Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18).

In our last issue, we emphasized that God’s wrath is revealed from heaven. In this issue, we want to proceed to notice that God’s wrath is revealed against ungodliness.

God’s Wrath Is Revealed Against Ungodliness

The word “ungodliness” is translated from asebeia. That word is defined by Thayer as “want of reverence towards God, impiety, ungodliness” (79). The text in Romans shows how this “ungodliness” was displayed in the following verses:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things (Rom. 1:18-23).

The ungodliness of the Gentile world was shown in the following ways:

1. They refused to have God in their knowledge. The Gentile world consciously turned its back on God. They refused to glorify God as God (1:21). They did not develop a spirit of thanksgiving (1:21). Consequently, Paul said that they “refused to have God in their knowledge” (1:28).

2. The things of God were known to them. Ungodliness cannot be attributed to men’s ignorance. There is sufficient evidence available from the things that are made to see the existence, omnipotence, and deity of God. The power and divinity of God have been known from (since the beginning) of creation (1:20). The psalmist declared, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork” (19:1). From “natural theology” one can know that there is an omnipotent God.

The ungodliness of the Gentiles is seen in their absolute refusal to have God in their knowledge. The concept of God is consciously and knowingly rejected because of the moral obligations that logically follow when man admits the existence of a Creator God.

God’s Judgment Against Ungodliness

The text also explains to us God’s judgment against man’s ungodliness: (1) Men become vain in their reasonings (1:21); (2) Men’s senseless hearts are darkened (1:21); and (3) In their self-deceived arrogance, they become fools (1:22). Having rejected the reasonable worship of the one true God, men turn to worship a “lie” (idolatry, 1:22-23,25).

The foolish pagan worship to which man turned as he rejected God was a part of God’s judgment against man’s ungodliness.

The United States As An Example

What is occurring presently in our nation is an example of the Lord’s judgment against ungodliness. The United States has walked in the steps delineated in Romans 1. A conscious decision was made several years ago by the leaders (civil and judicial) of our nation to depart from the standard of righteousness imposed by the Bible. This conscious rejection of God has been manifested in many ways, including the following:

a. Prayer cannot be offered in the public schools.

b. The Ten Commandments cannot be posted in the school’s classrooms.

c. The moral standard of the Scriptures in such matters as divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, gambling, and such like things is rejected.

Our social engineers have worked over our nation to re-construct it according to their superior knowledge. As a result, we have 25% of white children and 65% of black children born out of wedlock every year. The divorce rate in America has reduced to about 20-25% the number of children who are being reared by their natural mother and father. One-parent families are commonplace and the social pathologies that this is producing are scaring even the social engineers. Children are growing up without respect for their parents and some have no moral standard of right and wrong. All of this is made possible by the Federal Government. In a former time, when two people conceived a child out of wedlock they usually married and settled down to the business of being good parents. Now the mother can apply for Aid for Dependent Children and tell the father of her child to leave. She then cohabits with another man, conceives another child, has her Aid for Dependent Children check to increase, and tells this man to go on his way. In this manner our social engineers have provided the means for fatherless homes to become commonplace. We not only pay the price in increased taxes, we also pay the price in the bills for violent crime, drive-by shootings, gang rape and murder, robberies, burglaries, assaults, etc.

Alarmed by the problems, our social engineers are suggesting that we need to spend more money to provide for day care centers for the poor and those who need daycare so they can work. The cry is constantly made for more handouts, spending billions on rehabilitation of hardened criminals, and other such social programs.

Our “wise” social engineers put band aids on this cancer. Every band aid is siphoned out of the pockets of tax payers and costs billions of dollars. Consider some of the wise counseling we have received. Children cannot be taught “just say no” to pre-marital sex; instead, the Planned Parenthood clinics are given easy access to make sure that our children have and know how to use condoms.

Parents are told that “spanking” is a form of child-abuse. Children are brought up with no respect for the authority of parents, teachers, or government.

Conclusion

These painful consequences which are occurring in our society are the results of the conscious choice to reject God and his word as our standard for righteousness. These consequences are one expression of the revelation of the wrath of God against ungodliness.

We do not need another government program to fix things in our country. We need a revival! We need men and women who will enthrone Jesus Christ as Lord of their lives and submit to his divine guidance over them. If enough Americans will do this, many of our national problems would be solved.

Since that is not likely to happen, we can only expect to see God’s judgment against our ungodliness increase. Sad days lie ahead for our country unless we repent of refusing to have God in our knowledge.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 7, p. 2
April 7, 1994

By Irvin Himmel

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit (Prov. 26:4,5).

Here are twin statements that seem to go in opposite directions. They need to be studied together.

The Fool

Frequently in the book of Proverbs, the Hebrew word kesil, translated “fool,” appears. It applies to one who is dull and stupid, “but it must always be remembered that the book has in mind a man’s chosen outlook, rather than his mental equipment” (Kidner). He is “not necessarily one who is mentally weak or simple but one who is wilfully disobedient to the voice of divine wisdom” (Cundall). The word describes one who is “obstinate in that on which he has set his heart, not to be moved by reason or counsel” (Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies).

The verses which we are now considering refer to a fool in the sense of one whose stupidity reflects his attitude, not his mental capacity. A person may have a high IQ and still be a fool. The world is full of people who are fools by choice.

A Contradiction?

“Answer not a fool according to his folly . . . answer a fool according to his folly . . .” That sounds like a contradiction. Ancient rabbis explained the passage by applying verse four to temporal matters and ve rse five to spiritual concerns.

The phrase “according to his folly” is “equivalent to recognizing the foolish supposition and the foolish object of his question, and thereupon considering it” (“Delitzsch).

There are times and places in which a fool should not be answered according to his folly. In other circumstances it may be wise to answer the fool according to his folly. These two verses “are practical sayings which apply to life as we find it, and life is often apparently inconsistent .. . The fact is, each verse has a different purpose” (Kufeldt).

Answer Not A Fool

Generally, it is without profit to argue with a fool at his own level. Some arguments and positions are too ridiculous to honor with a reply. The defender of truth should not imitate the slanderer or scoffer in his methods of disputation. To fall in with his mode of reasoning is to allow one fool to make another. “Folly is contagious, and we are all in some danger of catching it” (Pulpit Commentary).

It is not necessary to understand a subject in order to argue about it. Silence is often the most effective reply to a fool’s contentions. A mud-slinger wants others to sling mud with him. But remember that he who throws mud loses ground!

Before becoming embroiled in controversy with some-one, make sure you are not lowering yourself into a fool’s arena. The reason for the warning is, “lest thou also be like unto him.”

Answer a Fool

If a fool is never answered, no matter what the circumstances, he will suppose that his questions and arguments are answerless. “There is a time when it is pointless to reason with a fool but there are also occasions when to remain silent would suggest to him that his own position is unassailable” (Cundall).

Occasionally, a fool may have to be met on his own grounds. The answer which exposes his folly may stop his mouth. Sometimes his inflated ego can be punctured.

There is a story about a preacher who was discussing various questions written out and submitted by people in his audience. He unfolded a piece of paper and read the question aloud: “When did Job’s turkey die?” The audience roared with laughter. In a matter-of-fact manner the preacher replied, “From the looks of the scratching on this paper, he hasn’t died yet.” There was another roar of laughter. The fool was answered according to his folly, “lest he be wise in his own conceit,” then everyone was ready to move on to serious questions.

Paul, replying to false teachers who foolishly boasted of their attainments in an effort to downgrade the apostles, showed them that he could beat them at their own game. “Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly,” he wrote (2 Cor. 11:1). Writing about things of which he could boast, he was careful to remind his readers, “I speak as a fool” (2 Cor. 11:21,23). Paul did not relish this kind of approach. Circumstances called for the false teachers to be answered. The apostle answered them according to their folly.

We need wisdom to know how to answer perverse and obstinate men. In some cases, to answer a fool according to his folly is unwise; in other cases, we may need to answer him according to his folly. “Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man” (Col. 4:6).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 6, p. 23
March 17, 1994

By Jeff S. Smith

With little warning but great fanfare, U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders swept into Austin, Texas on January 21, 1994 to preside over the Grand Opening of yet another Planned Parenthood franchise. The Austin American Statesman printed a color photograph of Mrs. Elders sermonizing from the pulpit of a Methodist church in full regalia as if she were born to be there.

Joycelyn Elders has made many memorable comments in her tumultuous tenure as America’s leading health care voice. Several have made godly people cringe and tremble for the future. But her comments in Austin were perhaps the most offensive to God-fearing Americans. “It is time for ministers to stop moralizing from the pulpit and get out here and help me save the children,” she instructed the receptive throng.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with helping to save children as Mrs. Elders claims to be interested in doing. The problem is her plea for ministers of Jesus Christ to stop doing what Christ and his apostles have instructed them to do (Titus 1:3). Another problem is that Elders restricts her compassion for children to those who have escaped the womb. Children who are still developing toward birth are deemed unworthy of her love and offer of salvation.

Webster’s dictionary defines “moralize” as “to give a moral quality or direction to; to improve the morals of;  verb, to make moral reflections.” Joycelyn Elders apparently has looked out over the landscape of America and decided the problem is that we just have too much morality. How dare this woman enter any pulpit and endeavor to tell preachers that they are hurting America and specifically our children by trying to guide them to God. How could anyone possibly contend that our problems descend from too much morality? Drug abuse, gun violence, teen pregnancy, divorce  too much morality and preaching caused these problems? This is the same myopic vision that banished prayer, God and the Ten Commandments from our schools in the 1960s. Things sure have improved since then, eh, Mrs. Elders?

The dirty little secret, Joycelyn Elders doesn’t want us to know is that she is simply tired of preachers getting up on Sunday and standing for the moral standards of the Bible which she so vehemently opposes in her work. Her command reflects an obvious agenda to silence the godly opposition to her destructive and immoral direction for this nation. “Preach the word,” Paul told young Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:2. God’s word is moral (2 Pet. 1:3) and so we must disappoint Madam Surgeon General.

Elders indicated a restriction on her tremendous love for children later as protesters had gathered to show disapproval of her pro-abortion stance. The protesters expressed curiosity that one so dedicated to “saving the children” also enjoys seeing thousands of them butchered each year in their mothers’ wombs. Mrs. Elders ordered the protesters to “get over their love affair with the fetus!” She naturally made this statement on friendly ground  Planned Parent-hood is actually a euphemism for the Center for the Distribution of Condoms and Abortion Advice. Mrs. Elders hopes that soon “every child is a planned and wanted child.” This is a good example of the seemingly harmless and sanitized phrasing of the anti-life crowd. Her agenda in plain English: any child that is accidentally conceived, even by married parents, should be killed. We would trust that, unlike the tax hike, this policy would not be retroactive, or else many of us would have to answer to Mrs. Elders. God knows and loves the soon-to-be-born (Ps. 139). He gives them senses  eyes and ears  at early developmental stages. He gives them vital organs  a heart and lungs  long before they are actually born. They feel pain and suffer greatly when their mother opts to murder them. I dare say that God loves the children even more than Joycelyn Elders purports to (Ps. 127:3). Why not let them live? No, abortion is never an easy decision. But it is never a good one, either.

Our Surgeon General is now the leading force behind expanding sex education to include children from kindergarten age on up. She intends to make condoms free and accessible to all the children whom she loves so much. As head of the Arkansas Department of Health prior to the 1992 election, Mrs. Elders showed her love for schoolchildren by ordering a shipment of defective condoms be delivered to a school even though she knew they were damaged. I suppose she reasoned that defective condoms were better than no condoms at all. After all, she loves the children. Elders has expanded her role in the schools by demanding that health textbooks that once taught about hygiene now include graphic references to homosexuality so that her dear children may be free to choose that disgusting path (Rom. 1:26-27) if it appeals to them.

Her recent bombshell about legalizing drugs to reduce the crime rate certainly is in her children’s best interest, now isn’t it? I suppose she was just considering the welfare of her own son who was arrested for drug possession that same week, though. Mrs. Elders is somehow blind to the destruction wrought by addictive substances. The children she claims to love are experimenting with drugs at earlier ages than ever before and are consequently suffering more incarcerations and more homicides than previous generations who were exposed to the lethal teaching of “Just say no.” “Generation X,” as many pundits call the children, is in for a bumpy ride if Joycelyn Elders gets her way with it.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 6, p. 5
March 17, 1994

By Pat Donahue

Mr. Cockrell notes correctly that I agree with him that faith saves, but still doesn’t understand that that doesn’t prove that we are saved at the point of faith. I’ll quote once again Hebrews 11:8, “By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.” Here the walls fell by faith (of the Israelites), but not at the point of faith of the Israelites. Mr. Cockrell understands this principle as he agrees with me that repentance saves, but he believes that “repentance always precedes faith” (Milburn Cockrell, 1st article, 3rd paragraph). Now let’s try Mr. Cockrell’s own statement out on himself. “He (Mr. Cockrell) says he agrees with me that (repentance) saves, but then he says the (repenter) is still a child of the Devil (until he believes)!” The truth is, when the Bible teaches that faith saves, that does not say that salvation occurs at the point of faith; it is teaching that salvation is predicated upon faith. The same is true about repentance. When the Bible, Mr. Cockrell, and I teach that repentance saves, we are not saying that salvation occurs at the point of repentance; we are teaching that salvation is predicated upon repentance.

Read It Again, Mr. Cockrell

Mr. Cockrell states that I did not say one “word” about his argument on 1 Corinthians 1:14-17; 4:15. He needs to go back and check the top of my paragraph labeled “1 Corinthians 1:12-13” in my last article. Mr. Cockrell also says that I did “not examine any of the verses in my (Cockrell’s) arguments 8 to 14.” Again, go back and read the answer to these arguments in my paragraph labeled “Mr. Cockrell ‘s Additional Proof Texts” in my second article.

Synecdoches

I don’t care if he calls it a synecdoche or not, but if Mr. Cockrell can understand that the Bible teaches that repentance saves, but that salvation does not come at the point of repentance, then he ought to be able to understand that just because the Bible teaches that faith saves, that is not the same as saying that salvation comes at the point of faith. However, Mr. Cockrell does admit the use of synecdoches, when in answer to my question, “Why does John 5:25 not prove that all an alien sinner must do in order to be saved is `hear’ the gospel?,” he responds by saying that the “person who hears the gospel in the sense that he understands and believes it (John 5:24-25) is saved.” Mr. Cockrell thus admits that “hear” in John 5:25 is used as a synecdoche for understanding and believing.

Salvation Is Not at the Point of Faith

It is the truth that if the Bible says that our salvation is conditioned upon baptism (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; etc.), and if baptism comes after belief (which it does), then salvation cannot occur at the point of belief. There is no way around that! Matthew 10:22 does not refute this principle because when Christ said, “But he that endureth to the end shall be saved,” he is not talking about initial salvation (the forgiveness of sins that occurs when a person is born again); he is talking about the salvation that Mark 10:30 speaks of when it says, “and in the world to come eternal life.”

Other arguments showing that salvation does not come at the point of faith have already been presented, without response by Mr. Cockrell, therefore I repeat them following. Romans 10:13 undeniably teaches that salvation is conditioned upon calling on the name of the Lord, which, according to v.14, clearly comes after the belief spoken of in the context. Since a person must “call on the name of the Lord” to be saved, and since calling on the name of the Lord comes after believing in Jesus, then salvation comes after a person believes in Jesus.

Romans 10:10 teaches that salvation is conditioned upon a “confession” with the “mouth” (“with the mouth confession is made unto salvation”) which, of course, comes after the belief of the context. Again, salvation comes after belief.

Notice also that Acts 9:5-6 shows that Saul believed on the road to Damascus (something I don’t think Mr. Cockrell will deny), but Acts 22:16 (“. . . and be baptized, and wash away thy sins…”) clearly shows that Saul was still in his sins at least three days later (Acts 9:9). This again shows that a person’s sins are not washed away the moment he believes. In this case, the forgiveness of sins occurred at least three days after Saul believed in Jesus.

Besides teaching that the washing away of Saul’s sins occurred after he believed, Acts 22:16 also teaches that the washing away of his sins occurred when Saul was baptized, and not before. Indeed, this passage teaches that if any alien sinner wants his sins washed away, he must be baptized.

Mark 16:16

Mr. Cockrell responds to Mark 16:16 by saying that a parallel statement would be “He that believeth and takes the Lord’s supper shall be saved,” understanding correctly that we don’t have to take the Lord’s supper to be saved initially. This statement paralleling baptism with the Lord’s supper is true about like my friend’s joke: “My first wife used to be a Pentecostal.” It implies something that is false, that my friend has had more than one wife (he hasn’t). My opponent’s statement is misleading in two ways (and therefore not parallel to Mark 16:16, which is not misleading): (1) It does imply that initial salvation does not come until after one eats the Lord’s supper. This is incorrect. (2) It does imply that initial salvation is conditioned upon eating the Lord’s supper. This is incorrect. Notice that Mark 16:16 does imply that both of these things are true about baptism.

The following are parallel to Mr. Cockrell’s “parallel” statement: (1) He that buys a ticket and gets on the train and stays with their relatives (in Atlanta) shall make it to Atlanta. (2) He that enters the race and gets the most votes and lives in the White House shall be elected President. Both of these statements are misleading. The first makes staying with relatives in Atlanta after arriving there necessary to getting to Atlanta, which is not true; and the second makes living in the White House after being elected President necessary to being elected, which is also not true.

Jesus did not say, “He that believeth and is baptized and eats the Lord’s supper shall be saved (initially).” If he had said that, I would be teaching that eating the Lord’s supper is necessary to initial salvation. But Jesus did say, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” I say exactly the same thing. Why not just accept the obvious meaning of the verse?

1 Peter 3:21

In his response to my argument on 1 Peter 3:21, Mr. Cockrell makes a big deal about the word “figure,” but fails to notice that the figure in the verse is not baptism, but the salvation of Noah’s household. Notice that the NKJV (“There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism”) makes baptism the antitype. The antitype (baptism) is the real; it is that which answers to the type or figure (Noah’s salvation). The NIV indicates the same as it reads, “and this water symbolized baptism that now saves you also” (baptism is not the symbol, but is what is being symbolized, the real). The picture is Noah, the real is baptism. 1 Peter 3:21 says baptism saves; Mr. Cockrell says it does not.

1 Corinthians 1:12-13

Since Mr. Cockrell only talked around 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 without answering my argument on it, I will repeat it for the third time. Paul teaches in vv. 12-13 that for a person to be “of Paul,” Paul would have had to have been crucified for him, and that person would have had to have been baptized in the name of Paul. This implies that for a person to be “of Christ” (that is, to be a Christian), Christ would have had to have been crucified for him, and that person would have had to have been baptized in the name of Christ. There is no way around this. 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 proves that to be of Christ, to be saved, one would have had to have been baptized in the name of Christ.

Acts 2:38

Mr. Cockrell does respond to my argument on Acts 2:38 by saying that the phrase “for (eis) the remission of sins” in the verse means “with reference to the remission of sins already obtained.” His response (that eis means “with reference to”) is shown to be false by the following paragraph.

If eis means “with reference to” in Acts 2:38, then that makes repentance only “with reference to” the remission of sins also, because the verse connects both repentance and baptism to the remission of sins with the word “for” (eis). But we know better than that; Mr. Cockrell agrees with me that repentance is “order to obtain” the remission of sins. The fact is, eis is never translated “with reference to” in the New Testament, not one time. Try out Mr. Cockrell’s definition for eis in just a couple of familiar passages. Should Matthew 15:14 be translated “. . . And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall with reference to (eis) the ditch?” Is Matthew 26:28 only teaching that Jesus shed his blood “with reference to”(eis) the remission of sins, or is it teaching that Jesus shed his blood “in order to” the remission of sins? I challenge the reader to take whatever meaning he thinks eis carries in Matthew 26:28, and stick it into Acts 2:38. Let’s be consistent! The truth is that eis means “into” or “unto” the vast majority of times it is used in the N.T.; check the Greek concordance for yourself. Acts 2:38 teaches that baptism is “into” (or “unto”) the remission of sins; therefore proving my proposition.

Next, I ask you to read Mr. Cockrell’s “Evils of Baptismal Regeneration” alongside the following responses:

1. If my position makes the preacher the savior since he baptizes, then faith being necessary to salvation makes the preacher the savior, since the sinner hears the word of God from the preacher (Rom. 10:13-14).

2. The teaching that baptism is necessary to salvation may be out of character with what Mr. Cockrell thinks Christ came to teach, but it is in complete character with what Jesus actually did come to teach (Mk. 16:16). 1 Peter 3:21 does teach that baptism does not put away the filth (dirt, NASV) of the flesh; instead it is a spiritual washing (“the answer of a good conscience”).

3. The receiving of a miraculous measure of the Spirit does not evidence regeneration, else Saul was regenerated while laying down naked all night, plotting to kill David, God’s chosen (1 Sam. 19:15-24). The non-miraculous indwelling of the Spirit that people receive at baptism (Acts 2:38), and not before baptism, does evidence the approval of God (1 Jn. 3:24; Gal. 4:6; Acts 2:38; 5:32; 1 Jn. 4:13; Rom. 8:9; Eph. 1:13-14).

4. The NASV translates the phrase in 1 Peter 3:21, “an appeal to God for a good conscience.” Wigram-Green defines the word translated “answer” in the KJV as “question, inquiry, demand.” Thayer defines it as “an inquiry, … a demand, . . . earnest seeking, . . . a craving, an intense desire.”

5. This point does not prove that baptism is not necessary. It only proves that we don’t have to mention baptism in every letter, article, or sermon that we deliver, especially when we are talking to people who have already been baptized, as John is in his letter. However, John did teach the necessity of baptism in John 3:5.

6. Notice a parallel: Is a man led to belief by the Spirit of God, or the spirit of the Devil? If he is led by the devil, we must praise the Devil for his work of evangelism. If he is led by the Spirit of God, then he is saved before belief, for “as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom. 8:14). Mr. Cockrell obviously is making an argument he doesn’t even believe himself.

Conclusion

The Bible clearly teaches that salvation does not come at the point of faith, but that instead, it comes when one is baptized. The question becomes, are we willing to accept the plain meaning of the Bible passages?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 26-27
March 3, 1994