Truth Magazine

By Luther W. Martin

If one were to unquestioningly accept all of Rome’s assertions, she would have us believe that the Roman Church was the mother of all things good! (Like Sad-dam Hussein’s “Mother of all battles!”).

The last of the living apostles was John the beloved; though not executed as were others of the Twelve, John was exiled to the Island of Patmos, from which location he penned the Book of Revelation. One of John’s students was a man named Polycarp; who, in turn, was an instructor to Irenaeus; by whom a fellow named Hippolytus, was taught. This Hippolytus was born approximately fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.

The memory of Hippolytus and his works, was so out-standing in his day (ca. 200 A.D.), that in later centuries, as the Roman Church evolved, she belatedly canonized him as one of her “saints.” Rome’s wisdom (?) in making a “saint” out of Hippolytus, was further confirmed by the discovery in 1551, of a marble statue, with Greek inscriptions, including a calendar, showing that the statue was dated in the first year of Emperor Alexander Severus, or 222 A.D. The statue was of a figure seated in a chair, with dates and titles of his books and writings. Although the statue was in pieces, craftsmen at the Vatican reassembled it. This statue of Hippolytus was conidered to be a valuable example of Catholic history, and was placed in the Vatican under the oversight of Pope Pius IV, of Council of Trent fame.

Hippolytus was martyred and has been accorded a place in the Roman Breviary (August 22). But now, the plot thickens, as they say.

Long after the Roman Catholic Church awarded all the post-mortem honors to the memory of Hippolytus, a number of his long-lost writings were discovered. The historian Eusebius had written that Hippolytus was the author of many works, which at that time, the historian stated “you will find . . . preserved by many.” Since the time of Eusebius, these works had disappeared and none was known for centuries. However, in 1842, one of Hippolytus’ great works was re-discovered. It was “Philosophoumena” (Philosophizing) and “Refutation of All Heresies.”

Remember now, during the centuries that this writing had been lost, the Roman Church had heaped many honors upon its author. In the mid-1800’s, Dr. Philip Schaff stated that the “Refutation” was “an irrefutable witness against the claims of an infallible papacy, which was entirely unknown in the third century.” And, as another author wrote: “Refutation of All Heresies’ demonstrates the absurdity of Rome’s claim that there has been a continuous chain of in-fallible successors of Peter” (W.W. Moore, Introduction, p. 11, The Search-Light of St. Hippolytus).

Parke P. Flournoy, wrote in 1896: “Professor George T. Stokes, of Dublin University … has found the writings of St. Hippolytus to be . . . `a veritable search-light on men and affairs in the church in Rome before and after the year 200.’ In addition to this, they reveal many proofs of the genuineness of the New Testament Scriptures.”

Hippolytus uses the terms presbyter, elder or bishop interchangeably, as does the New Testament. He suggests that presbuteros referred to their dignity as rulers in the congregation, while episcopos pointed to their function as overseers in the church. He also wrote of the `assembly of prebbyters,’ speaking of the plurality of the eldership.

In another of the works of Hippolytus, a Commentary on the Book of Daniel, which was found by Dr. Basilios Georgiades on the island of Chalce, near Constantinople, in the late I800’s, the author quotes the four gospels “as being the very words and teachings of Christ,” thereby affording early evidence and confirmation of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’s gospels as existing and inspired in the late 2nd century.

Dr. Schaff also stated: “The Roman Catholic Church placed him (Hippolytus) in the number of its saints and martyrs, little suspecting that he would come forward in the nineteenth century as a witness against her.”

“Hydra-Headed Heresy”

The .Apostles Paul and John had warned about “perilous times” that would come; and that the “man of sin” would be revealed. But the “hydra-headed heresy” emphasized by alliteration, on the part of Hippolytus, also stressed the “falling away” from the New Testament pattern of the Lord’s church.

Hippolytus was especially critical of Zephryinus and Callistus, presbyters who were teaching falsehoods about the Trinity. Later, the Roman Church would assert that Zephyrinus and Calixtus I, were early popes!

“Hippolytus goes on to inform us that Callistus, by promising to forgive sins, encouraged fornication, nameless crimes of lust and uncleanness, and even abortion; allowing the rich to revel in debauchery, and yet providing rules by which they might still remain in good and regular standing in the church; allowing all to come to the communion, and wresting the Scriptures to justify his course. Hippolytus exclaims: `See to what a pitch of impiety this lawless one [anontos] proceeded, teaching fornication and murder at the same time! Yet, in the face of all these enormities, these men are lost to all sense of shame and presume to call themselves the Catholic Church.’

“Here we see plainly the beginnings of that long series of pretensions and usurpations of power on the part of a bishop of Rome which finally developed, in A.D. 607, into the full-blown papacy, when the decree of Phocas compelled the submission of other bishops to the Roman see, and the bishops of Rome became popes. But there is not the slightest indication that Hippolytus felt that it was his duty to yield obedience to Zephyrinus or Callistus” (The Search-Light of St. Hippolytus, pp. 68-69).

Besides the apostasy within the bishopric, among the many-headed heresies was that of the Ophites, so-called due to their ideas that the serpent in Eden was in reality the

Logos or Word. They were one of the heads or branches of Gnosticism. Both Irenaeus and Hippolytus wrote against them, as had the Apostle John in his letters and Revelation.

One heretic, was Heracleon, a follower of Valentinian, also a Gnostic. He wrote a Commentary on the New Testament that, though quoted by Origen, is now lost. Consider this: If the New Testament had not been authoritative, its enemies would not have bothered to write commentaries concerning it! Dr. George Salmon wrote concerning Heracleon’s view of inspiration: “His theory of inspiration is just the same as the one now popularly current in the church of Christ.”

“The rise of various phases of Gnosticism in connection with the spread of Christianity is a most interesting as well as a very saddening phenomenon. Egypt seems to have been a hotbed of these heresies. Alexandria was a center of wonderful intellectual activity. There met the advocates of the Egyptian and the Syrian Gnosis and the Greek philosophies” (Search-Light of St. Hippolytus, p. 136).

Any writings by Hippolytus will take one back to the late second century and early third century A.D., and provide historical evidence which gives the lie to modern Catholic claims!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 20-21
July 15, 1993

By Irvin Himmel

God’s book instructs us to keep away from such things as are detrimental, damaging, and destructive. Take a few moments to read this article and think about some of the things children of God are to shun.

The Path of the Wicked

The Bible says, “Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, and pass away” (Prov. 4:14,15). We must warn young people not to enter the course of the wicked. The path to enter is the narrow way which leads to life (Matt. 7:13,14). If someone has already entered the way of evil men, he should be told, “go not in the way of evil men.” That means get out; do not continue in the road that leads to ruin. All should be taught to avoid the path of the wicked; turn from it. The wicked path is the popular way, “But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day” (Prov. 4:18).

Profane and

Vain Babblings

Paul said in writing to Timothy, a young preacher, “0 Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings” (1 Tim. 6:20). The New American Standard Bible translates this, “avoiding worldly and empty chatter.” Weymouth renders it, “shunning irreligious and frivolous talk.” The word “babblings” literally means “empty sounds.” Some people get worked up over discussions pertaining to things useless and meaningless. One is exposing the emptiness of his own head when he delights in arguing pointless subjects. God’s people have better things to talk about than useless, ridiculous topics. We must refrain from empty discussions. Hollow rantings amount to no more than firing blanks.

Oppositions of Science
Falsely So Called

This is included in 1 Timothy 6:20  “avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.” Science is knowledge. Much that is labeled knowledge is not that in fact. The Jerusalem Bible interestingly translates this passage, “Have nothing to do with the pointless philosophical discussions and antagonistic beliefs of the ‘knowledge’ which is not knowledge at all.” The ancient Gnostics gloried in knowledge, but they taught many errors. Modern men who call themselves “scientists” often teach unsupported theories that are later proved wrong. The child of God must be alerted to the dangers of pseudo (fake or counterfeit) knowledge. In Christ can be found “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3).

Foolish and Unlearned Questions

“But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes” (2 Tim. 2:23). “But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain” (Tit. 3:9). Some men have raised disputes and questions over trifles that can never be settled. What God has not revealed belongs to Him, not to man (Deut. 29:29). Questions that lead to endless speculation are harmful, We should not entertain questions that are asked purely for the purpose of gratifying someones love of attention or relish for argument. Foolish questions do not edify. God wants his people to abstain from stupid and ignorant questions. That applies to preachers., too!

Fornication

The New Testament teaches that it is good for a man not to touch [be joined to] a woman, Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (I Cor. 7:2). This makes it clear that the sexual union of a man and woman is wrong in Gods sight if they are not husband and wife. Fornication means illicit sexual relations, and such relations are illicit except for a husband and his own wife. All fornicators will be excluded from the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9,10). Todays youth are constantly urged and challenged by other youth to engage in sexual relations before marriage. Many older people sanction pre-marital sex, ~More and more unmarried couples are living together. We must impress upon people that all kinds of fornication are to be avoided. Gods word says tersely, Flee fornication (1 Cor. 6:18).

Suspicions Conduct

Paul urged brethren in congregations that were composed largely of Gentiles to send relief to the needy saints at Jerusalem. Titus went to Corinth to plead with the brethren to do their part in this work of love. Paul sent with Titus of the churches to travel with Paul to witness the delivery of the gift to Jerusalem, “Avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us: Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men” (2 Cor. 8:18-2!). Paul took precautions to avoid any suspicions of dishonesty. All who are involved in the handling of church finances need to be very cautious. Wisdom and prudence are preferable to shadiness and scandal. We ought to keep away from questionable conduct.

Agents of Divisions and Offences

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have earned; and avoid them” (Row. 16:17). Men who cause divisions and dissensions among brethren by refusing to uphold the truth, or by teaching false doctrines, or by promoting heresies, or by causing others to stumble, are to be noted and shunned. The expression “contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, as R.L. Whiteside states in his commentary on Romans, “covers a wide field, such as mechanical music in worship, the organization of societies to do the work of the church, and various schemes to raise money.” One who causes dissensions by trying to introduce practices not authorized in the New Testament is to be avoided. False teaches may have personal charisma and be smooth and persuasive. By good words and fair speeches they deceive the simple, weak, and uninformed. They should be marked and avoided.

Let us resolve to avoid the foregoing evils and all other things that jeopardize our eternal salvation. Many things are better shunned than shared, resisted rather than relished, escaped rather than espoused.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 1
July 15, 1993

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