Truth Magazine

By Randy Blackaby

An article in the October 31 edition of the Kokomo Tribune about the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) stunningly revealed the ends of apostasy in the Lord’s church.

Entitled “Illinois pastor chosen acting Disciples leader,” the article told of an Illinois “pastor” who had agreed to accept the title of “acting president and general minister of the Indianapolis-based” church.

It then told that the Rev. C. Williams Nichols was taking the job on an interim basis so that “healing deep wounds from a bitter controversy over homosexuality” could take place.

An account is given of how the Rev. Michael Kinnamon of Kentucky was nominated to be president but then rejected because of his view that homosexuals can be ordained as ministers. Kinnamon is dean of the Lexington Theological Seminary and a member of the Gay, Lesbian and Affirming Disciples, the article stated.

Kinnamon fell 87 votes short of the two thirds majority of 5,000 delegates needed to be approved as president, so Nichols will serve two years as president until another nominee is presented to the 1993 General Assembly in St. Louis, the paper said.

This news account is nothing if not shocking.

Prior to 1901 there was no official distinction between what is known as the Christian Church and the church of Christ. Before 1850 there was no unofficial division. We were brethren. We were in full fellowship.

What happened?

Since about 1850, the group known as Disciples not only has adopted denominationalism’s wrongful concept of preachers as “pastors” and adopted titles such as “Reverend” and “president” but has accepted centralized organization in lieu of the autonomous local churches taught in the Bible.

Like Catholicism’s departure from the New Testament pattern of church government, our former brethren have elevated a single man to lead the church. A “base” for the Disciples has been established in Indianapolis and money is funneled to the central headquarters for nationwide and worldwide church work.

Now, the Disciples, who still claim to be a church “with no creed but Christ and no book but the Bible” are wrestling unsuccessfully with the issue of homosexuality. They seem unable to understand the clear teaching of Scriptures such as Romans 1:24-28 on the issue of homosexuality.

The man nominated to lead them is a member of a gay rights group within the denomination.

And, rather than adhering to Bible teaching, these former brethren opt to “vote” on issues like their denominational counterparts.

What happened?

Many are fond of pointing to instrumental music and the missionary society as the “reasons” for the division that separated the Disciples from the church of Christ. But those are only symptoms. The real answer to what happened lies in a departure from strict adherence to the teaching and patterns of the New Testament.

Churches cooperating through institutions other than the church (a missionary society) seemed a minor departure from New Testament patterns to many in those days. But look where it has led today.

As we look with sadness upon the tragedy befalling our former brethren, we must be warned ourselves.

Brethren today are departing from New Testament patterns. God’s pattern of congregational autonomy is being twisted by “sponsoring church” arrangements where the elders of one church oversee the work and treasuries of several congregations. Is there any fundamental difference between this and the missionary society concept?

The Disciples have an earthly president and an earthly headquarters and call their preachers and leaders by titles which should be reserved for God. Is this fundamentally any different than the pope of Catholicism and the Vatican in Rome?

Like the children of Israel in the years before God’s judgment upon them, God’s people today are being lured into adopting the worship, organization and practices of the unbelievers about us.

Rather than being haughty about the tragedy striking the Disciples denomination, we should examine our own practices and bases of authority so that we don’t walk the same path a decade or two from now.

Some “churches of Christ” are already well along the path the Disciples have walked. Perhaps the realization that opening the door to apostasy can lead to Sodomites teaching our children will turn some brethren back to the New Testament pattern.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 10, pp. 289, 310
May 21, 1992

By Charley Alexander, James Moore and J.D. Harris

We are sharing the following information for the sole purpose of urging brethren everywhere to be as careful and cautious as possible in supporting gospel preachers from the church treasury. The information we are sharing makes us painfully aware of how important it is to know what is being taught with the Lord’s money.

On July 19, 1985 we answered Don Givens’ plea for support by sending him a letter with $1,000 to help him move to Hawaii to labor in the gospel of Christ with the Leeward church. Before agreeing to help Don, we wrote him two letters asking him about his stand on divorce and remarriage. His return letters gave scriptural answers to our questions. He answered with openness and courage that he was willing for anyone to know his stand at any time. He declared, “This is where I stand, and this is what I preach – and I am not ashamed to let anybody know” (Don’s May 13, 1985 letter to West Columbia in answering our questions).

We continued to follow his work with great interest. During 1991 we were disturbed to learn from one of his taped sermons in Hawaii that he was not preaching what he told us he would be preaching on divorce and remarriage. After assuring us of his stand in 1985 and receiving our support on that basis, he asked for additional help in November of 1987. Within a few days of that request, he preached at Leeward directly opposite to what he assured us he was preaching. When we later learned about this, we wrote Don a letter dated June 26, 1991, asking for clarification.

We said in part,

Don, we read every report you sent with great care, followed your work with sincere interest, and fervently prayed for you and the church there. In addition to regular reports, at times you sent us more detailed information and requests because you recognized our love and concern. As you put it in your letter of November 5, 1987, you felt we had a special interest “since you helped me move to Hawaii to preach.”

To remind Don of our earlier questions and his answers, we sent him a photocopy of the following section of his letter to us dated May 13, 1985:

You asked: (1) Do you believe and teach that if a man divorces his wife without the cause of fornication, and while she lives he marries another, he and the new mate are living in adultery? My answer: Absolutely yes. It is an adulterous union. He had no right to marry her, if fornication was not present. Only “for fornication” would give the innocent party the right to re-marry.

(2) Also, would the nature of repentance require that he end the second marriage, or would the nature of forgiveness permit him to continue in the second marriage? My answer: It is adultery. To be genuinely repented of, he must cease his adultery. He has no right to her, in this case. I would tell him the same thing John the Baptizer told Herod: “You have no right to her.”

We also sent him a photocopy of the following section of his letter to us dated June 13, 1985:

As to your question: quote, “If the put -away- fornicator remarries, are he and the new mate living in adultery? Would the nature of repentance require that this marriage be ended?” My answer: Absolutely yes, it is adultery. And yes, repentance requires that one cease the sin engaged in. The apostle Paul tells us that if we separate, we are to (1) remain unmarried, or (2) be reconciled. These are the only two options that I know the N.T. gives, and I believe that the innocent could put away the guilty, and have the right to remarry; but the guilty would be left with only the first option (remain unmarried) because he/she has already destroyed the possibility of the second option (“be reconciled”).

Don did not consider these views secret, private, or confidential, but stressed that this is what he publicly preached. “This is where I stand, and this is what I preach – and I am not ashamed to let anybody know.”

The clarity and strength of Don’s stand is underscored by his response to an inquiry as to whether he had any direct knowledge about where Sam Dawson and Lowell Williams stand. Don said he talked “firsthand” with Sam Dawson “and his point is that when a marriage is broken by fornication, etc., that there is no longer any bond – so both are free to remarry.” Don said he had “argued and disagreed” with Sam. “As to brother Lowell Williams’ position – he has been misrepresented extensively. Basically, his positions are the same as mine.” These statements by Don were dated June 13, 1985.

As we told Don, we are now aware that Lowell preached a sermon which was tape recorded on April 28, 1985, affirming that the guilty party has a scriptural right to remarry. How can Don and Lowell teach the same thing when Don’s letter clearly says that if the put-away- fornicator remarries, he and the new mate are living in adultery? “Absolutely yes, it is adultery, ” Don says. Lowell says he used to preach the same thing twenty years ago, but now says we have no right to call such a marriage adultery. We asked in our letter, “Don, how can these two opposite positions be basically the same?”

Our letter to Don dated June 26, 1991 pointed out that his sermon as preached and taped at the Leeward church on December 12, 1987 teaches directly opposite point by pot . nt to what he told us he was preaching in 1985. His November 1987 letter gave us every assurance he was still preaching what we helped him “move to Hawaii to preach.” His letter of August 30, 1988 gave us further reassurance that he was upholding in Hawaii the same gospel which we are upholding in West Columbia, Texas, as he sought additional financial help. Yet, he says on the tape of his December 1987 sermon that second marriages made after unscriptural divorces are not adulterous, and adds, “I don’t know why I couldn’t have seen it the first twenty years of my preaching. ” As the tape continues, he identifies the truth he had heard and preached “all of my life” as “error,” “false doctrine,” “human traditions,” and “doctrines of demons”!

We asked in our letter of June 26, 1991,

Don, have you changed your preaching on divorce and remarriage? If so, when and why? As we understand from brethren who recently visited Hawaii, you have also stated that you have not changed your basic position on divorce and remarriage for the past 27 years and that your position is the one taught by Jerry Bassett in his book Rethinking Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (1991). Jerry’s book does not affirm what you affirmed in answer to our questions in 1985. So, again, we ask, have you changed your position or not? If so, when and why?

When others have asked about Don’s position on the issues covered in our 1985 questions, Don has said he is “glad” to report that his views are “basically the same as brother Homer Hailey.” Hailey’s error would not match Don’s answers to our questions. Don also endorses the “articles” of “Ed Harrell” in Christianity Magazine as permitting “fellowship” with brethren who teach and practice things contrary to what Jesus taught on divorce and remarriage.

Near the end of our letter of June 26, 1991 we made the following request for clarification:

Don, surely you can see that your position needs to be clarified. How can you answer our questions so clearly and scripturally, adding, “I am not ashamed to let anybody know it,” but then tell other brethren that you are “glad” to tell anyone that you hold the opposite answers to the same basic questions? If you misled us, surely you would feel an ethical responsibility to return the money we sent. If you have totally reversed your position, what passages dictated your present views? We need to learn the truth if we do not know it. We respectfully request that you answer the same three questions you covered in 1985, using Scripture and explanations as you did before.

When brethren are asked to send and support a preacher somewhere, there should be no hesitation on the church’s part in asking or on the preacher’s part in declaring what will be taught. We still do not know what happened to Don Givens because he never answered our letter. We can only hope he will repent of the error he is teaching and stand for “all the counsel of God” on divorce and remarriage (Acts 20:27).

In the meantime, we continue to hear of churches involved in supporting Don which are not aware of his error. Don applied his error to an actual case of unscriptural remarriage in the church at Leeward, which divided that church. In the aftermath of this problem, as the Leeward church was considering terminating his work with them, he resigned the work in July of 1991. Some churches have continued sending Don financial support because they have not been aware of his error or of the &vision and resignation resulting from this error. None of this information was provided in the reports which Don continued to send out (and perhaps is still sending out?) to those churches. None of this information was included in Don’s reports dated August 1991, September-October 1991, and November-December 1991.

Since each church is autonomous, we can only plead with brethren to inquire and investigate when you invest the Lord’s money in supporting preachers.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 9, pp. 272-273
May 7, 1992

By Jerry Crolius

Is Jesus Eternal?

If Jesus is eternal then he is God. Deity must by definition be eternal and all that is eternal must be Deity. We have seen that the Bible says nothing about Jesus having had a beginning, but does the Bible clearly set forth the doctrine that Jesus is eternal?

John 8:58

In John 8:58 Jesus boldly proclaimed that he was of timeless existence, i.e., eternal:

Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.

Jesus declared that Abraham had been born at some point in time, but that he himself had always existed. The Jews knew that Jesus was claiming eternal existence, i.e., Deity, so they took up stones to stone him, just as they would do later in John 10:33 when they said,

For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make yourself out to be God.

The Witnesses have tried for years to avoid the force of John 8:58. In their New World Translation (1951 ed.) they declared that eimi, the Greek verb form for “I am,” was in the Greek imperfect indefinite tense, and thus translated it “I have been.”(1) There is no such tense in the Greek language! (They have since corrected their error of Greek grammar, but not their translation.) They say that Jesus was simply speaking of “his pre-human existence,” not in the eternal sense but in the sense that he was “alive before Abraham was born.”(2)

However, eimi (“I am”) is in the present tense, which in the Greek language indicates continuous action. Jesus said that before Abraham was born (aorist tense, i.e., one time event), I am (present tense, i.e., continuous action). If Jesus had merely wanted to say that he came into existence before Abraham, he could have said it quite plainly with the perfect tense (past event with a continuing result). But by using the present tense Jesus claimed that he was and is and always will be in existence – he is eternal. As Westcott notes, “. . . there is in the phrase the contrast between the created and the uncreated, and the temporal and the eternal.”(3)

This becomes even more apparent when the name “Jehovah” in Exodus 3:14 is understood.

And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.”

Jehovah, God’s self-assigned name of eternal existence, is translated in the LXX (Greek OT) as ego eimi ho on (“I am the one who is”). Therefore, considering the context and wording of John 8:58, Jesus’ description of himself as ego eimi is a claim of Deity. Even the Jews understood this, and attempted to stone him.

Revelation 22:13

Continued searching of the Scriptures shows that Jesus Christ categorically stated his eternal existence as Deity. He declared himself to be “the first and the last” (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13) and “the Alpha and the Omega” (Rev. 22:13), phrases which Jehovah used to describe himself in the Old Testament (Isa. 44:6; 48:12; 41:4) and in the New Testament (Rev. 1:8). Jesus describes himself with the same words and thus declares his timeless existence and Deity.

However, the Witnesses tell us that Revelation 22:13 is not spoken by Christ but by the Father.(4) Let the reader be the judge. Verse 12 says, “Behold I am coming quickly” and verse 20 says, “Amen. Come Lord Jesus.” Moreover, verse 16 says, “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify.” How can we believe the Witnesses when the Scriptures are so clear?

The Witnesses also tell us that only Revelation 1:17 and Revelation 2:8 are references to Christ being “the first and the last,” and that the meaning of the phrase in these passages is different from the meaning when used of Jehovah in Revelation 1:8. They say that when the phrase describes Christ it refers to the resurrection, Christ being the “firstborn from the dead” (Col. 1:18), but when it describes Jehovah it refers to timeless existence.(5) But there is no basis in Scripture for assigning these differences of meaning. Thus, the Witnesses have manipulated the Scriptures again to serve their own bias and doctrine.

John 1:1

John 1:1 is the definitive text in the biblical doctrine of the Deity of Jesus Christ:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This passage simply and forcibly declares that the eternal Word (Jesus) is Deity. Moreover, the next few verses in John I declare that Jesus created the world (only Deity has such power). But the Witnesses have translated John 1:1, “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god” (emp. mine,jc). They argue for their translation on the basis of John’s use and non-use of the Greek definite article.(6) They also argue that since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was ‘a god,’ or ‘divine.'”(7) But there are simple and basic problems with both of these arguments.

The Witnesses believe that the Word was a person of an inferior Divine quality. They reason that since the definite article “the” is missing before “God” in the phrase “and the Word was God,” they have the right to supply the indefinite article “a.” So the Word, they say, was “a god,” but not Almighty God (Jehovah). But the indefinite article “a” does not exist in the Koine Greek language, so the context and rules of grammar determine whether or not it should be supplied in English. It is not always to be supplied, and in many cases, it must not be. In the case of John 1:1, the indefinite article must not be supplied because such would violate the rules of Greek grammar, the immediate context, and the rest of the Bible’s teaching.

The Witnesses go to great lengths to argue that John 1:1 is speaking of the Word’s quality of Divinity, as though such a truth would prove that the translation must be “and the Word was a god.” They quote the Journal of Biblical Literature to show that expressions “with an anarthrous (no article) predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning”(8) Now this is a valid rule of Greek grammar (see Green’s Rule(9)), but the Witnesses gain nothing in arguing for their translation with it. If the Word has the quality of Divinity then he is God, not “a god.” The Old Testament tells us that Jehovah is the only true eternal Deity (see discussion below on Isa. 43:10). To say that the Word is Divine is to say that he is Deity, which is exactly what the verse says. John 1:1 can not be translated “and the Word was a god” because the Bible says there is no such thing as an inferior Deity. There is no Deity other than the one true Deity. In fact, the translation best in compliance with the rules of Greek grammar, the immediate context, and the rest of the teaching of the Bible is “and the Word was Divine.” Many translations simply and accurately say, “and the Word was God.”

The Witnesses try to explain away their conflict with the Bible’s plain statements of only one Deity. They point to passages that speak of angels, Satan, and imperfect men as “gods,” and reason that Jesus, who is higher than the angels, “can be and is ‘a god’.”(10) None of these passages even remotely hint at the concept of a Deity of a lower nature. These passages use the terms “gods” figuratively and accommodatively to refer to a given position of importance, not to a Divine Nature. Angels, Satan, and men do not have a “Divine Nature” and are not eternal (cf. Rom. 1:20; Acts 17:29), but in the eternal Word “all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (see below on Col. 2:9).

The Witnesses choose to ignore the plain Bible teaching that Jesus is the “Son of God” who called himself “the Alpha and the Omega” and “the first and the last”; he is the eternal “I AM” who never refused worship as God; he is the “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” who gave up “the form of God” to pay the price for our sins. How can the Witnesses dare to explain away the apostle Thomas’ exclamation that Jesus was his Lord and his God (Jn. 20:28) by saying, “To Thomas, Jesus was like ‘a god.'”(11) What nonsense! Thomas had come to believe in Jesus as the Son of God, a Divine person, Deity in bodily form, and thus called him God without being corrected by Jesus. Indeed, through Jesus “God was manifested in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16, NKJV).

Second, it is unnecessary to conclude that because the Word was with God the Word could not be God. The Witnesses assume that God (Deity) must be one person (see earlier discussion on this). They reason from an untrue premise and therefore reach an untrue conclusion. John 1:1 says that the Word was with Deity and was Divine. He was unified with, present with, and one with Deity, and was, in fact, Divine. Friend, you are with humanity and you are human. You are not the only person of the one humanity, but you are human. The Word is with Deity and he is Divine. He is not the only person of the one Deity, but he is Divine. Such is the simple force of John’s statement, and it is in complete harmony with the rest of the teaching of the New Testament.

Please consider also the following passages that teach that John 1:1 can not be translated, “and the Word was a god.”

Isaiah 43:10

We mentioned above the Bible teaching that Deity is defined in Jehovah God. There are not two deities, one the Almighty God and the other an inferior deity. All there is of Deity, all Divinity that exists, is defined in Jehovah God, as Jehovah says in Isaiah 43:10,

. . . before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me.

Jesus cannot be “a god” or “a deity” because there is no Deity other than Jehovah. Isaiah 43:10 says there cannot be two Deities. Be sure that the Witnesses, try as they might, cannot explain away the truth of Isaiah 43:10, even though, ironically, it is the text that they take their name “Jehovah’s Witnesses” from. We must accept that Jehovah is the old covenant name given to the Jews by the one eternal Deity, who in the new covenant is declared to be the three persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19).

Colossians 2:9

Paul, with the purpose of elevating Jesus to his deserved position in the minds of men, declared in Colossians 2:9, “in him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” By using the word theotes (“Godhead” KJV), Paul allowed the strongest Greek word possible to emphasize that Jesus Christ fully possesses the nature, essence, and totality of Deity.(12) Interestingly, Paul used weaker forms of the same word to describe Deity in Acts 17:29 (theion) and Romans 1:20 (theiotes), which are also translated “Godhead” in the KJV but are best translated “divine nature” as in the NASB. But by using the abstract form of theos in Colossians 2:9, Paul made as strong a statement as he could have made to declare that Jesus is Deity, fully and in bodily form. (Remember Jesus had said in John 14:9, “He who has seen me has seen the Father,” and Paul had said of Jesus in Colossians 1:15, “He is the image of the invisible God.”)

Philippians 2:6-8

Philippians 2:6-8 closely rivals John 1:1 and Colossians 2:9 as definitive declarations that Jesus Christ is a person in the Godhead.

Who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself. .

Paul’s main point in Philippians 2:6-8 is that, even though Jesus had all the glory, rights, privileges and powers of Deity, he became a lowly, sacrificial servant of mankind. Therefore, Jesus shows us how to be sacrificial servants of our fellow man. Jesus humbly emptied himself of his glory as God (John 17:5), not his rights, privileges, and powers, in order to take upon himself flesh and blood so that all men might be saved. He did not cease to be Deity, but rather he ceased to exist in the glorious form of Deity in order to take on the lowly form of a servant.

However, the Witnesses say that Jesus never had equality with God. They say that Jesus was an inferior god who “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.”(13) The Witnesses argue that Jesus only had the nature of God, that is, that he was deity but was not quite equal with Almighty God.

But the whole point of the passage is that Jesus was humble – not because he refrained from seizing what didn’t belong to him, but because he willingly gave up, for the sake of others, that which he himself possessed! (Moreover, in view of Isaiah 43:10, it is impossible for Jesus to have been “a deity.” There is no other Deity than Jehovah. Jesus is either a person of the one Deity or he isn’t any deity at all.)

Now what exactly did Jesus give up? The passage says that Jesus existed in the form of God, but gave up his equality with God. What does that mean? Did he give up his Deity? Did he cease to be God while he was in the flesh? No. Colossians 2:9 says,

“For in him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.”

Jesus was God manifested in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16). Jesus accepted worship as Deity while on earth (John 20:28); Jesus declared himself to be Deity while on earth (John 8:58). Moreover, Jesus’ sacrifice is efficacious only if it is the infinite God paying the price for the souls of all men.

John 17:5 declares what Jesus gave up when he became flesh – his glory:

And now glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.

Jesus gave up his equal glory with God in order to become a servant of man. He did not empty himself of Deity, he emptied himself of glory. He emptied himself of “the form of God” (his glorified existence in heaven) in order to take “the form of a servant” (his lowly existence on earth). When the Word became flesh he was Immanuel (“God With Us,” Matt. 1:23). Jesus could boldly say “I and the Father are one” (Jn. 10:30) and “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn. 14:9).

Conclusion

The subject of knowing how Jesus could be both God and man is difficult for the finite mind. We must seek only conclusive arguments and plain statements of Scripture which will clarify the meaning of those passages which are more difficult. And we certainly must not elevate our human wisdom above God’s Word so that we base our teachings on our own speculations.

All Jehovah’s Witnesses would do well, with their entire body of doctrine, to stand back and evaluate what they are being taught. Compared with the clearest of Bible teaching, the Witnesses’ doctrines are contradictory at best and blasphemous at worst.

The entire body of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine is the product of men who belong to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I appeal to all Jehovah’s Witnesses to renounce the teachings of men and accept only the clear teachings of the Bible.

Finally, let us who think we stand take heed lest we fall. Especially let us who are preachers of God’s Word approach the subject of the Deity of Christ with humility and reverence. Let us allow the Bible to speak for itself, and let us be silent in our own speculations.

Endnotes

1. New World Translation Of The Greek Scriptures (1951 edition) 312.

2. Should You Believe In The Trinity? 26.

3. Westcott, B. F., The Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973) 140.

4. Gruss, Edmond Charles, Apostles Of Denial. Rev. ed. (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1975) 126.

5. Ibid.

6. Should You Believe In The Trinity? 27.

7. Should You Believe In The Trinity? 27.

8. Should You Believe In The Trinity? 27.

9. Green, S., Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament (London: Religious Tract Society) 178.

10. Should You Believe In The Trinity? 27-28.

11. Should You Believe In The Trinity? 27.

12. B.B. Warfield, “Godhead,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950) 1270.

13. New World Translation Of The Greek Scriptures 589.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 9, pp. 268-270
May 7, 1992

By Rick Duggin

The boss evaluated the Born Loser’s speech by saying, “Oh, he presents a convincing argument . . . unhampered as he is by facts and information.”

I had to identify with the boss’s reaction recently while reading an article in Charles Holt’s paper, The Examiner. Calvin Warpula tried to prove that Colossians 4:16 provides authority for churches to send money to other churches for the purpose of preaching the gospel.

The Scriptures plainly prove that churches of the New Testament sent money to other churches in benevolent situations when they were unable to provide for their own (1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8,9). The Scriptures also plainly prove that churches sent money to evangelists to support them in preaching the gospel (2 Cor. 11:8). But where is scriptural authority for one church to send money to another church to preach the gospel?

While we should always be ready to restudy any passage in order to guard against false conclusions, we must not assume that an article written by an educated man guarantees that his conclusions are scriptural. “Smart” men have caused many apostasies.

The purpose of our present article is (1) to present the consequences of Warpula’s contention, and (2) to express the truth taught by this passage. “And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea.”

(1) Warpula and others assume that, since a church may send Scriptures to another church, therefore a church may send money to another church with which it may purchase the Scriptures. The actual, but unstated, major premise of this argument is that a church may send money to anyone or anything to whom it may send Scriptures.

May a church send Scriptures to Muslim leaders, to communist officials, to Roman Catholic churches in order to teach them the truth? If so . . . would it be scriptural for churches to send money to Muslim leaders? May churches send money to communist officials? May churches send money to Roman Catholic churches to help them in purchasing Bibles? Will Warpula accept these consequences? Whatever proves too much proves nothing.

(2) Many claim that the epistles of the New Testament were merely private “love letters” whose authoritative pronouncements do not bind us. If this is true, then why was Paul so concerned about copying them and sharing them with others? Would it be mutually edifying for you and me to exchange personal letters?

Paul was concerned with spreading the word of God. Isn’t it interesting that he thought this could be accomplished by sharing these epistles?

Apparently he did not accept the modern theory that we should preach the man (Matthew-John) and forget the plan (N.T. epistles). In fact, when he spread such epistles, he was preaching Christ. “If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).

These epistles not only expressed the commandment of the Lord, but also applied to every other congregation of God, both then and now. “Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God . . . unto the church of God which is at Corinth ‘ even them that are sanctified in Christ, called to be saints, with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord and ours” (1 Cor. 1:1,2).

The same principle is found in other passages as well (Acts 15:23-29; 16:4; 2 Pet. 1:13,14; 3:16). This special treatment of the epistles led to the formation of the New Testament canon.

Don’t be deceived by convincing arguments . . . unhampered by facts and information. Anyone who is thus deceived will definitely be the loser.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 9, p. 278
May 7, 1992