrect in the Quran. John the baptist is called Yahya. Saul is called Talut, and Goliath is called Jalut. The best reason given would seem to be the memory of the one writing the Quran: Muhammad. He obviously had many stories and legends mixed together in his mind. He could not read, so even if he had the reference material, he could not research such matters. Many Jewish and gnostic legends had reached Arabia by the time of Muhammad. It is interesting to note that some of Muhammad’s misconceptions can be traced to these extra-biblical sources, and help us to understand why the Quran contains some of its errors.

Three Truly Great Errors

There are three errors that should especially be pointed out to the Muslim. The first concerns Moses, Haman and the tower of Babel. Did Haman live in Egypt building the tower of Babel for Pharaoh? This is what the Quran would have us believe (Sura 27:4ff; 28:38; 29:39; 40:23-37). Actually Haman served King Ahasuerus in Persia (Esther 3); and the tower of Babel was two thousand years earlier in Babylon (Gen. 11).

A Mistake In Bible and Secular History

The second error is the use of the term Samaritan in Sura 20:87 & 95. This reference says that the golden calf was built at the suggestion of a Samaritan. This would have been hard to accomplish, since the Samaritans did not exist until after the captivity had commenced, hundreds of years after the incident of the golden calf. At the time the calf was constructed, the Israelites had not even possessed the land out of which they would be taken captive! (Exod. 32)

The third error has Alexander the Great living to a ripe old age (Sura 18:89-98). Secular history is very clear and trustworthy on the youthful demise of Alexander (see Encyclopedia Britannica 15:479 . . . see also The Concise Dictionary of Islam 229).

An Argument that Backfires

The Quran condemns Christians and Jews alike as not being of God (Sura 30:30 – 32 and 42:130. On what basis? Because they were divided from each other, and could not agree. Since they were “at war” with one another, neither could be of God.

Consider for a moment the number of sects into which Islam has been divided. I do not have a total count, but here are a few who have graced the pages of history:

Sects of Islam

Abadites

Mutazilites

Jabbarya

Sufis

Najiyah

Shiites

(which gave rise to Nusayris, Yezidis and Druses)

Sunnites

Isma’ilis

(which gave rise to Nizaris and Musta’lis)

Black Muslim

(which are not in any way accepted by Arab Muslims)

The pot loves to call the kettle “black,” and here is an excellent case. The truth is, mankind will never unite under truth, or any other banner, because mankind has other selfish interests at heart.

The Wives of Muhammad

The Quran allows a man to have no more than four wives. Yet it is very clear that Muhammad had 22 wives. This would clearly make Muhammad a sinner. But not just any sinner. He was “a spokesman” for Allah while he was practicing his sin! Some would deny that Muhammad ever sinned, but the Quran clearly indicates such. Muhammad was told to repent of his sin in Sura 40:55. Sura 48:lf speaks of Muhammad’s sins, past and future!

It is not necessary that a prophet never have sinned. But that a prophet would receive divine messages for others while he himself is involved in open, reprehensible sin is absurd.

A Terrible Confession

Also considered inspired is the Hadith. The Hadith gives much information about the Quran. It tells us that the Quran was written on odds and ends of materials (Vol. 6, # 509), and gathered into book form by Caliph Uthman (all after Muhammad died). When Uthman had completed his version, he destroyed all of the Qurans (he could find and possess) that were in conflict with his version (Vol. 6, #510). One historian writes of Uthman, “His major achievement was the commissioning of a group of experts to collect all the known copies and variants of the Quran and establish a standard text …” (Frederick M. Denny, Islam, 33).

Think of the field-day the Bible critic would have if the Bible said such about itself! Religious scholars have spent hundreds of years comparing the thousands of ancient manuscripts of the Bible. There has been no need of paper shredders, or incinerators, for conflicting versions.

Conclusion

Very serious problems in the Quran must be reconciled before one could even begin to believe it possible that divine revelation had produced such a work. I do not find it incredible that so many millions of people believe and follow the sacred writings of Islam. If I did, I would have to find it incredible that so many people profess a belief in the Bible; but clearly violate its pure, concise pattern.

Islam is not difficult to “see-through,” and it is possible to convert a Muslim. To do so, we must arm ourselves as we do against other systems of error with which we are more familiar: Learn their weaknesses, and be relentless with the truth.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 9 p. 10-11
May 4, 1995