Truth Magazine

By Paul K. Williams

That the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians is without dispute (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 3:16), just as God dwells in us (1 John 4:12), and the truth dwells in us (2 John 2). Whether the Holy Spirit dwells in us “personally” or “representationally through the word” seems to me to be unimportant. What is important is that we understand what the Spirit does and does not do in the life of the Christian.

Puzzling to me have been the passages which refer to the “earnest” of the Spirit, translated “pledge” in the New American Standard Bible. An “earnest” is a token which is proof of the good intentions of the one giving it. Today a potential house buyer gives “earnest money” to the seller, which money will be forfeited if the buyer backs out of the deal. It is a pledge or guarantee of the good faith of the buyer.

Three times the Holy Spirit is referred to as God’s earnest – the evidence that God’s promise of salvation and eternal life is given in good faith and will be honored. In order for the Holy Spirit to be an “earnest,” He must be given in such a way as to provide evidence of God’s good intentions. He is the proof that God will give heaven to the faithful.

Is It the Indwelling of the Spirit?

Probably most commentators connect these passages with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (cf. James D. Bales, The Holy Spirit and the Christian, 117-119). This is the way I used to understand them.

But this view presents quite a problem. If the indwelling of the Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, that indwelling is the evidence of God’s good intentions. The indwelling itself must produce the evidence to show that we belong to God and that He will give us heaven.

But what evidence does the indwelling give us? The denomination alist is quick to point to his feeling in the chest and to say, “I know I am saved because I feel it here.” Christians have long ridiculed this position, and rightly so, as being without foundation. There is not a statement in the New Testament which says the indwelling of the Holy Spirit produces feelings, other than those of love, joy, peace, etc. which are the natural fruit of the Spirit-the fruit of obeying the words of the Spirit. No “better-felt-than-told” experience is referred to in the Bible, and such things cannot be ascribed to the Holy Spirit.

But if the “earnest” of the Spirit is not a feeling in the chest, what is it? James D. Bales says it is two things (op. cit.): (1) faith that the Holy Spirit dwells in us and (2) the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23). But neither of those two things seems to satisfy the definition of an “earnest” or “pledge.” My faith is certainly not evidence that God will fulfill His promises. And the fruit of the Spirit is evidence that I am letting the word of God work in my heart-evidence of the indwelling of the Spirit-but it does not, in my judgment, provide evidence that God’s promises are true.

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit

An article in Truth Magazine by O. C. Birdwell challenged the idea that the earnest of the Spirit is the indwelling of the Spirit, and I am now convinced that Brother Birdwell is right. (See Truth Magazine, Aug. 7, 1975-Editor.) A careful examination of the three passages on the subject will demonstrate this.

2 Cor. 1:21-22-`Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.”

The key to these verses is to find out who the “us” and “you” are. The “you” are obviously the Christians at Corinth, and Paul does not say that the Spirit was given in their hearts as a pledge. The ones who received the Spirit as a pledge are those Paul refers to as “us,” and they are “me and Silvanus and Timothy” (v. 19).

It is easy to see how the Holy Spirit was given to those men as a pledge. They received miraculous powers-powers of revelation and signs. The Holy Spirit given to them was a foretaste and assurance of the fulfillment of all the rest of God’s promises, truly an earnest.

As we shall see in the other two passages, the same explanation of the earnest holds true in them, too. God’s earnest was not some vague feeling. Nor is it our faith or even the fruit of the Spirit. His pledge to us of His faithfulness and ability in carrying out His promises was the pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon certain early Christians, giving them power which came unmistakably and directly from God. This was a valuable pledge, and one which even today assures us of God’s power and faithfulness.

2 Cor. 5:5-“Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge.”

This verse does not say how the Spirit was given as a pledge. The verb is in the past tense, not present, indicating that Paul was looking backward at an event already accomplished. “Us” in this passage appears to be Paul, but he seems to be speaking as if his feelings and experiences are shared by those he was writing to. Thus it is possible to understand the passage as saying that God gave the Spirit to Christians as a pledge.

But note also that Paul does not say that it is the Spirit in our hearts which is a pledge. Everything in this verse is consistent with the idea that the pledge was the pouring out of the Spirit upon the apostles and the house of Cornelius, with the accompanying gifts given to others by the apostles. The verse certainly cannot be used to prove the earnest is the Spirit dwelling in Christians today. It does not indicate that at all, though this verse alone might not rule out the idea. But to establish that the earnest is the Spirit in our hearts today will require other passages. This one does not say that.

Eph. 1:13-14 – “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation – having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.”

In Ephesians 1, Paul speaks of those “who were the first to hope in Christ” (v. 12). Those were the Jews. Then he speaks of “you also,” obviously the Gentiles. They also were sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance.

This occurred when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon Cornelius and his house, the first Gentiles to be accepted into Christ. We Gentiles have the same assurance that the Jews have-we are acceptable to God on the same basis as they, and we have the same assurance of Heaven.

Peter showed that he understood the outpouring of the Spirit in this way when he said, “If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” (Acts 11:17). “And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:8-9). When he said that God “bore witness to them,” he was saying that God had given an earnest, or a pledge, to them by giving them the Holy Spirit.

Thus the baptism of the Holy Spirit, with its accompanying gifts, was the earnest of the Spirit. This miraculous outpouring was tangible assurance of God’s promises. We can be sure there is a heaven for the faithful because of this earnest.

Truth Magazine, XX:19, p. 9-10
May 6, 1976

By Roy E. Cogdill

There are any number of scriptural reasons that should enable any one to see that Christianity is incompatible with denominationalism and religious division. 1) Christ prayed that division might not exist among believers (John 17:20-21). 2) Paul commanded by the authority of Christ, “Let there be no divisions among you” (1 Cor. 1:10). 3) Division is evidence of carnality of spirit (1 Cor. 3:1-9). 4) Division is a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21). 5) Division misrepresents Christ as a divided Christ (1 Cor. 1:13). 6) Division destroys the Temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16-17; Matt. 12:25).

There is no representation of the church of the New Testament that permits division or denominationalism. 1).There is one head and one body (Eph. 1:19-23; Col. 1:18; Eph. 4). 2) There is one bride and one bridegroom (Rom. 7:1-7). 3) There is one family and one father (Eph. 3:14; Eph. 4). 4) There is one kingdom and one King (Luke 22:29; Heb. 12:28; Rev. 1:5-6).

Denominationalism is not only unscriptural but it is anti-scriptural. Division is sinful and therefore condemned in God’s sight. A Christian cannot be a party to it or give it any endorsement or encouragement. It is the product of the wisdom of man and contrary to the will of God.

The church of the New Testament was and is not a denomination wherever it may exist upon this earth because it respects the will of God and is therefore unalterably opposed to religious division and denominationalism. There is no compromise with error that can be made without truth’s being forsaken and forfeited and when the Lord’s Church is guilty of that, identity with the Lord is lost (2 John 9-11). We must not go beyond that which is written (1 Cor. 4:6; 2 Cor. 4:13).

The word “denomination” signifies a part of something. It is fractional in its meaning and cannot therefore truly represent the religion of Christ and the teaching of New Testament scriptures. The church of the New Testament is not made up of the various sectarian bodies in the so-called “religious world” and, if it were, it would be a living monstrosity for it would be characterized by a mass of contradictions in its doctrine, worship and organization. This concept of the New Testament church can only result in confusion and unbelief. When we preach a different “body,” we preach a different Christ and that is unbelief.

The church of the New Testament cannot therefore be characterized by denominational organizations. The churches that men have built have their own established authority and man made regulations and laws. They have their various types of human organizations with their government designed by the wisdom and will of man. The Mormon Church, for example, has its president and the twelve apostles to govern it. The New Testament church had no “president” and it does not today have any living apostles for the reason that there are none living on earth today who can qualify as an apostle of Christ (Acts 1:20-23). The Roman Catholic Church has its universal organization with the universal Pope and his college of Cardinals. But in the New Testament we read nothing of a Pope or a Cardinal or any such authority vested in men as these prelates of Catholicism claim. Such human organizations centered in a single head of government or centralized governing body or some Convention or Association form of government is characteristic of all human religious institutions but no hint or description of such organizations can be found in the New Testament scriptures. Such human organizations did not exist in New Testament days. They are all the result of departures from the teaching of the word of God and cannot be justified in their existence by it.

The church of the Lord or “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16) of the New Testament day knew no earthly head, had no centralized authority to govern it such as a conclave, congress, synod, convention, etc. There is not even an amalgamation of association of local churches known to New Testament scriptures. On the contrary each congregation in its own locality was an independent body under its own elders or bishops, governing itself in the conduct of its own affairs in harmony with the will of Christ. These local “churches of Christ” are all that is known to New Testament teaching. They had no human societies, missionary, benevolent, educational, or of any other kind. When any church of Christ forms, becomes a part to, or affiliates itself with the work of any human institution, that “church of Christ” departs from the New Testament pattern of things and apostatizes and it does not matter what kind of sophistry might be used to justify it in doing so. Human arrangements and organizations without or within the “churches of Christ” are no more justifiable by the Word of God than universal denominational organizations. The church of the Lord can denominationalize itself and does do so when it either establishes or maintains such human organizations. Brethren today who are busy building human organizations to do the work of the Lord’s church cannot consistently or sincerely condemn the organizations of human denominations. They are guilty of the same error.

The “church of Christ” of which Paul wrote had no human creed. They rejected all of the doctrines and commandments of men and adhered only to the “doctrine of Christ.” When Judaizing teachers went about among them teaching that Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to be Christians, the Apostles in Jerusalem said, “We gave no such commandment” (Acts 15:23-24). Only the Apostles could bind and loose on earth by the authority of Christ (Matt. 18:18). No Christian can teach anything which the Apostles of Christ did not teach without alienating himself from God and being accursed (Gal. 1:6-8; 2 John 9-11). Human creeds therefore are condemned and when the church of the Lord departs from the truth and teaches the doctrines and commandments of men it loses its identity and its worship to God is in vain (Matt. 15:7-9). ‘What then is the creed of a Christian and what must he teach? Christ is the only authority and His word the only creed a Christian can have.

The “churches of Christ” in the New Testament did not recognize and wear any human name. Paul condemned the Corinthians who claimed to be followers of Paul and raised the question: “Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:13). The answer to these questions was negative, of course! Paul had not died for them and neither had they been baptized into his name. The argument was then “why wear the name of Paul?” They had no right to do so. But reverse the argument, “Who was crucified for you? and into whose name were ye baptized?” The answer is Christ died for us and into His name are we baptized. The argument then is, “Why not wear the name of Christ?” We have no right to wear the name of man-any man-for none of them died for us and into none of -their names have we been baptized, if we are Christians. This simply demands that all believers wear only the :name of Christ.

The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch (Acts 11:26). Isaiah had prophesied that a new name would be given by the mouth of the Lord when the Gentiles saw the righteousness of God and Kings beheld his glory (Isaiah 62:2). Saul of Tarsus was made a special emissary of Christ to the Gentiles to bear the name of Christ before them and the kings of the earth (Acts 9:15). When he was at Antioch where the Gentiles and the Jews were brought together in the fellowship of a church of Christ for the first time, the new name was given and it was the name “Christian.”

The name of Christ is above every name (Phil. 2:9). We can glorify God in this name (1 Peter 4:16). Whatever we do in word or deed is to be done in the name (Col. 3:17). There is no other name in which men can please God and there is no other name in which unity can be possible. Human names are divisive.

Undenominational Christianity can never be characterized by human organizations, human creeds, or human names. Any church of Christ on earth loses its identity with the Lord whenever any of these are adopted or recognized.

Truth Magazine, XX:19, p. 8-9
May 6, 1976

By Cecil Willis

Last week we announced our intention of studying whether God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are all one person. There are a number of denominations who maintain that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but different manifestations of the same person. It is childish of us to ignore our differences. We should really come to grips with our differences and honestly measure them in the light of the Scriptures. Last week we tried to cite the arguments made in attempting to prove that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are one person. This week we want you to weigh the evidence in the Scriptures showing that the Godhead consists of three personalities, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We may speak of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all as being divine. I am attempting to prove the deity which we worship consists of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In The Beginning

The first passage I suggest for your candid observation is Gen. 1:26. Of course in the first chapter of Genesis, we have the inspired account of creation. After God had created the heavens and the earth, the fish, fowls, animals and creeping things, as a crowning act of His creation, He created man. As God prepared to make man, the Scriptures say, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Gen. 1:26). Notice God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” He used “us” and “our” instead of “my” and “mine.” He spoke in the plural. This verse, therefore shows that there is a plurality in the Godhead. If God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are all one person, the passage then would have read, “Let me make man in my image, after my likeness.” Someone should explain why God referred to Himself in the plural.

Our friends who believe this doctrine are sometimes willing to admit that deity was manifested in three different personalities during the time Christ was incarnate in human flesh, on the earth. But Gen. 1:26 shows there were three persons prior to Christ’s taking upon Himself the likeness and fashion of a man. The Scriptures teach that there were three divine persons active in the creation o# man. But the Scriptures also teach that the three divine personalities were also active in the creation.

God the Father had a part in the original creation. In Rev, 14:7, we read, “Fear God, and give him glory; for the house of his judgment is come; and worship him that made the heaven and the earth and sea and fountains of waters.” Jesus Christ was also active in the original creation: “who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love; in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him were all things created (KJV says “by him were all things created”), in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; and he is before all things, and in him all things consist” (Col. 1:13-17). Paul also declared that the worlds were made through Christ in Hebrews 1. “God . . . hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds” (vs. 1-3). The apostle John further emphasized the creative power of Jesus as he said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made” (Jno. 1:1-3). So Jesus had a part in creation. But the Holy Spirit was also active in creation. Gen. 1:2 says, “And the earth was without void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” So there were three persons active in creation: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, or the divine Father, the divine Son, and the divine Holy Spirit. These passages should sound the death-knell to the “one person” theory, but if not, there are many other Scriptures equally as plain.

Let us now look at another passage that declares that Jesus, or the Word existed as a separate personality prior to His coming to earth. In John 1 we have a statement of the relationship existing between Jesus and God. In this passage, Jesus is referred to as the Word. Proof of this statement is found in John 1:14. “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.” Jesus, the Word, became flesh. Well what about the Word? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Notice the first expression: “In the beginning was the Word.” This carries us back to the earliest moment of time, or to the time when the heavens and earth were created. In the beginning, the Word “was,” or was already in existence. This shows that God and Christ are co-eternal.

Next the apostle John said, “And the Word was with God.” Does this sound like a statement made regarding one person? The Word was “with” God. Was John simply saying that Jesus was with Himself? Or was John saying Jesus, one person, was with God, another person? It must be the latter, for the former expression would be grammatically incorrect.

The third expression in John 1:1 is “And the Word was God.” This statement is often mis-construed to mean that God and Christ were one person, but such is not the meaning at all. John was saying that the Word was deity, or that Jesus was also divine. In Phil. 2:5-8, Paul in describing the state of Jesus, prior to his incarnation, said that he “counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,” or a thing to be held on to. He gave up His equality with God, and took upon Himself the form of a man, with certain limitations of the human body. Yet he was God manifest in human flesh. But Jesus existed before He became human flesh, and this irreconcilable with the “one person,” or “Jesus only” doctrine.

In Providence

There are also three persons active in providence. We are promised the accompaniment of all three persons in the Godhead. In Heb. 13:5, the apostle Paul quoted the words of God as found in Deut. 31:6: “I will in no wise fail thee, neither will I in any wise forsake thee.” God said, “I will be with you.” In the Great Commission, Jesus promised also to accompany the disciples: Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:19,20). The Holy Spirit is promised in John 14:16,17: “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you forever, even the spirit of truth.”

So we see that three persons, God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were all present and active in creation, and all three are likewise active in divine providence.

In the Jordan Wilderness

As an irrefutable proof that there are three persons in the Godhead, open your Bible and turn to the account of Jesus’ baptism, found in Matthew 3. “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him; and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:16,17). Now, how many divine persons were present at the baptism of Jesus? There were three! Jesus was the one being baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan River; the Holy Spirit was descending as a dove; and God spoke from the heavens saying, “This is my beloved Son.” From the passage we see that Jesus was on earth, God was in heaven; and the Holy Spirit was descending from heaven to earth. There were three persons present.

There are many who are willing to admit there were three personalities present, but deny that there are three persons, which is contradiction to the meaning of good English words. No personality can exist without a person existing. Was God a person? Yes. Was Jesus a person? Yes. Was the Holy Spirit a person? Yes. If so, there were three persons present. If each of these, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, are not persons, then they are impersonal, which simply means they are not persons. Yet these same persons, who contend the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not each a person, have misrepresented some groups by declaring that they believed the Holy Spirit was not a person, but some sort of cosmic spirit. I believe the Holy Spirit is personal or is a person. But if these people believe that Jesus is the only person in the Godhead, then they believe God and the Holy Spirit are impersonal. If they believe that God is a person, Christ is a person, and the Holy Spirit is a person, they believe that there are three persons in the Godhead, which is what I have been trying to prove.

If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all one person, then when Jesus was being baptized, the account of His baptism should read quite differently. The account should declare, if the doctrine under-investigation is true, that Jesus was being baptized, and that Jesus was descending like a dove and lighting upon Jesus, and Jesus said to Himself from heaven, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” How could Jesus be baptized and at the same time, Jesus descend like a dove on Jesus, and at the same time Jesus say to Jesus, “Jesus, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” The doctrine which we are studying makes sheer nonsense of the Scriptures as one so plainly can see by our application of it to this particular passage of Scripture. This is why we are so plainly interested in seeing the truth clearly set forth. Clearly, at the baptism of Jesus we have all three persons in the Godhead present on one occasion. Jesus was being baptized, the Holy Spirit descended, and God spoke. Nothing could be made clearer than the Scriptures make this point.

Conclusion

There were three divine persons present and active in the creation of man. There are three persons active in divine providence. And there were three persons present and active in Christ’s baptism. These passages should be adequate to establish the truth that there are three persons in the Godhead. (Next: objections considered in “The Holy Three.”)

Truth Magazine, XX:19, p. 3-5
May 6, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

From Tennessee: “When a congregation withdraws itself front one of its members, do the Scriptures teach that all other churches must accept this church’s decision without the right to check into the matter themselves to determine whether the withdrawn from member is worthy or unworthy of their fellowship?”

Reply:

This question appears frequently where there are several churches in close proximity. Of course, churches blessed with faithfulness do not have the problem. Churches cursed with failure to discipline after the New Testament order do not have the problem, either.

If the answer to the query above is, “yes,” the result would be:

1. That churches would have been required to refuse those whom an apostle accepted. In 3 John 9, 10, Diotrephes refused to receive the apostle John, “and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would and casteth them out of the church.” If churches “must accept this church’s decision in the matter,” then other churches should have knuckled and kneeled to Diotrephes.

2. That churches would have been forced to receive the brother in Corinth who had “his father’s wife,” since the church approved him. The rule applies both ways. If one church must automatically deny one who is withdrawn from, they must immediately take in one who is regarded as faithful elsewhere. In the case above, men rejected those whom God accepted, while in Corinth men received those whom God refused. Therefore, each church must “check into the matter themselves to determine whether the withdrawn from member is worthy or unworthy of their fellowship.”

On The Other Hand

It should not be forgotten that a congregation which scripturally delivers one unto Satan does so “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 5:4; 2 Thess. 3:6). It is a serious action. Each case should be judged with care; it cannot be ignored.

Then, again, erroneous judgments and personality conflicts scar churches in given areas. Men love admiration and advantage. Resentment builds against arrogant, self-willed men. A series of factions arise to fracture the frail thread of unity. Petitions are signed. Charges and counter charges are hurled. Hatred thrives but is denied by all concerned. Each “side” says they are on no one’s side, except the Lord’s. All disclaim the devil, except to say that he is “definitely in our midst.” Each side wants to “play the tapes” of a heated business meeting which, they both affirm, proves the guilt of the other. Both groups withdraw from each other. Both groups insist that “faithful churches” cannot “endorse that faction.” Both withdraw from churches that do not accept their view. Both groups solicit the support of preachers to give them an air of recognition. Both groups send articles to papers and periodicals bewailing the division which was “made necessary” by the ungodly actions of a “certain few.” On and on the gangrene spreads. The innocent, the unsuspecting, and meddlers are drawn in. It waxes worse and worse. Other churches are caught in the middle. Who or what shall they believe? It takes a Solomon to know the answer in cases like this which have pock-marked this country like a contagious disease the past fifteen years. Perhaps the wisdom of Solomon would not be a bad idea — take the quarreling brethren and divide them with the sword.

Truth Magazine, XX:19, p. 2
May 6, 1976