Truth Magazine

By Frank Himmel

During a recent family reading of Proverbs 2 we paused to consider verse 19. Wisdom says in reference to an adulteress, “None who go to her return again, nor do they reach the paths of life.” What does it mean, none return again?

Most expositors take it as stating a general rule. “It is very rare that any who are caught in this snare of the devil recover themselves, so much is the heart hardened, and the mind blinded, by the deceitfulness of this sin. Having once lost their hold of the paths of life, they know not how to take hold of them again, but are perfectly besotted and bewitched with those base lusts” (Matthew Henry).

Sadly this observation is true. The unbridled lust which leads one to adultery will likely lead him there again and again. One so naive as to fall for the adulteress’ flattering words (e.g., she “understands him” as his wife does not) is apt to repeat his folly. Witness the number of people who are in their third or fourth marriages, or those who have quit bothering with marriage and just cohabit with one “lover” after another. I confess that I do not understand why anyone, even those who disregard God’s law, would seek a marriage partner among adulterers. They have proven unfaithful to their vows once. Is there reason to think they will not do so again?

I do not mean to rule out forgiveness, by God or man. “No one gets so far into sin that God will not receive him back if he makes the proper amends. But the danger and rule is that a patron of the kind of life described above will continue therein to the end of life” (E.M. Zerr).

Now consider another sense in which the statement, “None who go to her return again,” is true. And in this sense it is not a general rule, but an absolute certainty.

No man who becomes involved in adultery will ever be the same again. He cannot return to where he was. He can be forgiven by God. He can be forgiven by his mate. He can be forgiven by the spouse of his partner in adultery. But things can never be quite the way they were.

The implicit trust his mate placed in him has been broken. The special intimate relationship between husband and wife has been violated. The painful memory of the act remains in the consciences of all involved, try as they may to remove it. The feelings of guilt are still there. To the extent the sin is known to others the reputation is damaged. If those involved are Christians the Lord’s holy name is reproached. If they have children who know of the affair the confidence of those little ones is shaken. Time will aid in healing these wounds, but it cannot completely erase the them.

Some mates elect to put the adulterer away. If they so choose, he/she loses the privilege of a God-approved marriage (Matt. 5:31,32; 19:9), despite what men may say about the matter. His only options are to remain single or be reconciled to his mate (1 Cor 7:11).

Before you become involved in this or any sin, take time to sit down and count the cost. Do not be dazzled by the enticing array in which Satan clothes sin. Look at what is inside. Look at the price you may pay. Look at where you will be after the momentary pleasure in past. Are you entering a place from which there is no return?

“The one who commits adultery with a woman is lacking sense; he who would destroy himself does it. Wounds and disgrace he will find, and his reproach will not be blotted out” (Prov. 6:32,33).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 13, pp. 385, 407
July 2, 1992

By Weldon Warnock

It was refreshing to read brother Jackson’s third affirmative without his thrashing Thrasher or exprobating Mr. Editor. Brother Thrasher must have done a better job on Jackson in their debate than we are led to believe in Jackson’s affirmative.

No, Warnock is not in a bind! Brother Jackson is just dreaming. He has been trying to get me into a bind, but his cords are like the seven green withes with which Delilah bound Samson, easily broken as a piece of string when it touches the fire (Judg. 16:7,9).

The church, indeed, has an obligation to some orphans. I said this in the Guardian of Truth article to which brother Jackson alluded. But Jackson conveniently overlooked what I said in the article, “If there are orphans who are Christians, then the church may relieve their needs.” This statement was made in the context of whom the church may relieve, viz., needy saints. The local church is to provide for its own (Acts 2:44,45; 4:32; 6:1-3; 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25,26, etc.), and if some of them happen to be orphans, then, by all means, the church is to help. These are the passages, brother Jackson. Furthermore, I stated in my first negative that the local church “has a responsibility toward orphans if they are needy saints, or the responsibility of needy saints.”

Brother Jackson is a good one to talk about orphans’ care when the institutional homes operated by the brethren (the kind of home in his proposition) won’t even take a homeless child that is under three years old, severely retarded, psychologically unstable or extremely physically handicapped. Friends, this is the kind of religion that these institutional homes are practicing.

I was falsely charged with citing Titus 3:1 to prove the church can obey the laws of the land. The brother must have blurred vision. I said no such thing! What I did say was, “The local church, the collectivity, in its God ordained functions is not subordinate to civil government.” In that context, I cited Titus 3:1 and stated, “If (if, brother Jackson) the church has the same relationship the individual does to government, then the church could ‘be ready to every good work’ (civic works), like having a Voluntary Fire Committee for the community, etc.” I was not affirming that the church is in Titus 3:1, but rather the text is individual in nature. I then asked, “What about it brother Jackson?” He observed the passover.

In reference to singing, Jackson maintains that Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 14:26 are individual (outside of the assembly), but the church is in them. Brother Guy Woods said in regard to Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, “this is corporate (congregational) action” (Spiritual Sword, July, 1990, p. 35). Brother Alan Highers, who quoted brother Woods, argued the same thing. Brother G.C. Brewer was also quoted by brother Highers as saying that the instruction in these verses “cannot be followed by a man when he is in solitary confinement or is otherwise alone.” But Jackson says it is also individual. Can you obey Ephesians 5:19 when you are alone, brother Jackson?

Since Jackson contends that a human organization may handle the visiting of orphans for churches in James 1:27, would he allow a Singing Saints Society to take care of the singing for churches in Ephesians 5:19? He cannot logically oppose a society for singing since he endorses a society for visiting orphans and widows in James 1:27. Why is a human society through which churches work permissible in James 1:27, but not acceptable in Ephesians 5:19?

James 1:27 is the thrust of this discussion. I maintain it is individual in scope and does not include the local church. Brother Jackson says it involves the church, but the church cannot visit the orphans and widows (except send money) as it is not a home, so he drags into James 1:27 an institutional home through which the church works. Is he forgetting that the Jerusalem church in Acts 6:1-6 took care of their widows without a board of directors and superintendent? They had more than two or 22, but the local church did it. They provided for their indigent widows, and we may do the same, such as providing money, a house, food, clothing, etc. The church provides me a house and it doesn’t need a Preacher’s Aid Society to do it. The first century church aided people, needy saints, and not “homes.” This is the way we may take care of the two or 22. Brother Jackson sees an institutional home through which the church takes care of its widows and orphans.

Observe in Jackson’s third affirmative how he totally ignored what I said about the “church’s widow” in 1 Timothy 5 and the “individual’s widow” in James 1:27. He can’t answer it topside, edge or bottom. The widow in 1 Timothy 5 whom the church is to help is a faithful saint who is destitute. She “trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day” (v. 5). This is the same widow in v. 16 the church is to relieve. But James 1:27 is a different situation. The widow in James 1:27 might be my neighbor who is not a faithful saint as mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:5. Jackson, does James 1:27 only authorize the church to care for the kind of widow in 1 Timothy 5:5?

Looking at James 1:27 more closely, it states that pure and undefiled religion also entails keeping oneself unspotted from the world. I suppose that some brethren could establish an institution through which the church may send money to help men and women to overcome the world. We could call it the “Holy Development Home.” It seems to me if the first part of James 1:27 demands a human institution, the last part would, too.

Brother Jackson does not like my diagram in my second negative because it does not have enough human organizations in it with their board of directors. Of course, that is easy to fix by just adding an “S” to organization in the diagram. This would just make more of the same. There is not a whisker of difference between having one organization and several as all of them are without Bible authority through which churches work. But brother Jackson wants to be well represented, so he says, “Bring on the boards.” One cannot do all of the works for the church, but several can, he surmises, This is the most convoluted reasoning I have ever heard in my 38 years of preaching.

We are having trouble getting brother Jackson to understand that “visit” also includes visiting those in prison (Matt. 25:43). Actually, he does not know what to do with my argument on “visiting those in prison,” except to say that a jail is not a benevolent institution. Yet, Jesus teaches us to “visit those in prison.” If the church may fulfill its duties through a human institution in visiting orphans and widows, why can’t it work through a human institution to visit those in prison? Common sense teaches us it may. Christians imprisoned in ancient times bad to be visited and fed (cf. Heb. 10:33-34). Thus, we could have a Prison Relief Society through which churches visit.

So, we have, following the logic of Jackson’s argument, an institutional home for widows and orphans, a hospital for the sick, a penal society for prisoners, a type of monastery for the prevention of worldliness, a singing society for praising God in song, and a church builder’s corporation for erecting meetinghouses, providing they don’t put them all under one board and the institutions are operated by members of the church. Friends, when we embrace institutionalism, there seems to be no stopping place, with the result being the church entangled in the parasitic barnacles of human institutions.

Brother Jackson, if a disaster occurred in the front of the Knollwood building, we would call 911. What would you do in Alabama?

We are told by Jackson that he approves church contributions to a charitable hospital. This is strange in light of the fact that he endorses churches contributing to the Bible departments of “our” colleges, although they charge tuition and several dollars for each credit hour. Why does the hospital have to be charitable, but the college doesn’t? Oh, consistency, where art thou!

Marvin Vincent has some interesting comments on James 1:27. He says, “James strikes a downright blow here at ministry by proxy, or by mere gifts of money. Pure and undefiled religion demands personal contact with the world’s sorrow: to visit the afflicted, and to visit them in their affliction “(Word Studies, Vol. 1, p. 736). Jackson’s religion for the church in James 1:27 is done by proxy through mere money.

My brother still has difficulty with Galatians 6:6. It is so simple that I am baffled at his perplexity. Paul simply states that individuals are to give to support the gospel. Many do this directly to the preacher. But, in 2 Corinthians 11:8 and Philippians 4:15-16, churches support preachers. Surely this is not too difficult for brother Jackson to see.

Jackson declares he already knows about the grammar in Galatians 2:10, 6:10 and 1 Timothy 5:16. Then, apply it and quit stuggling to get collective action into “we” and “us.”

We must again pay our respect to Jackson’s modus ponens syllogism as to its soundness. He says I know “nothing about distribution.” Of course, Jackson thinks he does. A fellow doesn’t have to know much to see that Jackson’s syllogism is fallacious. Basically, his conclusion or consequence does not logically follow from his premises. He did not have institutional home in his premises, but he has it in his conclusion. He attempts to dodge this falsity by saying “the term ‘home’ is generic, referring to every type of home, and appears in three of five premises.” Therefore, Jackson has every type of home in his premises. Every type would be a house, relationship, family, business (as funeral home), county and state home, Baptist home, one’s country, and even the grave. (Wonder if the church could have a burial society?) In this, Jackson didn’t shoot himself in the foot, as he thought I did, but he got himself right between the eyes. He knocked himself out of the bout. Jackson’s syllogism allows the church to contribute to any and every kind of home.

In a conversation with a professor of logic at the University of Dayton, he told me the syllogism of Jackson’s was what is called in logic, “informal fallacy.” He said it contained a subtle shift of meaning from the premises to the consequence or conclusion. This is quite revealing. I have said all along that Jackson shifts and changes his usage of “home,” depending on what his immediate need is. You had better quit using syllogisms brother Jackson; they get you into trouble. Who was it Jackson said knew nothing about distribution?

Briefly, I need to notice what Jackson says about being a father is not a “peculiarly religious act.” He says it is not peculiarly religious if it is not based on religion. He gave an atheist as an example. He said, “Why even atheists are good fathers. They do so on some basis other than religion, so it is not peculiarly religious.” But this would be true with visiting widows and orphans. We could say, “Why even atheists help orphans and widows. They do so on some basis other than religion, so it is not peculiarly religious.” Again, Jackson has knocked the props out from under himself. He has now eliminated James 1:27 from being peculiarly religious! This is the trouble one gets into when he arbitrarily sets up his own rule for religious activity. A Christian who is being a good father is doing a religious act. Is Jackson trying to tell us that a man who provides for his own (1 Tim. 5:8) and brings his children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4) is not practicing religion?

James MacKnight correctly stated in regard to caring for orphans, “These, when they proceed for a regard to the welfare of society are termed virtuous actions; but when done from a regard to the will of God, and to promote his glory, they become pious actions, and make a chief part of true religion.” The atheist may act virtuously, but the Christian father practices pure religion from a regard to the will of God and his glory.

Little children who are homeless need our love and care. Thank God for those who open their hearts to provide for homeless children. The issue with me it not about visiting orphans, but rather who is to do the visiting.

I am confident I have shown brother Jackson’s position to be unscripturally founded and patently false. Consequently, it must be rejected and repudiated. May the Lord help us to always walk in truth and right.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 11, pp. 342-344
June 4, 1992

By Weldon Warnock

We appreciate brother Jackson’s willingness to enter into this written exchange on the proposition he has set forth.

The issue between us is not whether orphans must have care, or whether institutional orphan homes have a right to exist, but rather may churches of Christ contribute from their treasuries, scripturally, to institutional orphan homes? This is the crux of the issue. This is what brother Jackson is affirming.

Brother Jackson contends that “when the church has an obligation that obligation may be commanded of the individual and carried out collectively.” He uses Galatians 2:10, 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 and Romans 15:26 as an example. But in Galatians 2:10, Paul simply stated that he was eager to comply with the request of the apostles at Jerusalem, viz., to remember the poor, which he did by ordering churches, such as in Macedonia, Achaia and Galatia, to contribute to poor saints. For Paul to have relieved his financial obligation to the poor through the action of several churches, of which he was not a member and to which he made no monetary gifts, would have been a blockbuster of practicing individual religion by proxy. Brother Jackson, is this the way you fulfill your individual obligations to the poor by just urging churches to give to them?

Brother Jackson asks, “Could an individual Christian fulfill his obligation (Jas. 1:27) to such a poor person the same way Paul did?” Do you mean by ordering churches to give to institutional orphanages? Where did Paul do this? He directed congregations for example, to raise and to send money to the poor saints in Jerusalem, and using Acts 11:27-30 as a precedent, the money would have been taken to the elders, not to a board of directors.

In brother Jackson’s modus ponens syllogism he failed to prove his premises, as I shall show, so his conclusion is false. His very first premise (A), not to mention some others, is erroneous and, therefore, his syllogism is invalid. He failed to prove that the local church has an obligation to orphans in general. Neither James 1:27, nor my isolated statement he lifted out of context from the Guardian of Truth, proves his contention. James 1:27 is individual action and not church (collective) action. The “himself” of the text is no more a church than the “branches” are churches in John 15:5. Both are individual in nature. Sectarians make “branches” churches and brother Jackson makes “himself” a church. Both are wrong.

Brother Jackson endeavors to make James 1:27 both local church action and individual action at the same time because, as he reasons, the church also has an obligation toward widows (1 Tim. 5:16; Acts 6:1). Since “to visit” relates equally to the fatherless and widows, then the local church, he concludes, has a responsibility toward orphans. Therefore, James 1:27 is not exclusively individual.

Well, if James 1:27 shows the duty of a local church to widows and orphans, are the restrictions in 1 Timothy 5:16 to be applied to James 1:27? The church in 1 Timothy 5:16 is to relieve widows indeed and the individual in the chapter is to take care of his own (5:8,16). Making James 1:27 individual, which it is, permits and obligates the care of widows and orphans on a general basis. However, the church is restricted to widows indeed. Brother Jackson is confused between the “church’s widow” of 1 Timothy 5:16 and the “individual’s widow” of James 1:27. Please tell us if James 1:27 is limited to widows indeed?

We are told that brother Thomas Thrasher would not even mention this argument on James 1:27 in the debate brother Jackson had with him. If he wouldn’t, I have not only mentioned it, but answered it, so let’s see what brother Jackson can now do with it. The local church has a duty to certain widows (widows indeed), and in like manner it has a responsibility toward orphans if they are among the needy saints, or the responsibility of needy saints.

The thrust of brother Jackson’s argument is James 1:27. He insists the verse allows local churches to contribute to institutional homes because an orphan needs a home. (Notice in his article how he shifts back and forth on the use of “home.” He makes it a legal institution with a board of directors, a relationship and also a place. It becomes confusing.) The Bible says nothing about the church contributing out of its treasury to any home. The local church in the New Testament gave to needy saints. If we used biblical terminology, the matter of benevolence would become so much easier to understand. Churches of Christ gave to people – needy saints. Seems some like the word “home” in discussing this issue as they can shift gears from one meaning of home to another whenever it suits their purpose. (However, if we define giving to a destitute Christian to provide for his family as the same as giving to a home, then, by definition, we are giving to a home.)

Brother Jackson finds a human institutional orphanage in James 1:27 because it says “to visit the fatherless.” W.E. Vine states that the word episkeptomai (visit) signifies “to visit the sick and afflicted, Matthew 25:36,43; Jas. 1:27” (Vol. 4, p. 190). Whatever is authorized in James 1:27 is also authorized in Matthew 25:36,43. Hence, if James 1:27 authorizes churches of Christ to maintain orphanages, then it also authorizes institutional homes for widows. But Matthew 25 includes much more. Given brother Jackson’s interpretation of James 1:27, churches may also build and maintain hospitals for the sick as Jesus said, “visit the sick” (Matt. 25:36) and build jails because Jesus said “visit those in prison” (Matt. 25:43). Some brethren already have Church of Christ Hospitals and Church of Christ Medical Missions. Brother Jackson, may churches of Christ build and maintain hospitals (like the Catholics, Baptists and Methodists do) and jails? If they can build orphanages to visit orphans, why can’t they build hospitals to visit the sick? We await your answer.

Let’s try brother Jackson’s modus ponens syllogism on for size and see if it will allow churches of Christ to build and maintain hospitals from their treasuries. Following brother Jackson’s line of thinking:

If it is the case that:

A. A church of the Lord’s people has an obligation in the care of the sick.

B. The needs of the sick cannot be adequately met at times without hospital care.

C. The church, without any further organization, cannot function as a hospital.

D. The church may discharge some of its obligations by providing funds, and

E. The church may send funds to a hospital.

Then it is the case that: (by conjunction, A,B,C,D,E, F)

F. The Bible teaches that a church of the Lord’s people may make a contribution, from its treasury, to a hospital.

How about it brother Jackson? Why doesn’t your syllogism authorize churches of Christ to build and maintain hospitals, and even contribute money to Baptist, Methodist, city, county and state hospitals?

Our brother equates a meeting place of the church with an institutional orphanage. But these are not parallel. Though a church cannot meet without a place, it has choice as to facilities – a church building, private dwelling, school auditorium, etc. An institutional home is not inferred. What brother Jackson needs in his argument on a place to assemble to parallel his position on a local church contributing to an institutional orphanage, which in turn provides a home for children, is a “Christian Builders Corporation.” Churches could contribute to the corporation and it would buy property and build meetinghouses all over the country.

Homes, with their board of directors, take care of “our” orphans and widows and the “Christian Builders Corporation” would take care of our building needs. Sounds like we have a “good” thing going here. Since a church is not a construction company, as it is not a home, it may subsidize a construction company to expedite erection of meetinghouses just as it contributes to benevolent organizations to care for orphans, widows, the infirm and the sick. This is following the reasoning of those who advocate contributions from churches to benevolent institutions.

Brother Jackson declares, “In carrying out the command to care for some widows (1 Tim. 5:16 – given after the fact), the church gathered many necessities (treasury) and gave it to widows daily (Acts 4:34,35; 6:1-6). ” Observe that he says the church “gave it to widows.” Amen! What he needs to find is where they gave it to a board of directors of some institutional home that could have been called “Haven of Rest Care Center” which institution in turn gave just a part of the money contributed by the church to the widows.

The church at Jerusalem chose seven men to handle the distribution of funds for the needy widows among them. The church had all the machinery necessary to carry out its duty of relieving their needs. If required, a local church may provide a house, food, clothing and whatever else is necessary for a widow’s upkeep (and orphans who are its responsibility).

Brother Jackson says giving to a home is “parallel to giving to a church.” He then makes a strange statement that the term “church” in our language “includes the building and the people who meet in it.” I thought the church were the redeemed people and not brick and mortar? When Jesus shed his blood to purchase the church, did this include a building? When God purposed the church, did he include a building? No one is contesting a meetinghouse, nor its upkeep, but let’s not define the church of God (1 Cor. 1:2) to include an earthly and mundane building.

We are accused by brother Jackson of wanting to include the institutional home in any debate we have on the care of orphans so that we can talk about abuses and hide behind them. He says, “However, I never debated a one of them who believed the church could make a contribution to a home of any kind. They wanted to include the institutional home so that they could talk about abuses and hide when the going got tough.” Although there are plenty of abuses in institutional orphanages to talk about, you may have observed that in this first round that I haven’t written about them. Therefore, if brother Jackson’s characterization of us is true, then my part of this written debate has so far been rather easy, because we “talk about abuses when the going gets tough.”

We are told in brother Jackson’s final paragraph that since his syllogism is unquestionably valid and the premises are true, the proposition is proven to be true. In response, I feel just as confident that I have shown that his syllogism is unquestionably invalid and that some of his premises are not true, therefore, his proposition is proven to be false.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 11, pp. 333-334
June 4, 1992

By Clarence W. Fell

If you have tried to discuss the state of the dead with a Jehovah’s Witness then no doubt you have had to deal with Ecclesiastes 9:5-10. They smoothly focus on a couple of phrases from the passage and ignore the rest. The phrases that they focus on – out of context – would seem to support their position that the dead are currently in a state of absolute unconsciousness. However, when considered in context the passage says nothing supportive of the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine.

The key to understanding this passage is to keep in mind that it looks at death from the perspective of men still living on earth. Its purpose is to encourage man to live and enjoy life now, not some elusive tomorrow (vv. 7-9). This passage does not attempt to explain the spiritual state of the dead. Let’s look at Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 in context.

“But the dead know nothing” (v. 5). Let’s first consider a parallel passage to illustrate the importance of context. I Samuel 21:39, “the lad knew not anything.” This verse is from a passage in which Jonathan gives David a secret signal concerning Saul. To take the phrase out of context and say that the lad was in a state of total unconsciousness would be the ultimate display of ignorance. We realize immediately that the statement about the lad is limited by the context. Likewise, the statement is Ecclesiastes 9 is limited by the context. If “the dead know nothing” is an unconditional absolute truth, then why not also the other two thoughts presented in the same sentence? Let’s consider the context of Ecclesiastes 9:5 and see what Solomon was really trying to teach us.

“The dead . . . have no more reward” (v. 5). Not even the J.W.’s would say that this is an absolutely true, unconditional statement. Even in their twisted system the faithful dead have a future reward. Clearly Solomon was not looking into the spiritual realm, but rather into physical life on earth in which the dead no longer have a part. Their opportunity to acquire and enjoy material rewards is past.

“The dead . . . the memory of them is forgotten” (v. 5). Again, no one would claim that this is an absolutely true, unconditional statement. Though the majority of the dead are eventually forgotten, there are some famous people who will never be forgotten by the living, and certainly God does not forget anyone. Solomon was not looking at the spiritual state of the dead, but rather at what happens to the majority of mankind: they are forgotten by the living. This passage views death from the perspective of the living.

“The dead . . . nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun” (v. 6). This phrase is one that the J.W.’s will most certainly reject if interpreted as an unconditional, absolute truth. In their system of belief all the faithful (except the 144,000 who actually get to go to heaven) will enjoy eternity of earth under the sun. They absolutely .must accept this part of the passage as a limited statement or deny a major portion of their own teachings. This should help make clear to the J.W.’s that Solomon was not trying to explain the spiritual state of the dead. He is simply saying that after death man has nothing more to do with this physical realm. Solomon is encouraging us to live life now and do the things we desire now because after death it is too late. Now is the time to enjoy life (vv. 7-10).

“There is no work, or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going” (v. 10). Various people have looked into graves at one time or another and can testify to the truth of this statement. There is nothing in the grave but the inactive human remains. From the perspective of the living, the grave is the end of all activity. If God had not told us about life beyond the grave then we would have been powerless to learn anything about the spiritual realm. We would have looked into the grave and, with our limited five senses, concluded that death is the absolute end because we are powerless to see the spiritual realm.

In this passage Solomon is not explaining the spiritual state of the dead. If he was we must deny future reward because he said the dead “have no more reward.” Who would believe such a thing? Solomon is saying that now is the time to live and enjoy life. Now is the time to work, devise, think, act wisely and enjoy a successful life because after death the opportunities to acquire success are gone.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 12, p. 357
June 18, 1992