Truth Magazine

By Daniel H. King

Fornication has always been a sin, not only against God and holiness, but also against one’s own body. Throughout this period of sexual madness that our nation and the world has been experiencing, that is one fact which has been largely ignored. Paul noted this in making his argument against the licentious ways of the Corinthians: “Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body; but he who commits immorality sins against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18).

According to Paul’s observation, no sin quite so intimately requires the total involvement of the physical anatomy as does immorality. Additionally, it puts the body completely at risk. The Bible attests that from very early times God has associated this sin with danger and even death. The twenty-fifth chapter of Numbers tells how the Israelites “began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab” (v. 1), and “Israel joined himself unto the Baal of Peor. ” Canaanite religion was a fertility cult and was inherently sexual in nature. People worshiped Baal and Asherah by means of union with cultic prostitutes (both male and female). There is ample attestation of this in the Scripture itself and also in outside sources such as the cuneiform texts from Ras Shamra, the excavated city of Ugarit, on the coast of Syria. Israel was tempted to join in with the worship and did so to his hurt. Immorality is dangerous! The Bible tells how Moses and the priests struck down some who engaged in this evil. But, almost in a footnote, it ends the story of the incident with these words: “And those that died by the plague were twenty and four thousand.” Imagine that! Twenty four thousand persons perished by a plague because of their immorality! Undoubtedly this plague was some sort of sexually transmitted disease. The brothel/shrine at Peor was not a safe place to visit!

Our young people need to be constantly warned that there is danger in sexual sin. While God has blessed the marital union (Heb. 13:4 – “the marriage bed is undefiled”), he has cursed pre- and extra-marital involvements: “fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4b). Too many of our foolish intellectual leaders are attempting to salvage their so-called “sexual revolution” by encouraging “safe sex,” i.e. sex with a protective condom. In reality, the only “safe sex” is that between two persons who are married and faithful to one another. We who believe Scripture must not hesitate to remind ourselves and others that the curse of God is upon those who commit sexual sin. Even if one takes the risk and gets lucky (does not contract a disease or seems not to pay the price of this folly), still the wages of sin is ultimately death (Rom. 6:23). It spells spiritual death now, and eternal separation from God in the world to come, regardless of the present physical repercussions or lack of them.

But those physical consequences may only be ignored at fantastic risk to one’s health and happiness. At this stage in our history venereal diseases are running rampant. Gonorrhea, syphilis, chancroid, lymphogranulorna venereum, granuloma inguinale, nongonococcal. urethritis (chlamydial infection), hepatitis infection (hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and “non-A, non-B” hepatitis), venereal warts (human papillomavirus), venereal herpes (herpes genitalis), acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), etc, are all threats to public health. Herpes and AIDS are incurable; AIDS is always fatal. Contrary to public opinion, curing these diseases is not easy for the scientific community, nor is the solution merely to throw unlimited funds into research (as many in the homosexual community seem to think, especially with reference to AIDS; besides, why should the U.S. taxpayer be forced to pay for the socially irresponsible behavior of a few?). Not only are the causative organisms in these various diseases different structurally but they also represent distinct classes of micro-organisms: spirochetes, cocci, bacilli, and viruses. Hepatitis is a virus. It is not specifically a venereal disease, but is spread through sexual intimacy with infected persons. It can be fatal, lead to chronic hepatitis or even cirrhosis of the liver. Herpes and AIDS are also viral organisms, and so are the most difficult to prevent or interdict with medication. To date it has proven impossible to eradicate these various diseases because they are constantly being transmitted to new hosts by sexual activity of infected persons, knowingly or unknowingly.

The AIDS virus in particular strikes fear in the hearts of even the most casual in their views toward sexual “freedom.” The slow and excruciating death, punctuated by debilitating infections and unrelenting cancerous tumors, and the knowledge that there are no survivors, should be sufficient to give anyone pause before considering a “casual sexual encounter.” It seems that in this mysterious virus God has created a scourge worthy of the plague at Peor – calculated to punish those who have no respect for his Law!

Except in rare cases, there is no reason for the moral person to fear these deadly venereal plagues. The Lord has made a way to protect his people from such. In their faithfulness to God and their marital partner, or through simple self-control, Christians guard themselves from these infestations. As Jehovah said in the Old Testament, “the Lord will . . . afflict you with none of the terrible diseases of Egypt, which you have known” (Deut. 7:15). On the other hand, if we yield to immoral behavior, we should be forewarned that “he that sows to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption” (Gal. 6:8). As Moses warned Israel: “Then the Lord will bring upon you and your descendants extraordinary plagues – great and prolonged plagues – and serious and prolonged sicknesses . . . and they shall cling to you” (Deut. 28:59-60).

The irresponsible mass media, in particular television and modern popular music, treats these very real dangers mostly as if they did not exist. Dramatic presentations have movie heroes like James Bond hopping from bed to bed with one beautiful woman after another, seemingly without consequences. Many young people have already discovered, to their frightened dismay, that this is how babies are conceived (though it is seldom so in the movies). Song lyrics make unlawful sexual encounters sound wistfully romantic. Again, however, they totally ignore the real-life implications of such doings. America’s spiraling illegitimacy rate attests to the fact that conception and birth are still the very natural result of heterosexual intimacy. Abortion, with its mental and physical scarring, is the stop-gap measure invented to rid our lives of these children conceived in “one night stand, non-committal relationships.

And then there are the diseases! We must not forget those diseases! Hollywood seems to, except when doing some concert on behalf of its AIDS victims. And even then the most its leading lights can contribute is a few dollars, a warning against “unprotected sex,” and more railing against the government for not somehow relieving us of this scourge. Dear friend, the only way we are going to put a halt to this AIDS epidemic is if we again respect the law of the Lord and limit sexual activity to the normal, male-female, marriage relationship. Otherwise, it will run its course when it has killed off, in toto, those infected with the virus. Do not be unwise enough to be one among them! It may be many years before some researcher stumbles upon the key that will unlock the mystery of a cure for this awful disease. If that happens, the many other serious health and life threatening side-effects of immorality will not have gone away.

We must know, even today, that “he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18). If we are guilty of this sin, we are not only transgressing an ordinance of Heaven, but we are hurting ourselves, potentially destroying our own bodies!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 11, p. 322, 329
June 4, 1992

By Mike Willis

In the following pages appears a discussion between Roger Jackson of Somerville, Alabama and Weldon Warnock of Beavercreek, Ohio on the issue of church support of benevolent Institutions. Brother Jackson affirms their right to exist and brother Warnock denies. I thought a word of introduction to the discussion would be appropriate.

The 1 August 1991 issue of Guardian of Truth contained a report of the Thrasher-Jackson debate in northern Alabama, The report was written by Wayne Greeson, Brother Jackson sent me a five-page reply to that report for publication in Guardian of Truth. When I refused to publish the report because It would lead to a debate over a review of a debate, I offered brother Jackson opportunity to defend his practice in the pages of Guardian of Truth. Later, he sent me a transcription of one item he felt he had been misrepresented on and I published the transcription along with a few comments.

Our correspondence and telephone conversation led to an agreement for three discussions to be published in Guardian of Truth, The discussions were to occur in this order: (a) Brother Jackson would defend the church support of benevolent Institutions; (b) Brother Warnock would defend the saints only proposition; (c) Brother Jackson would defend the church support of colleges. This first discussion is the beginning of the fulfillment of this agreement.

In providing for this discussion, I tried to get brother Jackson to arrange for some paper which circulates among his brethren to carry the discussion as well. He was unable to find one.

On February 8, 1992, offer the discussion had already begun, brother Jackson wrote me about his affirming the third proposition of this discussion. He said, 1 cannot affirm what, to me, is an endorsement of the colleges in our brotherhood. I do not know of a one that I would endorse as worthy of either individual or collective support, I believe they have taken the brethren’s money and then stabbed them in the back. They support false teachers and deny the brethren one, word of criticism.” He went on to state that he had not studied the church support of colleges question sufficiently to feel comfortable debating the issue. Consequently, there will be no discussion of the church support of colleges.

Despite my dissatisfaction with some aspects of this discussion, such as it not being published by a paper circulating among our liberal brethren, the truth has nothing to hide, We are happy to have our readers read both sides of this and any other Issue. I ask that each of our readers give careful attention to what both disputants have written and “search the Scriptures” to see if the things taught are so.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 11, p. 330
June 4, 1992

By Johnie Edwards

There are a number of things Jesus did not have, yet there are some things he had that we are looking at in this study.

Jesus Had Pre-Existence

Some believe and teach that Jesus was a created being. Not so! Jesus has always been. He existed before he came to earth. He was present at the creation. God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26). Paul wrote the Colossians, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him” (Col. 1:16). Jesus is eternal. Jesus told the Jews of his day, “Before Abraham was, I am” (Jn. 8:58). Don’t let anybody tell you that Jesus had no pre-existence!

Jesus Had An Unusual Conception

Jesus was born of a virgin! Isaiah foresaw the conception of Jesus as a miracle. “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14). New Testament writers like Matthew picked up this out-of-the-ordinary story. “Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 1: 18). Again Matthew said, “. . . for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 1:20). The actual birth of Jesus was ordinary. It was the conception that was different.

Jesus Had Dual Being

Jesus had a dual nature. Jesus was God-man. He was both human and divine. He was “God with us” (Matt. 1:23). John said, “And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (Jn. 1:14). Paul wrote the Philippians, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:5-8). Even though Jesus took on the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men, he still had his divinity. He was both human and divine. Something took on the likeness of men. Just what was that? It was divinity that took on the likeness of men.

Jesus Had Compassion

Our society today is lacking in compassion. While Jesus was here, he had compassion on men. The Bible says that Jesus was moved with compassion. “But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). There is a great demand among the Lord’s people to show compassion toward others. Perhaps one reason we are losing people faster than we are converting them, in lots of places, is because we show so little care, concern and compassion! Peter said, “Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous” (1 Pet. 3:8). I don’t care how much you have and how much you give on Sunday into the collection plate, if you do not have compassion for others, you are in a bad way. John said, “But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?” (1 Jn. 3:17)

Jesus Had Work to Do

Jesus was busy. He had work to do. He said, “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day; the night cometh when no man can work” (Jn. 9:4). At the tender age of twelve, Jesus told Mary and Joseph, “I must be about my Father’s business” (Lk. 2:49). Jesus said to the Jews of his day, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” (Jn. 5:17). When John asked, “Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?” (Matt. 11:3), the works Jesus did were pointed to as evidence that he was who he said he was. The works were “the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them” (Matt. 11:5). Near the close of his earth life, he said, “I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (Jn. 17:4).

Every Christian needs to be working. The Holy Spirit told the Corinthians, “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58).

Jesus Had All Authority

A failure to recognize that Jesus had all power or authority has been the source of many problems among the Lord’s people. Jesus said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). The mother of Jesus realized that he had all authority when she said, “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it” (Jn. 2:5). While Jesus was here on earth, folks were astonished at his doctrine. “For he taught them as one having authority” (Matt. 7:29). A failure for the church to know that Jesus is “the head of the body” (Col. 1:18) has kept many churches of Christ from being in subjection to him. As a result of this concept, lots of churches have engaged in unauthorized works such as providing entertainment and recreation out of the church treasury to contributing to human organizations in doing the work of the church. Recently more than 4,000 churches of Christ have contributed to the “One Nation Under God” project of a Tennessee church to the tune of about $10,000,000 dollars in an evangelistic campaign. The authority of Christ does not allow such an arrangement!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 10, pp. 304-305
May 21, 1992

By Roger Jackson

The Proposition: “The Bible teaches that a church of the Lord’s people may make a contribution, from its treasury, to an institutional home for orphans.”

I am pleased to have this opportunity to affirm this proposition and to have as my opponent brother Weldon Warnock. I also appreciate brother Willis’ willingness to publish the discussion in the pages of the Guardian of Truth.

It is the responsibility of the affirmative to define the terms of the proposition. By “the Bible,” I mean the inspired Word of God, the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. By “teaches,” I mean imparts knowledge and authorizes a practice by either direct statement, approved example or implication. By “a church of the Lord’s people,” I mean a local congregation of the church of Christ (1 Cor. 1:2). By “may,” I mean it has a right to, is at liberty to, but is not required to. I am not affirming that this is the only way to do the work. By “make a contribution,” I mean render benevolent assistance to. By “from its treasury,” I mean out of the funds collected on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1,2) or goods purchased by those funds. By “institutional home,” I mean one legally structured under articles of incorporation maintaining a board of directors. By “for orphans,” I mean the fatherless (Jas. 1:27).

Much that will be said in the course of this debate will hinge on the hermeneutic employed by each of the disputants. These few lines will lay down a principle along that line. One way that the church acts is by its members. This is not to say that everything all the members do the church does, but when the church has an obligation that obligation may be commanded of the individual and carried out collectively. For instance, in Galatians 2:10 Paul was told to remember the poor, which he said he did. The command was totally individual, “Only they would that we should remember the poor, the same which I was forward to do.” How did he carry out that obligation? He took up a collection out of the first day of the week contribution (1 Cor. 16:1,2; Rom. 15:26). Now brother Warnock believes an orphan can be a scriptural object of the church’s benevolence as we shall notice from his own writings a bit later. Could an individual Christian fulfill his obligation (Jas. 1:27) to such a poor person the same way Paul did?

Could he and a number of others pool their resources into the church treasury and support a poor person (orphan)? Paul’s actions are an optional example. We may do it that way. We may do it another way, but this is one way it can be done.

I shall use implicit authority to prove the proposition following the principle that to prove every part of a proposition is to prove the whole proposition. The argument is this:

If it is the case that:

A. A church of the Lord’s people has an obligation in the care of orphans, and,

B. The needs of an orphan child cannot be adequately met without his having or being a part of a home, and,

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

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

E. The church may send funds to a home,

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 an institutional home for orphans.

The syllogism is a modus ponens syllogism with a compound antecedent. I am affirming the antecedent. If the syllogism is valid (and it is), and the premises are true (which I shall prove), then the conclusion is demanded and we have a sound argument. A sound argument has no answer. I shall now proceed to prove the premises are true.

Church Responsibility

A church of the Lord’s people has a responsibility in the care of orphan children as the need arises and the opportunity presents itself. I have never debated a man of brother Warncock’s position who believed this. They believe that a church may support a Christian who is an orphan, but not because he is an orphan, but because he is a Christian. However, brother Warnock wrote in this paper (Vol. XXIV, No. 14, p. 14): “To my knowledge there is nobody who opposes helping widows and orphans from the church treasury, provided they come within the scope of the church’s responsibility. The church is not obligated to help, financially, all widows and orphans, but just certain ones.” Now, brother Warnock give us the passage that teaches the church may assist an orphan out of the church treasury. You said it could, now tell us where that passage is. I maintain that you teach a church of the Lord has no responsibility at all to an orphan child simply on the basis of his being an orphan whether he is in an institutional home or any other kind. What say ye?

Here is the argument to prove a church of the Lord’s people has a responsibility in the care of orphan children: James 1:27 states, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (emphasis mine, R.J.) A. The word episkeptomai (to visit) relates equally to the fatherless and to the widows. B. If it is exclusively individual for the fatherless, then it is exclusively individual for the widows. C. But it is not exclusively for the widows (Acts 6:1; 1 Tim. 5:16). C. Therefore, it is not exclusively individual for the fatherless. Since it is not exclusively individual for the fatherless the church may care for the fatherless on the strength of James 1:27. Acts 6:1 states the church helped widows and 1 Timothy 5:16 states the same thing, The church may visit the fatherless because of the equal relationship.

In spite of Wayne Greeson’s false report about my debate with Thomas Thrasher last year, which appeared in the Guardian, Thrasher would not even mention this argument. All he could say was James 1:27 is individual. This does not answer the argument. To show the inconsistency, brother Warnock, would you please give us a passage that authorizes the church to obey the laws of the land and to sing?

Must Have A Home

The needs of an orphan child cannot be adequately met without his having, or being a part of a home. By “home” I mean a family situation, custody or guardianship in the cause of the fatherless and inclusive of a dwelling. When we are told to assemble (Heb. 10:25) we understand that a place is essential. When we are told to care for the fatherless and widows a place is just as essential as well as custody and guardianship in the case of the fatherless. In providing facilities, custody and guardianship it is often necessary to incorporate. This produces a board of trustees and a charter. All of this is in compliance with the law (1 Pet. 2:13,14).

Church Cannot Function As A Home

In the case of orphan children the church must utilize the services of another institution. It is God’s arrangement for an eldership to serve over a local church (Acts 20:28; Heb. 13:17). The home is overseen by guardians who may be the natural parents (Eph. 6:1-4; Col. 3:20).

According to brother Warnock’s statement, already quoted, the church may support some widows. Are these widows in homes? Is a home another organization separate from the church? When the church supports these widows in these homes is their home an organization separate and apart from the church doing the work of the church? Is this home a human institution? In contributing to the upkeep of her home would the church be subsidizing a human institution? All of your answers apply to orphans by virtue of the fact that they are equated in the work of visiting in James 1:27.

Obligations Discharged By Providing Funds

Some of the obligations of the church may be discharged by providing funds. In the New Testament we read about obligations of the church being carried out by providing funds. (1) 1 Timothy 3:15 states that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. We believe and teach that this makes the Great Commission binding on the church (Matt. 28:18-20). One way that the church of the first century carried out this obligation was by sending funds to the preacher (Phil. 4:15,16). (2) 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). In like manner James 1:27 states the equal responsibility of supporting the fatherless.

Funds For A Home

May the church provide funds for a home? When money is given for the general upkeep of property and maintaining sustenance for those residing in and on that property, funds have been appropriated and given to a home. This is parallel to giving to a church. The term “church” in our language includes the building and the people who meet in it. To contribute to a church is to contribute to the work of the people in a building and may include the maintenance of a building. Brother Willis has assured me that he and his staff believe that a church may contribute to a home. Thus, he insisted on a word “institutional” be included in the proposition. Brother Warnock has left the definite impression in his writings that he believes the church has a responsibility to “some” orphans. Orphans need homes. It is impossible to help the needy without giving or sustaining them in that which they need – a home. 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. So perhaps brother Warnock can clear the matter up for us. Brother Warnock, do you believe the church can make a contribution to a home of any kind? If so, what kind, and where does the Bible teach it? It you will honor us with that information we will know whether or not to pursue the proof of this point or leave it as a point of argument.

Since the syllogism is unquestionably valid and the premises are true, the conclusion follows and is the proposition. We have a sound argument. The proposition is proven to be true.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 11, p. 331-332
June 4, 1992