Truth Magazine

By Donald P. Ames

While listening to one of the local radio stations recently, I was shocked by some statistics offered. They noted that today one out of every four babies born in America is born to an unwed mother. This figure is six times higher than it was 40 years ago!

What does this say? It simply demonstrates that all the talk of sex education in the schools (minus the teaching against pre-marital sex) is not the answer. It points out to us that diseases such as herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, and now even AIDS have not convinced people not to engage in illicit sexual activity. It shows us the influence of TV and “easy sex” on our young people. It also shows us that gospel preachers and Bible class teachers are not getting the message through that sex is only good and wholesome in the realm where God authorized it – marriage!

Passages, like Hebrews 13:4 which notes, “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” need even greater emphasis. Galatians 5:19-21 points out that those who practice fornication “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:18 clearly warns us to ” flee sexual immorality, ” and vv. 9-10 remind us again that those engaging in such can not inherit the kingdom of God. It is not a “sin” only “if you happen to get caught.” It is a sin! Marriage does not make it OK “if you goof up and get pregnant” (witness David and Bathsheba). And those who think “it won’t happen to me” are not only deceiving themselves (as evidenced by the fact it did happen to one of every four born), but certainly are deceiving themselves for eternity as well!

Equally disappointing is the fact so many have so little self-respect and pride that they cannot seem to remain a virgin until they get married. Do they think this is a “sure” way to get someone to care for them and get married? Do they have no more confidence in their own personal appeal as a person to win a mate than to think this will “get them”? (And if it takes this to get one, what happens when that mate later wants it elsewhere?) I cannot over emphasize the fact that whatever the reason, it is still a sin and totally displeasing to God!

Yet, on the other side, I am also disturbed by the fact that some are also whittling away on principles of morality. More and more today we are hearing of preachers trying to open the door to divorce and remarriage (coming out of the closet and pushing for a more liberal attitude than authorized by Jesus in Matt. 19:9). The latest of such is now brother Homer Hailey. An announcement recently appeared in a journal stating that he is publishing a book setting for his views, just as James D. Bales did recently. And every preacher around who is seeking to find some way to set aside Jesus’ plain teaching will be grabbing on to his coat-tails!

The views of brother Hailey are not really anything new or different. Over 30 years ago, while attending Florida College, I was well aware of his thinking. I edited a bulletin then for a church in Thonotosassa, Florida, and took issue with some of his views then. It was occasionally mentioned in class rooms, discussed, and evaluated. Yet, it was not something brother Hailey pushed.

But, someone asks, if that be the case, and if brethren knew of his position for over 30 years, why are they getting all bent out of shape over it now? And that is a fair question. There are several factors that come into play today that create a different picture. (1) Then, it was a class room situation, where it was studied, discussed, brought up in other classes, etc. Today, it is being taught as truth to the general public, (2) Then it was not the popular theory, and was quickly questioned. (3) Then, brother Hailey was a teacher at a college. Today, he has published several commentaries on the prophets and Revelation. (I think they are some of the best in their field too!) His influence and popularity is far greater and so is his potential to do harm in the spreading of his views on this doctrine. (4) Then, his views were not pushed or advocated very widely. Now, he plans to publish a book to assist in circulating them. If he wishes to go publicly, then despite our love for him and his work in the prophets, he must be met publicly!

And since he is speaking out of these subjects, he should not object to brethren responding or declining to have him for a gospel meeting where he might cause problems by advocating his ideas on the subject.

But, he is not alone. Charles Holt has surrounded himself with such cronies to help promote his false concepts on the local congregation and his organization – and if he has not endorsed their views, he certainly has promoted them! In my opinion, he may soon wander so far off with his cantankerous attitude though that brethren in general will lose sight of him.

It is a shame to see brethren who once stood tall in the faith drifting away from plain teaching in the Bible to pursue wild theories and destructive doctrines. But it is a far greater shame to see those influenced by them in sin because they feel men of “such stature” can’t be wrong (especially when it is what they want to hear). In reality, we must strive even harder to warn them that our faith must be based on the word of God, and not in men! May God help us in the days and years ahead as we wage the war against immorality – on both ends of the marriage vows!

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 22, pp. 680, 692
November 15, 1990

By Mike Willis

The testimony of the apostle Paul to Christ marks another strong affirmation of the deity of Christ. In this article, I shall call attention to some of the more emphatic statements that point to the deity of Christ. The barest minimum of such statements shall be cited from his epistles to demonstrate that the deity of Christ pervades his thirteen epistles (assuming he did not also write Hebrews).

1. Romans. In the book of Romans, Jesus is declared to be the Son of God and our Lord who is descended from David according to the flesh but “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness” (1:3-4). Paul offered thanks to God through Christ (1:8). Jesus Christ will be man’s judge and is able to judge the secrets of men’s hearts (2:16). Redemption is in Jesus (3:24); his blood is the propitiation for sin (3:25; 5:10-11). Man has peace with God through Jesus (5:1). He is “over all, God blessed for ever” (9:5). William S. Plumer commented on this phrase in Romans 9:5 as follows: “Three things are here said respecting Christ, either of which should settle the question of our Lord’s divinity. One is that he is called God. Another is that he is supreme – he is over all. The third is that he is blessed for ever” (Commentary on Romans, p. 459).

2. Corinthians. The deity of Christ is also evident in I Corinthians where the common phrase of the Old Testament, “the day of the Lord (Jehovah)” is applied to Jesus (1:8; 5:5; cf. 2 Cor. 1:15) to point to the day of Christ’s Judgment. A passage where the Hebrew text has Jehovah is quoted with application to Jesus (1:31; cf. Jer. 9:23). He is called the “Lord of Glory” (2:8). He is described as the judge who knows the thoughts and intents of men’s hearts (4:5). His pre-existence is asserted by the statement that he was with Israel during the wilderness wanderings (10:4). In 2 Corinthians, he is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4). God worked in Christ to reconcile the world to himself (2 Cor. 5:19). As he described the incarnation, he wrote, “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for our sakes, he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). Paul tried to bring “into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). In closing the books, he joined Christ with the Father and Holy Spirit saying, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all” (13:14). He obviously treated all three as divine beings.

3. Galatians. Paul began this epistle by stating that his apostleship was not “of man, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ” (1:1; cf. 1:12), which necessarily implied that Jesus was not merely a man. Jesus joined the Father in sending grace and peace to the Galatian churches (1:3). In the fulness of time, God sent forth his Son, who was born of a woman, made under the Law (4:4).

4. Ephesians. Jesus is placed above every power that is created (1:21). God created all things by Christ (3:9). He is the one Lord (4:5).

5. Philippians. Though other texts could be cited from this epistle, the text in 2:5-8 is one of the classic texts on the subject of the incarnation of Christ. Here is that text:

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.

I would encourage our readers to take the time to study some in depth commentaries on the language of this text. A distinction must be recognized between the “form” (morphe) of God and a servant and the “likeness of men” and “fashion (schema) of a man.” Warfield comments on this text as follows:

So far is Paul from intimating, therefore, that Our Lord laid aside His Deity in entering upon His life on earth, that He rather asserts that He retained His deity throughout His life on earth, and in the whole course of His self-abnegation, living a life which did not by nature belong to Him, which stood in direct contradiction to the life which was naturally His. It is the underlying implication which determines the whole choice of the language in which our Lord’s earthly life is described. It is because it is kept in mind that He still was “in the form of God,” that is, that He still had in possession all the body of characterizing qualities by which God is made God, for example, that He is said to have been made, not man, but “in the likeness of man”; and that the wonder of His servant hood and obedience, the mark of servant hood, is thought of as so great. Though He was truly man, He was much more than man; and Paul would not have his readers imagine that He had become merely man. In other words, Paul does not teach that Our Lord was once God but had become instead man; he teaches that though He was God, He had become also man.

An impression that Paul means to imply, that in entering upon His earthly life Our Lord had laid aside His Deity, may be created by a very prevalent misinterpreation of the central clause of his statement – a misinterpretation unfortunately given currency by the rendering of the English Revised Version . . . (that Jesus emptied himself, mw) . . . . (“The Person of Christ,” Biblical Doctrines 179-180).

Warfield continued to explain the misinterpretation which understands this passage to state that Jesus divested himself of his deity when he became a man. The writer of Philippians 2:5-8 had a “consciousness, that he is speaking of one who, though really man, possessing all that makes a man a man, is yet, at the same time, infinitely more than a man, no less than God Himself, in possession of all that makes God God” (182).

6. Colossians. rhe theme of this epistle is the all-sufficient Christ. In chapter one, Jesus is presented as one to whom the kingdom belongs (1:14), the image of God (1:15), the firstborn of every creature (1:16), the sustainer of creation (1:17), having existed before his earthly life (1:17), the head of the church (1:18), the firstborn from the dead (1:18), him

in whom the fullness dwells (1:19), and one through whom man is redeemed (1:20). Christ in us is the hope of glory (1:27). In chapter two, Paul stated that in Christ are “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (2:4) and in him “dwelleth all the fullness (the totality of divine powers and attributes) of the Godhead bodily” (2:9). That fullness dwelt in Christ bodily only when he had a body! Hence, Jesus was not merely a man while on earth. Though more evidence from this epistle could be cited, this is enough to show Paul’s concept of Jesus.

7. Thessalonians. In these two Pauline epistles, Jesus is the Lord who is coming in judgment and to redeem his saints (1 Thess. 1:10; 2:19; 3:13; 4:6,13-18; 5:2; etc.). Jesus and the Father providentially directed Paul’s life (1 Thess. 3:8).

8. Timothy. Jesus is described as the one mediator who represents both God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). He was “God manifest in the flesh” (I Tim. 3:16; newer translations follow a variant reading which omits the word “God”).

9. Titus. Paul described Jesus as “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (2:13; see studies in Titus to understand this Greek construction).

The evidences of this train of thought are so abundant that an entire book would be necessary to cite them all. I have only touched the highlights. Suffice it to say that Paul understood that Jesus was no ordinary man; he was the incarnate God whose blood was shed for the remission of man’s sins.

The Book of Hebrews

The affirmations of the deity of Christ in the book of Hebrews are so extensive that they must be listed by themselves. They only can be compared to Colossians 1.

The revelation of Christ is distinguished from the revelation of the Old Testament inasmuch as the former was given by prophets, the latter was given by God’s own Son (1: 1-2). The concept of Jesus which states that he received his power to perform miracles and his knowledge of divine things by the Holy Spirit reduces him to the level of the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles and prophets, a tool in the hand of God. The Son is (a) heir of all things, (b) creator of all things, (c) the brightness of God’s glory, (d) the express image of his person, (e) the sustainer of creation, (f) the one who purged our sins, and (g) is presently seated on the right hand of God (1:2-3). He is superior to the angels (1:4), being declared to be the Son of God (1:5) He is called God (1:8) and rules for ever and ever (1:8). He not only laid the foundations of the earth but also shall outlast the heavens and the earth (1:10-11). He is immutable (1:12).

The superiority of the Christian revelation is manifest in that it was given by the Son, not mere angels (2:1-4). The Son is the divine being who became a man (2:6-18).

Jesus is superior to Moses who served as a servant in the house of God (3:2-5); but Jesus served as a Son over his house (3:6). He is the living Word of God who is the discerning judge who sees all things (4:12-13).

Jesus has a priesthood after the order of Melchizedek (5:6). Melchizedek was the priest-king, the type of the Messiah who is both priest and king. The divine record purposely omitted the reference to Melchizedek’s father and mother and his descendants to point to him who would serve an everlasting priesthood (7:4,16-17,24).

Jesus’ sacrifice is superior to that of bulls and goats because it is the “blood of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God” (9:14).

This Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith (12:2). Like God, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to day and for ever” (13:8).

Conclusion

I have had to be brief in selecting isolated texts from each of Paul’s epistles and Hebrews. Many more citations could be added. I have not even considered the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, Peter, Jude. Were there testimonies added to these, the affirmations of the deity of Christ would be greatly multiplied. There is scarcely a page in the New Testament which does not contain some statement which has the implication that Jesus is the Divine Son of God.

(Concluded next article.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 23, pp. 706, 726-727
December 6, 1990

By Wayne Greeson

In the “Voices” column of the Arkansas Democrat (August 28, 1990) guest writer, Donald Reeves expounded the increasingly popular proposition that a Christian who believes that the faith is “the only true faith” is “exclusion-oriented,” “intolerant” and “the height of religious egotism.” To support this proposition, Mr. Reeves even attempted to enlist the teachings and example of Jesus as one who condemned, according to Reeves, “promoters of religious exclusion.”

Intolerance and bigotry towards others is offensive. However, Mr. Reeves’ faulty idea, that Christians who believe their faith is the only true faith is intolerant, is equally offensive. Toleration requires a fair and objective attitude towards others who are different, it does not require one to abandon what he believes to be truth, merely upon the ground that others hold opposing views. A good balance between the belief that one is right and a toleration of the beliefs of others is found in the ancient saying, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Our relativistic culture has redefined truth from “an absolute fact or reality” to “a relative viewpoint.” Thus, it finds itself in the absurd and contradictory position of asserting as true that one cannot know truth. Anyone who professes to “know truth” is labeled as “intolerant and “exclusion-oriented” and is not tolerated by society. Who is truly intolerant?

In light of this popular view, Allan Bloom observed in his book, The Closing of the American Mind, “The true believer is the real danger. The study of history and of culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past; men always thought they were right, and that led to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism, and chauvinism. The point is not to correct the mistake and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right at all.” “Thus what is advertised as a great opening is a great closing. No longer is there a hope that there are great wise men in other places and times who can reveal the truth about life. (pp. 26 34).

Unfortunately, the popular relativistic philosophy of society has infected many in matters of religion. Mr. Reeves is an good example of this. He professes to be a Christian while at the same time denying the explicit and exclusive claims of Jesus Christ to truth and the founder of the only true faith.

Truth is exclusive, it excludes all that deny and contradict it. Jesus not only claimed to have and to be the truth, but he also excluded all other ways, saviors or religions as means to gain God. Jesus claimed, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn. 14:6). Jesus further claimed that those who followed him would also know the truth (Jn. 8:32).

If one truly accepts Jesus’ claims then he will view his faith as “the only true faith,” as the apostle Paul taught, there is “one hope . . . one Lord, one faith” (Eph. 4:5). Likewise, he will reject the claims of all other religions and saviors, including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. (Acts 4:12). Yes, this makes a Christian exclusive, but certainly no more exclusive than Jesus was. Likewise, this makes Christians no more “intolerant” and “religious egoists” than the Lord they follow. Rather than redefining truth to encompass contradictory and conflicting religions, I suggest that Mr. Reeves reconsider his concept of intoleration and follow the advice of the apostle Paul, “Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).

Exclusion of others practiced by society

Intolerance linked to crisis

In the mix and maze of feelings and thoughts which accompany the critical evens in the Midwest, I have discovered a heretofore unnoticed frustration within myself.

It is “religious” frustration.

As I have watched the news reports and rad the newspaper accounts, I have become increasingly aware of the simple fact that my own Christian faith-culture has been very exclusion-oriented.

That is, we Christians have been so oriented to our own faith as being the only true faith that we have only played games with ecumenism and have missed the boat in creating healthy lines of communication with other faiths (Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, etc.) which might have offered some avenues of cultural communications on a global scale, even when policital communication seemed impossible.

Perhaps one hard truth we need to face is that our religious institutions are still ultimately racial-cultural institutions, and in the final analysis our religion simply promoted cultural exclusion rather than cultural inclusion.

What an anomaly for a faith that has supposedly grown out of the life and teachings of a man from Nazareth, whose most pronounced negative judgments were addressed to those who were promoters of religious exclusion!

Our traditional Christian insistence that God, the creator of the universe, is only available in our style and taste is the height of religous egotism and seems as rediculous as would seem the insistence that all others should wear our style of clothes or develop our tastes for food.

But we are religous egoists, personally and institutionally; and our egotism may contribute much to political egotism in a global setting that desparately needs both religious and political humanity.

So in conclusion, political crisis may in fact be indicative of religous crisis. And the real personal crisis for me may be whether or not I can be honest enough to admit that fact.

(Editor’s Note: Donald D. is pastor of First Presbyterian Churhc in Hot Springs and chaplain of the Arkansas Air National Guard, in which he holds the rank of lieutenant colonel.”

Reprinted from “Voices,” Arkansas Democrat (Tuesday, August 28, 1990).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 22, pp. 685-686, 696
November 15, 1990

By Larry Ray Hafley

(1) We were told that abortion would eliminate the problem of unwanted and abused children. We were told that women who were “forced” to give birth often abuse and neglect the children. We were told to choose between abortion and abuse.

What we were sold was both abortion and abuse. Abortion has not eliminated the scourge of unloved, unwanted, ignored, neglected and abandoned children. If you do not agree, check your newspaper.

(2) We were told that the theory of evolution ought to be accepted by Christians. We were told that it could be made to harmonize with the Bible. We were told that opposition to evolutionary theories was equivalent to being anti-scientific. We were told that both God and the Bible would have more acceptance in the circles of higher learning if we acknowledged “his evolutionary processes.”

What we were sold was infidelity. What we brought was open ridicule and sneering mockery. The package we were sold was evolution and the Bible, but when it arrived, the Bible was missing. Sorry, no refunds or exchanges. All sales are final.

(3) We were told that the “new morality” would liberate us from guilt and unnecessary conscientious scruples. We were told that out Judeo-Christian ethic was to blame for unwed mothers, divorce, family trouble and sex crimes. Our Puritan philosophy, they said was too rigid. Laws and rules of morality stir rebellion. You cannot legislate morality, they argued. So, we stocked up on free love and the rights of “consenting adults.” As the sale appeared to be such a bargain, we gladly traded in our values, gave away our virtue and surrendered our ideals.

What we were sold were more (not less) sex crimes, more (not less) divorce and family stress, more (not less) pregnancy out of marriage, more (not less) broken homes, battered wives, berated children and bruised hearts.

(4) We were told that women have the right to choose abortion. We were told that animals and criminals (sometimes one and the same, but here distinguished for literary purposes) have rights. We were told that laboratory rats and monkeys must be treated humanely (as though someone objects to that). We were told that murderers must not be “murdered” by the state.

What we were sold were laws to protect unhatched eagles, freedom for murderers to murder, and abortion rights. We received our shipment today. Enclosed was a white rat, playfully scurrying about, a cute but screeching eagle, the body of a murder victim, and oh, yes, the fetal remains of what would have been a baby girl. Have a nice day!

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 22, p. 673
November 15, 1990