Truth Magazine

By Phil T. Arnold

“My son, pay attention to my wisdom; lend your ear to my understanding, that you may preserve discretion, and your lips may keep knowledge. For the lips of an immoral woman drip honey, and her mouth is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword, her feet go down to death, her steps lay hold of hell” (Prov. 5:1-5). What words can be found to amply warn men and women both young and old about the consequences of the sin of fornication so that they might not “give (their) honor to others,” cause their “flesh and . . . body (to be) consumed,” and come to “the verge of total ruin” (Prov. 5:9,11,14)? Fornication is certainly not a sin above any other sin nor is it beyond the cleansing power of the blood of Christ and the mercy and grace of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Yet, fornication is a sin of uniqueness (I Cor. 6:18) that often carries with it its own peculiar set of temporal consequences.

The supreme motive for avoiding any and all sin should center around the impact of our iniquity upon God and our relationship with him. Sin separates us from our eternal Father (Isa. 59:1-2). Sin, by his children, breaks the heart of God (Hos. 11:1-4,8). The sin of the Christian causes our Lord and Savior to be nailed once more to the tree and subjects him again to the ridicule and shame of the world (Heb. 6:6). Because our supreme love for the eternal Father and loving Savior and recognizing these results of our sin, the thought of sin ought to sicken us, the act of sin ought to be unthinkable, and the toleration and practice of sin be in-harmonious with our very being. If and when we do sin (be it fornication or any other sin), we ought not to “be swallowed up with too much sorrow,” but rather be moved by godly sorrow to repent and confess our sins (2 Cor. 7:10; Acts 8:22; 1 Cor. 1:9), recognizing Jesus Christ as our advocate (1 Jn. 2:1-2) and source of cleansing (1 Jn. 1:7). Only then can the eternal consequences of sin be avoided (Rom. 6:23a). Yet, even when such forgiveness occurs, the sin of fornication may set in motion that which cannot be recalled and leave scars that will be with us, while not for eternity, for life. Why not take warning and avoid the pain and shame that even forgiven fornication can and often does bring?

Fornication often has many social consequences. Our nation is reaping the harvest of the sexual (fornication) revolution and it is bringing this nation to its knees. The loss of godly influence, the lowering of our national morality, the disintegration of marriages and families, unwanted and non-parented children, justifying the taking of innocent life (abortion), a myriad of sexually transmitted diseases are all consequential casualties in this fleshly warfare of sexual indulgence and self-gratification. Truly, “righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).

Obviously included in this is the fact that fornication often brings many family consequences. Here is the one sin for which God allows the dissolving of the marriage relation-ship (Matt. 19:9). That alone should cause us to consider the serious effects that this sin of fornication can have upon the family. Even if repentance, forgiveness and the restoration of trust could accomplish the necessary reconciliation to maintain the marriage relationship (which would be preferable), the shame and pain can impact all from spouses, to parents, and to children. Marriage partners are burden-ed. While the innocent party forgives, they may have a constant hurdle in seeking to forget. And while the fornicating spouse may be forgiven, their continued self-imposed guilt can be used by Satan as a device to lessen their relationship and lead them back into sin of one kind or another (2 Cor. 2:7,11). Parents are grieved by the pain their children who commit fornication bring upon themselves and by the shame brought upon the family name. And children of parents who commit fornication may be devastated the most. There is often a loss of confidence in the institution of marriage itself, a distrust in forming their own relationship, a weakening of faith in God and difficulty in maintaining conviction concerning his truths about divorce and remarriage, and in general simply a greater sense of insecurity. Why lay such burdens and bring such pain upon those whom we truly love the most?

Fornication often bears congregational consequences. We sometimes speak of the sin of Christians bringing “reproach upon the church.” While any sin can accomplish such, few, if any sins, are as good at getting this job done in the eyes of the world as the sin of fornication. How many congregations have been robbed of their most influential leaders and teachers because the sin of fornication overcame an elder or a preacher or members of their families? How many future elders and/or preachers may never be able to serve in such a capacity in the church because of the workings of the consequences of fornication? How many churches will be divided and/or will have their candlestick removed because some refuse to stand for the truth and deal with the consequences of the sin in bringing the fornicator to repentance? If we love the Lords church and his cause in this world, we must hate the sin of fornication and the fruit that it bears.

Fornication can also lead to henneneutical consequences. Would we be experiencing as great a problem (or any problem) in understanding the plain biblical teaching concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage if it were not for the sin of fornication. When that sin leads to the dissolution of a marriage and the pursuit of another marital relation-ship by the put away. fornicator, emotions often override intellect and personal involvement or sympathy produces a hurdle to proper interpretation and application of divine truth. Why would we want to place ourselves in the circumstance of having to redefine terms, strain interpretations and create our own theories to justify what the Bible identifies as sin and to maintain fellowship with the unrepentant sinner and the false teachers who uphold them? Why would we want to lay an added burden upon those who love us of choosing between their love for us and their love for the truth? Yet, this is often exactly what is done as a consequence of the sin of fornication.

Satan may use the world in all its influential means and media to portray fornication as a most

beautiful passion that leads to fulfilling oneself as a person and living “happily ever after.”

It may be portrayed as glamour and romantic, natural and even innocent. He may suggest

that it can be done in secret, no one will ever know, everybody is doing it, and just one time

wont hurt. (All the general appeals of the wolf in sheeps clothing.) He may try to convince

us that it is our body, our business and others will not be affected. Yes, fornication may be

advertised as being as sweet as honey, but in the end its fruit is as bitter as wormwood

(Prov. 5:3-4). In spite of Satans romantic camouflage, the reality is that fornication is sin;

sin that can beget a multitude of other sins from deception even to murder (as in the case of

David in 2 Sam. 11); sin that can destroy nations, families, congregations, lives and even souls.

If David could have only stopped to consider the consequences that his relationship with

Bathsheba might possibly bring, I cannot conceive that this man after Gods own heart

would have chosen to taste of this most bitter fruit. The bitter fruit of fornication can bring

an abundant harvest of rottenness beyond description, and it can all be avoided by simply

heeding the warning of God “flee fornication!”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14 p. 21-22
July 15, 1993

By Johnie Edwards

A failure to know just what the Bible really says causes many to bind that which God has not bound! Jesus told the apostles that they could only “bind on earth” what had been “bound in heaven” (Matt. 16:19). A good example of binding where the Lord had not bound is in the case of the word “cup” in regards to par-taking of the Lord’s supper. Some think the Bible refers to a container when the word “cup” is used.

 

1. “And He Took The Cup.” Jesus was eating the passover feast as he instituted the Lord’s supper (Matt. 26:19-20). Matthew 26:27 says, “he took the cup.” Just what did Jesus take when he took the cup? Does the word “cup” refer to a container or its contents? Let’s see.

    

 

2. “Gave Thanks.” Jesus gave “thanks” (Matt. 26:27). For what did Jesus give thanks, a container or the contents? Whatever Jesus gave thanks for, he said, “Drink it” (Matt. 26:27).

 

 

3. “This Cup.” Mark records Jesus saying, “The cup is my blood of the New Testament” (Mk. 14:23-24). What is that refers to the blood, the container or the contents? Let the Bible answer: Jesus said this cup is “the fruit of the vine” (Mk. 14:25). That ought to settle it, that the “cup” does not refer to a container but to the fruit of the vine!

 

 

4. “Divide The Cup.” Luke’s account says, “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves” (Lk. 22:17). Whatever the “cup” is, it could be divided! Did they divide a container or contents of a container? We are not interested as to what men think it was. We want to know what the Lord says the cup was. Jesus said the “cup” is the “fruit of the vine” (Lk. 22:18).

 

 

5. “Drink The Cup.” Paul received instructions about the Lord’s supper from the Lord. Just what did the Lord tell Paul about the cup? “After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood . . . For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:23-26). The “cup” was something that could be “supped” and could be drunk! Let me ask you, how would you go about drinking a cup? Just like a mother who says, “I raised my babies on the bottle.” Did the babies drink a bottle or the contents of the bottle? Come on now. Don’t try to tell me they drank a glass or plastic bottle! The Bible binds only one cup, the fruit of the vine. Whether we drink the fruit of the vine out of one container or a hundred, we are still just doing what the Lord said do, drinking the cup. Emphasis is put on the manner in which the Lord’s supper is observed, not how many containers (I Cor. 11:27-29).

 

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 6
July 15, 1993

By Mike Willis

In the editorial in the last issue, we looked at some passages commonly cited to prove that Jesus did not have omnipotence while on earth. We endeavored to show that those passages in which Jesus said that he was not doing his own will but the will of the Father, rather than being a denial of his omnipotence, were strong affirmations of the unity of the Godhead. We continue this same theme by looking at several significant quotations from R.C.H. Lenski on pertinent passages in John. ICC.H. Lenskis Comments

Throughout his commentary on the gospel of John, Lenski addresses the concept of a Jesus who only has derived power. Several of his comments are extremely good. I reproduce some of them below:

1. John 4:50. After describing the healing of the noblemans son from a distance, Lenski added, “Jesus gives the man only his word and even that in the tersest form, Thy son lives not a syllable more- On him who speaks this little word, and on the little word this person speaks, the man is thus bidden to rest his faith. On paper, and as we read it from the printed page, it does seem little  too little; yet as there spoken by Jesus it was mighty, it bore all the power of Jesus will, a divine pledge an unconditional assurance, an absolute promise. . . The fact that Jesus wrought this miracle, as he did every other deed of his, in conformity with his calling and office and in harmony with his Fathers will, needs no saying. But to add that in each case Jesus had and had to have a decision or an intimation from his Father to do the deed is devoid of Scripture support. To think that every miracle came only as an answer to a prayer reduces him to the level of the ordinary prophets and is contradicted by all the cases where Jesus reveals that he acts by his own will and power (352-353). To say that Jesus works by his own will and power simply affirms the fulness of his divine nature as a person in the Godhead, but it does not mean that he acted separate and apart from the other persons in the Godhead.

2. John /1:41. Regarding Jesus prayer before the raising of Lazarus, Lenski said, “Accordingly, we dismiss as inadequate those interpretations which have Jesus ask the Father for power and authority to raise Lazarus from the dead. This reduces Jesus to the level of the prophets and the apostles who as mere men wrought miracles only in this way. . . – Jesus neither is nor acts as a mere tool of the Father. Jesus mission is so great that it could not be executed by one who would be only an instrument in the Fathers hands, to be guided by him at every step, and to be powerless except for the special power granted for every work. This mission the Son alone could execute, for it required one who in power as well as in mind and in will is wholly one with the Father. This is the sense of 5:19 and 30: Jesus can do and say nothing of himself, as emanating from himself alone and deviating from his Father; in all he does and says he is one with the Father, because he is the Fathers Son. Ever the Father shows, ever the Son `sees’; ever the Son looks up to the Father, ever the Father `hears.’ Such absolute unity is possible only between these two” (815-816). In other words, the perfect unity of the Godhead is seen even when the separate persons of the Godhead act.

3.John 12:45. Jesus said, “And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.” Lenski added, “Between the prophets of God and the God who sent them a wide gap appears, which is bridged by the word they brought; between Jesus and his Sender there is no gap in the one you see the other, for the Son is the express image of the Father, Heb. 1:3. All that the Father thinks is fully revealed in Jesus. More than this, the Father and the Son are one in essence and so in will and in work. No division and separation is possible between them. To see the Son is thus in full reality to see the Father who did send him” (893-894). There is perfect union in all the operations of the Godhead.

4.John 13:3. In John’s record of Jesus’ washing the disciples feet he comments that Jesus knew the hour of his death had come (13:1) and adds, “Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God.” Lenski commented, “Jesus knows not merely the arrival of the hour for his transfer out of the world to the Father; we are to think of him as being fully conscious of his power in this hour when the devil, Judas, and his enemies seem to be celebrating the triumph of their power, fully conscious also that he of his own will came from God and now of his own will is in the act of going back to God. This loving Jesus is the almighty Jesus, the sovereign eternal Son who descended from God for his supreme mission and now at its close returns as the Son that he is….`He did come out from God’ declares his deity, his essential oneness with God” (910,912). While the Father and the Son are distinct persons in the Godhead, they work in perfect harmony.

5. John 14:28. Jesus said, “I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than L” Lenski wrote, “It has well been said and often repeated that the creature that would dare to make a comparison of himself with God by saying. `God is greater than I,’ would be guilty of blasphemous folly as he who would say, `I am equal to God.’ When Jesus utters this comparison he does so with the most vivid consciousness of his deity” (1020). While each member of the Godhead played a distinct role in the plan of redemption, the full deity of each person remained intact and the work was done in complete harmony.

6. John 15:26. Regarding the sending of the Holy Spirit, Jesus said, “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.” The Comforter is “from the Father” and “proceedeth from the Father,” but Jesus is the one who sends him. The Father’s giving is accomplished by the Son’s sending; the Son’s sending is accomplished by the Father’s giving. Len-ski adds, “The added phrase `from the Father’ does not indicate a subordination of Jesus to the Father. The same is true in 14:16 with regard to the request of Jesus to the Father. There is an assumption that because he does not act independently of the Father he must be lower and less than the Father. Applying this assumption to the Spirit, he would be still lower and less than the Son, for he, too, does not act independently but comes only at the Son’s sending. This stressing of the acts of the Persons in relation to each other in order to make one lower than the other is unwarranted. Against this procedure stands every Scripture passage which places the Persons on an equality. When equals are a unit in a purpose and a work, the equality remains undisturbed when one of these equals requests another, sends another, allows himself to be sent by another, to perform one or the other great part of that work. All these acts reveal only the perfect harmony of these equals in carrying out their one work, each acting with the other, each with the other’s con-sent” (1068). There is perfect unity and harmony in all the workings of the Godhead.

Conclusion

The concept that Jesus only had derived power and not inherent power while a man has not been sustained by the verses to which appeal has been made. The interpretation given to these verses by brother Welch and a few others clashes with other statements of Scripture. The view that Jesus worked miracles only by the power given to him by the Holy Spirit reduces him to the level of the prophets and apostles.

The denial of the omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and holiness of Jesus is an assault against the immutability of God the Son. The writer of Hebrews 13:8 said, “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” If Jesus ever possessed all the attributes of deity, he possessed them forever. Otherwise he is not “the same yesterday, and to day, and forever.”

What is gained by this new interpretation offered by brother Welch? Nothing that I can see. One is in no better position to affirm the actual temptations of Christ by denying his omnipotence. Asserting that Jesus was omnipotent but chose not to use his omnipotent power does not reduce his temptations. Actually, one with omnipotent power faced temptations greater than a mere man. A mere man was never tempted to turn stones into bread and call a legion of angels to remove himself from the cross. These temptations were greater for Jesus because of his omnipotence; they were not weakened because he was omnipotent!

The denying that Jesus was omnipotent attacks the deity of Christ. One might as well affirm that Jesus was not eternal while on earth as to affirm that he was not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. One can say, “I believe that Jesus was deity before, during, and after his life on earth,” but if the Jesus who is called deity is deprived of his omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, holiness, and other divine attributes, what is left that makes him deity? If Jesus can maintain his eternity while on earth without compromising his humanity, he also can maintain all of his other at-tributes by the same reasonings.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 2
July 15, 1993

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Questions are sometimes phrased briefly but in fact are broad, involving comprehensive implications. Such is the question that is the subject of this column. The response to it will involve stating a context within which the answer to the question will be given. Otherwise, the answer could be misunderstood and given an application far beyond its in-tended scope. Of necessity, it will be important to ascertain precisely what the question is and then to give the answer to it which Scripture from heaven supports.

Question: Do Christians “have to” sin?

Response: It is important that I set forth precisely what I understand the question so that the response to it can be interpreted accordingly. It appears to me that the querist is asking whether theoretically it is possible for a child of God to be, or to live, above sin. It would imply in the final analysis if one would “have to” sin that there is at least one commandment of God which it would be impossible for the child of God to obey. On the other hand, it would also imply that man’s nature is such that man cannot comply with what God commands in every respect.

Human accountability to God’s under girds the issue involved in the question. One would have to contemplate the situation in which God requires something and holds one accountable for one’s response to it. I f one by human nature finds it impossible to do that which is required, how could God hold one accountable since God gave man his nature by creation?

Jesus is the Son of man and in that role has shown man what ought to be in relation to God in whose image he was made. In fact, Jesus left us an example that we should follow in his steps (1 Pet. 2:21). It is obvious, therefore, that fact must be taken into consideration in response to the question posed. We are to have in us the mind of Christ as forth in the revelation of the New Testament (Phil. 2:5).

Man’s admitted sinfulness also must be taken into consideration in the response to the question. If one says he has not sinned, he makes God a liar and his word is not in him (1 In. 1:10). If one says he has no sin, one deceives himself and the truth is not in him (1 Jn. 1:18). But if one does sin, he has an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous (1 In. 2:1).

In any response to the question, one must do so within the context of what is true as set forth in the proceeding paragraphs. The response must be consistent with a comprehensive view of what God’s word says in relation to the generalizations embodied in the issue set forth in the pre-ceding three paragraphs.

The concept of possibility and probability must also be taken into consideration. There is a difference in its being possible for one to do something and its being probable that the thing will be done. If God is to hold one responsible for one’s doing something, then it follows of a certainty that one must have the capability of doing it. Otherwise God would be unjust in giving the command and holding one responsible for doing it.

Whatever response or answer one would give to the question, therefore, is circumscribed by all the parameters which have been articulated in all the preceding comments and observations. With all of them in mind, I will proceed to respond specifically to the question raised.

In the most direct response to the question, the answer would simply be that one does not “have to ” sin. Why is this answer correct? Someone might as well raise this question having seen the answer given. Being omniscient, God can state a reality about a man’s sinfulness without in any manner interfering with the freewill of the person to act as he or she might wish. The experience of man is known to God and he can see what one’s choices might be. God can do all of this independent of the free action and will of men. On the other hand, the answer can be defended on the basis that it is possible for one to do what God commands as demonstrated in the life of Jesus. He shared fully in our nature (Heb. 2:17). Also, he as tempted in all points such as we are, yet with without sin (Heb. 4:15). As a man clothed in flesh and partaking in all respects in the nature of man and in his relation to God, Jesus demonstrated that man can obey God in all respects. Were this not possible, man would be accountable for what he does not the capability of doing and Jesus would not be a model of behavior in relation to God for man.

But man’s experience from the beginning is that he sins. God’s word points this out and holds man responsible for his works. The Scriptures are especially clear on this point. Jesus states that all that are in the tombs shall come forth and “they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment” (Jn. 5:29). We must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of God to receive the things done in the body whether they be good or bad (2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 14:10-12). If God holds one responsible for his deeds, then man must have had the capability of doing deeds in accord with the will of God.

One might look at the question from this point of view: if God says man has sin, has sinned, and will sin, then man would “have to” sin or otherwise God would not be reliable or truthful in talking about the sinfulness of man. Let us examine this point of view. In doing so, we must not shift premises or otherwise we would be woefully inconsistent. In the Old Testament, God predicted what Assyria would be as the rod of his anger, as an instrument of his wrath (Isa. 10:5) but God adds, “Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and to cut nations not a few” (Isa. 10:7). This is a clear-cut case of God’s omniscience at work but in no wise taking control of the heart. The ruler was free to do what he willed but God knew that in what he proposed to do would serve as the rod of God’s anger, as an instrument of wrath. The ruler did not “have to” do what he proposed and in fact accomplished. But if he had not done what God predicted, then God would not have been omniscient. But the omniscience of God did not cause the Assyrian ruler to act as he did.

In conclusion, the simple answer to the question is “no.” But this answer must be understood in the context of what has been set forth in all of the comments and observations set forth in connection with it.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 5-6
July 15, 1993