Truth Magazine

By Steve Klein

One of the most ticklish of all religious controversies since the time of the apostles has been over the nature of the deity that Jesus possessed as a man. Historian Philip Schaff observed that in the years before 325 A.D., “the whole theological energy” of church leaders concentrated itself “upon the doctrine of Christ as the God-man” (History of the Christian Church., Vol. 2, p. 248). In fact, from the third to the sixth centuries after Christ lived on earth, one could scarcely find a more disputed topic.

Schaff observed that in the writings of the Christians who lived just after New Testament times, “we find for the most part only the simple Biblical statements of the deity and humanity of Christ, in the practical form needed for general edification” (p. 249). It was only when men tried to fit these simple truths into their human religious systems that perversions arose.

That section of early church history could be studied profitably by many today who are speculating about the divine prerogatives Christ exercised as a man. Much energy is being expended in a vain attempt to back up the assertion that “man has to sin” and still explain why the man Jesus did not sin. Suffice it here to say that in days long since past, many religious leaders lost their honor and their reputations in such vain and needless disputes. In those debates, one or both sides frequently lacked any biblical foundation for their beliefs. The spiritual carnage that resulted from those ancient factions stand as a monument of warning to any who would wish to follow a similar path in our own generation. Truly, let us “beware” lest we be “consumed by one another!” (Gal. 5:15)

Presently, perhaps as a result of some of the speculations that have been noised abroad, a question has been raised among sincere Christians across the country concerning how it was that Jesus was able to live a sinless life. Did he receive special help from God? Did he not need any special help because he was himself God and used his divine powers to resist temptation? Or did he live a perfectly sinless life, overcoming temptation as a man, with no extra edge whatsoever? We need not speculate. The Bible answers these questions plainly:

Jesus “was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). “In all things he had to be made like his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of he people. For in that he himself has suffered, being tempted, he is able to aid those who are tempted” (Heb. 2:17-18).

Jesus was made “like his brethren” and was “tempted as we are” so that he could aid us. If it were possible for him to have been tempted as God (which it was not, Jas. 1:13), what good would it have done you and me? Had Jesus not been tempted as a man, could he have become our helpful High Priest, blazing the pathway to God? Not according to the Scriptures. “He had to be made like His brethren that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest” (Heb. 2:17).

As a man, he is our example, our Mediator, and our sacrifice for sin. “Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow his steps: who committed no sin” (1 Pet. 2:21b-22a). “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). “This Man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:12).

When Jesus was led into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, he was not proving that God cannot be tempted; rather, he was demonstrating how a man who is tempted can overcome it. After fasting for forty days and nights, Jesus “was hungry” as any man would be (Matt. 4:1-2). During that same period he was tempted “by the devil” as all men are (Lk. 4:1-2). He overcame those temptations, not by exercising divine powers or receiving special help from God, but by relying on the Scriptures. Every specific temptation recorded in Matthew 4:1-10 was met with a quotation from Scripture. Jesus demonstrated the attitude of the Psalmist who said, “Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You” (Psa. 119:11). He used the same means for overcoming temptation that you and I must use today – reliance upon God’s word. There was nothing directly superhuman or divine about it. It was only after the “devil left him” that he received supernatural help; I angels came and ministered to Him” (Matt. 4:11).

Henry Van Dyke said it so beautifully nearly 100 years ago:

The life which Christ lived on earth was a veritable human life. The person who lived it was the Son of God. But in order to live that human life He had to become man, not in a dramatic sense, but actually and entirely. . . He was subject to ignorance, to limitation, to weakness, to temptation, even as we are. The only point of difference between Him and us is that we sin, but He sinned not. The Godhood that was in Him was such as manhood is capable of receiving. . . His existence among men was simply the human life of God (The Gospel for an Age of Doubt, 1900, preface to the 6th edition, pp. xxi-xxii).

It is interesting that Henry Van Dyke was a noted Presbyterian scholar. As such, he was supposed to be a Calvinist, but he was able to see that Calvinism contradicted the New Testament. He rejected Calvin’s teaching on foreordination and election saying, “I do not believe that all things that happen are determined beforehand. The soul is free” (p. xxiii). Van Dyke’s writings on the nature of the divinity of Christ were “criticized as dangerous” by the Calvinistic scholars of his day who labeled them “a violent and unfair attack upon Calvinism” (p. xxii). Like some among us today, Van Dyke’s critics had probably become used to de-emphasizing Jesus’ humanity and over emphasizing His deity. Only in this way could they uphold the Calvinistic notion that man “has to sin” because of his polluted nature, and still explain how Jesus did not sin.

In the person of Jesus we have a Being who not only shows us what God is like, but also reveals what man ought to be. Surely, in Jesus dwelt “all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form” (Col. 2:9). He was “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Heb. 1:3a, NIV). He told his disciples, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn. 14:9b). And yet Jesus lived a human life. He was “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief” (Isa. 53:3). He “suffered, being tempted,” but he remained “without sin” (Heb. 2:18; 4:15). His accomplishment is one of the highest points of human history -that a weak and starving man could turn to the prince of darkness and say, “Away with you Satan!” “Get behind Me” (Matt. 4:10, Lk. 4:8).

No other man has lived a “perfectly sinless life,” and none ever will (Romans 3:109 23). That is not the fault of human nature, but of human choice. Man simply cannot blame his sin on his humanity, for Jesus was a sinless human.

Like the early Christians Schaff wrote of, we today need to focus on those simple biblical statements of the deity and humanity of Jesus. Let us renounce human speculation and simply believe that in Jesus “dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9), and yet he is “an example” for humans who are to “follow his steps” (1 Pet. 2:21f). He is the “express image” of God (Heb. 1:3) who was “in all points tempted as we are” (Heb. 4:15), and yet “God cannot be tempted by evil” (Jas. 1:13). To believe each of these Scriptures does not promote confusion, but an understanding of the human life of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 14, pp. 419-420
July 18, 1991

By Robert Wayne LaCoste

One of the many problems the church at Corinth faced was what we sometimes call today preacheritis. Webster defines the suffix “-itis” as “an inflammatory disease.” Therefore it can be concluded from what Paul wrote concerning preachers to the church at Corinth, that they had a disease relating to preachers. What was the nature of the disease and what were the symptoms? Paul tells us! Its nature was “thinking more highly of men than that which was written” (1 Cor. 4:6). The symptoms or signs were some saying, “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas” (1 Cor. 1:12).

A lot of times, through no fault of their own, preachers are thought more highly of than they ought to be. Surely every servant of the Lord should be esteemed and admired for his work’s sake. However, when men start siding with men who preach doctrines contrary to what is written in the gospel of Christ, simply because of personal admiration, or because they are long time acquaintances, then they have carried the admiration and esteem way too far.

I was reared by two parents who insisted that we boys have the proper respect for older people. Early on, it was “no sir” and “yes ma’am.” Even though I’m 42 years old with teenage children, I still find that well ingrained within me and often I’ll even use such terminology to older people who are total strangers.

Sometimes when teaching a Bible class, there will be an aged pupil quite obviously wrong on a given point, but I take cautious measures to correct him in love, for I respect his years. Surely the Scriptures teach that this should be the attitude of the younger to the older: “Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father . . . the elder women as mothers” (1 Tim. 5:1-2). Paul is not saying that there is never a time when you should disagree with an older person. No man has the right to be wrong, regardless of his years, station or status in life. What Paul is saying, is that when you do disagree, voice your disagreement as you would to your father or your mother. I would never have called my mother or father an ugly name, or been hostile. I would point out to them their error with firmness, yet with kindness. Why? Because one’s father and mother are to be “honored by their children” (Eph. 6:1-2). This honor is to be present all the days of one’s life, yes even when parents are wrong.

Lately, I have read some teachings of older preachers that I have felt were wrong – dead wrong! These teachings have ranged anywhere from subjects on marriage, divorce and remarriage, to discussions concerning the Lord’s supper on Sunday night. Then I have read the “rebuttals” of other preachers who disagreed with them. A lot of these disagreeing preachers are considerably younger. Some have responded that these younger preachers are “attacking” the older ones. I have seen absolutely no evidence of that in the least! Attack is a pretty strong word to use against one that simply is disagreeing with someone else. As a matter of fact, all I have seen are the so-called “attackees” becoming the “attackers.” Many younger preachers have been indeed “attacked” because they dared to stand for what they felt was the truth. They have been pounced upon because they dared to tell an older brother they thought he was wrong. Often, the age and labor of the older preacher has been mentioned. “Look at all the good he has done . . . look at the years of experience . . . look at the knowledge and wisdom.” Absolutely no one is indicting any of these virtues when calling into question a certain matter someone may be currently believing or practicing. We must be careful brethren! When we start praising men’s wisdom, knowledge and experience to the degree that we are disturbed if they are even called into question about a matter, then we are quickly on the road to “thinking of men above that which is written.”

I love older people. I always have, I especially have a special place in my heart for those older men who preach the gospel of our Savior. I have known some great preachers in my life. However, I never got to meet such greats as C.D. Plum, Franklin Puckett, or Luther Blackmon. I do long to be with them in heaven. However, what kind of sons in the faith would any of us be, if we respected age over what the Lord Jesus taught? If a man is the kind of man he should be, will he not want to be disagreed with, if there be conscientious brethren who feel he’s in error?

As fathers and sons we need to reason together. Whenever I thought my earthly father was wrong on something, I knew I could go to him and talk to him about it, without him feeling I was attacking him. He would listen and when he was wrong, admit such and make proper correction. Now, I find myself with my own children, though I am older than they, admitting I too am wrong at times. Just being a father or just being older doesn’t make one infallible. Neither does the fact that one may have preached for 50 years! The apostle Peter had preached well over 30 years when the apostle Paul withstood him to the face because of Peter’s error (Gal. 2:11). There is no indication Peter considered it an “attack” for Paul loved -his brother and Peter knew it!

Brethren, there are going to be disagreements among us and sometimes error taught. I hope as I age that when I teach something that someone feels is wrong, he will “entreat me as their father” and correct me accordingly. I hope I never get an attitude that simply because I’ve been preaching a long time that I am incapable of error.

As important as correcting error is, is it not equally important that we treat each other as fathers and sons? That’s what we are you know, and may we strive for truth above all things, with the saving of our family as that great goal firmly implanted in our hearts.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 14, pp. 418, 439
July 18, 1991

By Wilbert Garingo Enostacion

Part one of this article appeared on this journal on April 5, 1990 edition. The writer’s aim is to give more information regarding the sowing of the gospel in the Philippines, which sometimes is called the “Pearl of the Orient.” Located in Southeast Asia, the Philippines are 7,669 islands with a population of 50.5 million people.

Contemplating on the situation, the gospel has been sown in the islands in the past 90 years. Many local churches have been existing and doing their best to serve the Lord in every capacity they could afford. Though most of these have limited workers and workers obtained limited formal education, yet the continuous sowing of the seed was done night and day. However, one thing has been overlooked or rather somewhat neglected to be done by many workers. Let’s try to see the reasons why such were undone.

Appointment of Elders

Many local congregations that have been existing in the past 20 to 30 years still do not have elders to oversee the local work. In Luzon, down to the Visayas and Mindanao, in the past decades churches have never appointed elders to “. . . set in order the things that are wanting” (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5). Gospel preachers in the past may have overlooked to declare the whole counsel of God regarding the qualities of men to rule as elders in every local congregation.

Viewing it from this prospective, elders are God-given leaders in the local churches to run the affairs of the local congregations. When local churches have no elders, often times heard is the preacher or the local minister. Here lies the danger. Gaining influence developed into a party among preachers in a locality, some may be guilty of “lordship” among themselves without even realizing that it has been done. When this happens, it is too late to know that people whom we have grown to respect have become “lords” over the churches! In some instances, we are not so apt to be deceived by men we don’t trust, but by people we have learned to trust. We may listen to them uncritically, without questioning the scriptural foundation of what they uphold and teach (1 Cor. 4:6; 2 Pet. 2:1-ff).

Present and Future Problems

Present. One question that American churches have long been waiting to be answered by any Filipino individual or church: “Can a Filipino preacher be fully supported by any local Philippine congregation after working with them for more than 15 years or so? Can a Philippine congregation take over the support of their workers?”

This inquiry cannot be answered by either yes or no.

Paradoxically speaking, local churches in the Philippines which have a supported preacher working with them had a rapid growth compared to those congregations who had no one helping them. These churches are like babes in cradles and loving arms of many American churches. Without the care and assistance given to native preachers, numerical growth cannot be as tremendously progressive today than before 30 years ago. In the early ’60s that U.S. churches poured support for Filipino preachers. The rapid growth of sprouting churches in the countryside was credited to such trust and confidence.

Scripturally, our Lord designed that local churches may assist in the needs of its workers (1 Cor. 9:14); in some instances, a multiplicity of local churches help to support one preacher in a local area.

Future predicament. Not so many American churches understand the economic situation in 3rd world countries, like the Philippines. The 7,669 islands has an annual devastation of more than 25 typhoons! Sometimes, earthquakes, tidal waves and basically all types of calamities strike.

When a legitimate calamity occurs, U.S. churches are eager to assist the needs of any victims of such calamities. Here lies the danger. Because some native preachers have corrupted the funds sent into their care, and some false report reaches American churches, a blanket condemnation is issued to all Filipino preachers, that they are all liars! It hurts, and it destroys the crcdibilities of many faithful and worthy men. Sometimes, it is tantamount to racial discrimination that a legitimate appeal finds no response at all.

The Philippine economy. The economy in this nation is fluctuating; there is no price control. Prices of prime commodities are much higher than those in the rural and urban areas comparing it to those in the cities. However, support of preachers in rural and urban areas is much lower than those in the cities!

Preachers’ support should not be leveled to any professional in the country. A physician diagnoses the physical :nature of sickness; a preacher diagnoses false doctrines and change of state of the man by the Word. A preacher’s work is worst than a public or private school teacher because preachers work without any hour limitations, receives .more work than compensations. Preachers have no paid “holidays” compared to a public teacher or any employees; a preacher does not received any “13th month pay” at every year’s end, while all employees have. Full-time supported gospel preachers could not have any secular works; for, to have such diminishes the full-time evangelization of the word, while all professionals can. Worst of all is that, all ,professionals are entitled to any promotions offered by any company; while the preacher receives no “promotions” on ,any worthy or extra-ordinary accomplishments done; most of the time, instead of praise what he gets is intrigues and icriticisms! By the way, what monetary equivalent does one ,soul being brought back to God’s side have?

All professionals in any country work to got rich in this life, while preachers work for the progress of the gospel and his kingdom. The big difference lies here; while professionals have their income coming in, preachers on the other hand, have their income always going out to be spent for the Lord’s work! Very few preachers get rich through their support; only those who have huge inheritance from their families, have gained huge money before they went into full-time preaching, or have sold their businesses for the Lord’s works.

Corruptions. This kind of sin is as old as the earth. Judas, being chosen by our Lord was corrupt, how much more for those in the church? Preachers are not excluded from this, but are an often prey for such a venomous action.

Local churches in the land have a membership that is poor, and cannot afford to support their own preacher, either partial or full. This poses another problem because preachers have their families to feed, cloth and take care of. The tendency is, talented gospel preachers will depart the full-time preaching and go into secular work to find enough support for their families. When this would happen, first to be affected is the local church work. Congregations become stagnant, and a declining spiritual growth soon comes out. The end result, is that the many years spent to make that particular local congregation strong were ruined in just a moment due to the stoppage of the preacher’s support.

When dishonesty occurs, U.S. brethren should not take actions that may affect the innocent ones. In a basket of rotten apples, there are still a few that remain in good taste and eatable!

Plea

Let this piece of appeal remain in your minds brethren; let not the need of any worthy Filipino preachers be hindered. As long as the sun rises in the east, support to these faithful and worthy men should be given preference in all manner, not only to those in the Southeast Asia; but in the whole of Asia, China and Hong Kong! Fellowshipping with each worthy gospel preacher in each local work should continue to prosper as the Holy Writ said: “. . . but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love” (Eph. 4:15,16).

Conclusion

Today, in this last decade, let us re-echo the words of our Master: “The harvest, truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few” (Matt. 9:35-38). Why not “look into the field, for they are white unto harvest” (Jn. 4:35)? Many are willing to “go,” but they need to be sent. Isaiah has spoken it well: “Lord, here am I, send me!” Brethren should investigate the need to help anyone going.

Any of you, dear readers, who are interested in fellowshipping with the on-going work here in the Philippines, even in China or Hong Kong; request for some information where you can best afford to assist the Lord’s cause. Don’t ask, what the Lord can do for you; but ask, what you can do for the Lord and his cause? If you can help why not write me at: P.O. Box 9, San Fernando 2500, La Union Philippines. I can put you in contact with those faithful, worthy and sound men who have been working in the Lord’s vineyard but with inadequate flow of supply. Let us join hands brethren to say: “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Your holy name give glory! ” (Psa. 115:1)

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 13, pp. 404-405
July 4, 1991

By Kevin Campbell

Most Christians recognize that false doctrine is to be identified, refuted, and opposed (1 Tim. 1: 19-20; 6:20-21; 2 Tim. 2:15-18). While I believe the Bible gives several reasons for doing just that, sometimes Christians only focus on one reason, namely that false doctrine is, as indicated, false. Certainly this is a good, scriptural reason for opposing false teaching and, if for no other reason, false teachers should be opposed on those grounds.

The Bible indicates that preachers and elders (as well as any who teach the word) are to “hold fast the form of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13), to speak the things “which become sound doctrine” (Tit. 2:1), and to be able by “sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainsayers” (Tit. 1:9). The teacher of the word of God is not to go beyond the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 9-11) but is to speak as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11). The Scriptures, which equip us for every good work and make us complete as Christians, are to be the standard by which our teaching is judged (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

There is however, another reason for opposing false doctrine. It is somewhat related to the reasons listed above but is itself distinct. We find this reason given in 2 Timothy 2:15-19, where Paul identified Hymanaeus and Philetus as teachers of a false doctrine, namely that the resurrection has already occurred. While this was a false teaching, the real damage is noted in the last part of verse 18, where Paul says that this teaching had resulted in the overthrow of the faith of some Christians. Apparently, those who were misled and had believed this doctrine were so dismayed by the implications of it (that they would not attain to the resurrection since it had already passed) that their faith was destroyed. This, I believe, is one of the greatest dangers of false doctrine. Not only is it false and incorrect, but it results in false conclusions which can and will result in a loss of faith, a feeling of security in a sinful state, or lead to sinful action itself. Let’s notice several examples of this:

1. Impossibility of Apostasy. Also known as “once saved, always saved,” this doctrine asserts that once a person is saved, he can never become lost again. The person who accepts this will then be deceived into thinking that he doesn’t need to repent of his sins and confess them to God in order to be forgiven (Acts 8:22; 1 Jn. 1:9). He may also take the doctrine to its logical end by deciding to “live life in the fast lane” since he is going to go to heaven anyway. The Bible continually warns about the possibility of falling away from the Lord and even offers several examples of those who did (Heb. 3:12-4:1; 6:4-6; 2 Pet. 2:20-22; Gal. 5:4; Col. 1:22-23).

2. Individual Predestination. This belief, formulated by John Calvin, is that God alone decides who is saved and who is lost and that he does so unconditionally. In other words, you have no choice as to whether you will go to heaven or hell. God alone will decide. I recently talked with a woman who has been having trouble with this doctrine. The results of it were clearly seen in that she is very depressed and had come to the conclusion that God was against her and did not want her to be saved. The person who accepts this view will be led to believe that he is already saved by God and hence does not need to do anything or he will believe that God does not want him to be saved and will therefore not do anything to accept God’s grace. The truth is, God desires the salvation of every person and will save all who come to Jesus as the Savior and obey him and his word (1 Tim. 2:3-4; 2 Pet. 3:9; Heb. 5:8-9).

3. Premillennialism. The idea that Jesus will return to earth and set up an earthly kingdom for 1,000 years has been a hot item since the Middle East crisis. This doctrine however, shifts the emphasis from the death of Jesus Christ and his purpose to save mankind from sin, to a physical, earthly kingdom and peace on earth. This is precisely why the Jews crucified the Lord the first time he came. They were expecting an earthly kingdom, but when he came proclaiming a spiritual kingdom and salvation from sin, they rejected him, charged him falsely, and had him crucified. This doctrine will divert a Christian’s energy and hopes from life eternal to a temporal, earthly hope. Paul affirms in Ephesians 3:1-11 that God’s eternal purpose was not to establish an earthly kingdom of 1,000 years duration, but was to redeem man from sin through Jesus Christ and his death, reconciling the world to himself through the cross in the one body or church (Eph. 2:16; 1:22-23).

4. Salvation by Faith Only. Those who proclaim that all you need to do to be saved from sin is to “ask Jesus into your heart as your personal Savior and he will forgive you” are deceiving many people into thinking that they are already saved. First of all, nowhere in the Bible was anyone ever told to just “ask Jesus into your heart as your personal Savior” in order to be forgiven. When people heard the gospel message of salvation in Jesus Christ’s blood and believed it, they were told to repent of their sins and be baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Mk. 16:16). Many are therefore led to believe that they are saved when they are not and will go no further in study to find out what they should do to be saved.

There are many other examples but I think those listed prove the point. False doctrine diverts people’s attention way from the Lord and his word and causes them have opes that are not realistic or else causes them to act in a way contrary to God’s will. For this reason, and others, false doctrine is to be opposed and the truth defended in the hopes at a soul might be saved. Let all who teach the word of God be sure that they teach the truth and are ready to avoid e “oppositions of science falsely so called” (1 Tim. 6:20).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 13, pp. 406-407
July 4, 1991