Truth Magazine

By Wayne S. Walker

Prostitution is an increasing public menace and moral evil. Its rise in popularity is representative of the degeneracy among American citizens which is becoming more and more prevalent. I realize that it has been practiced almost from the dawn of history, and even on a large scale in this country in the past. But it is much more publicized today than it used to be. There are cries for its legalization and demands for “hookers’ rights”; it receives a large amount of television and newspaper coverage. Bumper stickers proclaim, “Support Your Local Hooker.” Where whorehouses were once considered places of ill-repute, they are now coming to be thought of as “in” places to frequent, and there are numerous books, magazines, and movies which portray their activities in a very appealing manner. People everywhere talk jokingly of “cat houses” and “pick-up joints.” But it is no laughing matter. Dealing with, going to, or playing a harlot is called sin by the Bible and is condemned by God.

God’s Rule for Man’s Sexual Activity

There are numerous scriptures in the Old Testament which disclose God’s displeasure with this nauseating activity. The first is found in Genesis 2:24 where God said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.” Beginning at the very creation, it was God’s will that the marriage of a man and woman was to be a life-long, unbroken, and exclusive partnership. It is in this relationship that God ordained all human sexual desires to be fulfilled. Men have perverted that decree with polygamy, adultery, divorce, and of course, prostitution. “But from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8).

According to the Covenant at Sinai

In the law of Moses, God also revealed His attitude toward the harlot. Fathers were forbidden to give their daughters over to prostitution (Lev. 19:29). Priests were not allowed to marry or permit their daughters to become whores (Lev. 21:7-9). God did not permit money procured from prostitution to be brought into the place of worship (Dent. 23:18). Harlotry is a form of fornication (illicit sexual relations) and the Decalogue strictly forbade this: “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Ex. 20:14). The penalty for such activity was death (Dent. 22:21-24). Even before the Ten Commandments were given, God’s people knew the reprehensivity of this vice, and death was its deserts (Gen. 38:24). The figure of whoredom is often used by the prophets symbolically to describe Israel’s spiritual condition in forsaking God, but they also condemned the actual act.

What the Wise Man Said

Some of the best bits of wisdom concerning harlotry are found in the book of wisdom, Proverbs. Listen to Solomon as he warned in chapter 5, “My son, attend unto my wisdom; incline thine ear to my understanding: that thou mayest preserve discretion, and that thy lips may keep knowledge. For the lips of a strange woman drop honey, and her mouth is smoother than oil: but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on Sheol. . . . Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh to the door of her house; lest thou give thine honor unto others, and thy years to the cruel; lest strangers be filled with thy strength, and thy labors be in the house of an alien.” Instead, he encouraged his son, “Drink waters out of thine own cistern . . . and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. As a loving hind and a pleasant doe, let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished with her love. For why shouldest thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a foreigner?”

He further asked in 6:24-35, “Can a man take fire into his bosom, and his clothes be not burned? Or can one walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be scorched? So he that goeth into his neighbor’s wife” or any other woman he has no right to. In the seventh chapter, he spoke of “a woman with the attire of a harlot,” and described her character and her seduction of a young man. As disgusting as the prostitute may be, we must not forget also the sin on the part of the one being seduced and yielding to her. “He goeth after her straightway as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as one in fetters to the correction of the fool; till an arrow strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life.” Solomon concluded with this piece of good advice: “Now therefore, my sons, hearken unto me, and attend to the words of my mouth. Let not thine heart decline to her ways; go not astray in her paths. For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, all her slain are a mighty host. Her house is the way to Sheol, going down to the chambers of death.”

New Testament Teaching

The New Testament is no less forceful in its denunciation of dealing in prostitution. Jesus condemned the unbridled and passionate lust that would lead a man to resort to such things as adultery and prostitution (Matt. 5:27-28). As previously noted, prostitution is a form of sexual immorality and is thus disapproved of by God in general as seen in such passages as Matt. 15:18-20, Rom. 1:24-32, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, and Col. 3:5-9. But there is also special mention of judgment against whoremongers, as mentioned in Eph. 5:3-5, 1 Tim. 1:9-10, Heb. 13:4, and Rev. 21:8. These principles include all who are associated with harlotry: those who operate whorehouses, prostitutes themselves, and those who go to harlots. One interesting thing about the word “whoremonger” is that, although it generally means a fornicator, it was sometimes used in a special sense to denote a male prostitute. Let us not be chauvinistic. History reveals that men have actually hired themselves out for sexual favors as well as women. Lest someone the Bible condemns both.

A Sin Against the Body

In my estimation, one of the most important passages in the New Testament in this connection is l Corinthians 6:15-20. Paul here said that our bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost and members of Christ (vs. 15,19). When the body of the first man was created by God and whenever a baby is born, that body is pure and clean (Eccl. 7:39). We use the term “virgin” to describe not only females but also males who are undefiled. It is generally true of all humans, since each man is created in the image of God and his body is the handiwork of God, and especially true of Christians who have been recreated in Christ, that to take this body and defile it by sexual impurity is a sin against the body – against the very purpose for which God created the body. While I recognize that no sin is in reality any greater than another, and that no sin is too great to be repented of, this verse does indicate that when a person engages in unlawful sexual activity, in a special way he “sinneth against his own body.” However, this does not take place when one is married, for the marriage bed is undefiled (Heb. 13:4).

Many might think this whole discussion is silly. It may seem not of harmony with propriety to some. Others may ask why bring up a subject that everyone obviously abhors. The point I tried to make at the beginning was that not everyone abhors it, so it seems; at least not as many as we might like to think. I have tried to deal firmly yet delicately with a practice that has the very real possibility of becoming an increasing temptation to the saints of God. Our young people are growing up with the same biological urges that their elders have, and unless they are instructed in the dangers of this realm below and are told how the beauty of sex as given by God can be marred by men, they will be easy game for the devil and his agents am evil influences prey upon their natural desires. This is a special danger whenever those who pervert God’s way are allowed to come out into the open and publicly advertise themselves, as is happening more and more today. I have out even introduced the rising threat of venereal disease in our society, most of which is fostered by promiscuity in sexual relations. Suffice it to say, we need to be on guard against all forms of sexual impurity, and teach our young people to do likewise.

Truth Magazine, XX:18, p. 12-13
April 29, 1976

By Donald P. Ames

The book of Revelation seems to be completely beyond the comprehension of many; hence it is never studied, never understood, easily and often misinterpreted, and usually very confusing. It is often approached by some like a giant jigsaw puzzle, in which they become so bogged down looking at the individual pieces that they completely lose sight of the overall picture, hence it seems hopeless.

Indeed the book of Revelation is like a giant jigsaw puzzle, and when we lose sight of the overall picture, we lose sight of the very key to understanding the book itself. While it may be true that all the details of every example may not be fully comprehended by any (I do not know of any two commentaries that agree on every particular), I do believe that the basic general picture of Revelation can be understood. I also believe that the refutation of many false theories can be easily comprehended.

We shall not, in this one setting, attempt to go into an examination of each and every theory that has been advanced on the book of Revelation. Such is neither practical nor necessary. However, if we can comprehend the basic nature of Revelation, we will be in position to not only recognize a false interpretation, but to see wherein it has departed from the true message of Revelation. This we shall attempt to do by recognizing three basic keys of understanding to the message of this great book from God.

Revelation, by its very nature, was not designed to be interpreted literally, as is readily apparent to anyone who sits down to actually read it. John affirms in Rev. 1:1 that it was sent and “signified”-a term which means to speak in signs or symbols (hence not literal, but figurative). Such symbolic language is common to us from the parables, illustrations in John 10, the Lord’s Supper, etc.

Reading the book itself reveals that even those who claim to interpret it literally do not do so. (1) Rev. 7:48, 14:3-4 mention the 144,000, which the Jehovah Witnesses love to claim must be interpreted literally, but they reject the idea that it refers to literal Jews (note that even the 12 tribes are not literal, but rather that the tribes of Levi and Joseph have been substituted for Dan and Ephraim), that it means only men, that it means only unmarried men (i.e., virgins), and that they followed a literal “lamb.” (2) Rev. 12 could not be literal by any method of interpretation. The woman described was of enormous size (if literal), and so is the dragon. If sufficiently huge he is capable of hurling one third of the stars to earth, obviously we would have no earth left. Yet, having done so, he is then cast down to what is left of the earth, stands on it, and pursues the huge woman, who is able to find a hiding place on it also. (3) Rev. 14:20 would require blood flowing for a distance of 200 miles, filling up all the valleys, gulleys, lakes, etc. Again, obviously, literal logic cannot be applied to the interpretation of this passage. (4) Rev. 20:1-6 is used by those teaching the theory of Premillennialism, and the term “1,000 years” is seized upon as literal, while rejecting the literal nature of a “bottomless pit,” of only “souls” involved, of only souls which were “beheaded,” and excluding any who were not beheaded.

The very nature of Revelation then, as John affirms, is not to be literal, but figurative, and hence must be so interpreted (in harmony with other plain statements found elsewhere in the Bible, and also in light of other similar expressions found in the Old Testament which are explained for us). We will have more on this point later.

The second major point we need to understand about Revelation is the time for which it was written. Revelation was written to convey a message to those then living, and efforts to make it refer to specific events centuries later utterly ignores this point. There could be no way anyone then reading it could be blessed (1:3) if it did not convey a message to them as they read it then. Why should they heed its message (22:7) if it had no reference whatsoever to them, but referred to something going to happen yet 2,000 or more years into the future?

The truth of the matter is that John was writing Revelation with them in mind. Again, we turn to the very first verse, where he affirms he is writing about those things “which must shortly take place.” One Premillennial commentary I read recently noted this term, changed it to surely, and proceeded to affirm everything from the middle of the third chapter was yet future. This is not what John was talking about! The term here, commented on by Vincent, means: “the aorist infinitive geneszai is not begin to come to pass, but denotes a complete fulfillment; must shortly come to pass in their entirety.” Again, if it is to “shortly” come to pass, it cannot be talking about over 2,000 years into the future!

This message is carried throughout the book of Revelation. Note that the time is “near” or “at hand” in 1:3 (cf. Matt. 3:2, Mark 9:1); “about to suffer” (2:10); “1 am coming to you quickly” (2:16); “that hour which is about to come upon the whole world” (3:10); “1 am coming quickly” (3:11); “a little while longer” (6:11); “delay no longer” (10:6); “the third Woe is coming quickly” (11:14); etc. Even in the last chapter we see the same message repeated repeatedly: “the things which must shortly take place” (v. 6); “1 am coming quickly” (v. 7); “for the time is near” (v. 10); “1 am coming quickly” (v. 12); and “I am coming quickly” again in verse 20. Obviously the “coming” here does not refer to the second and final coming, or the Lord lied in saying it was “quickly,” “shortly” and “at hand.” Frequently the same term is used with the idea of coming in judgment (cf. Matt. 10:23, Isa. 19:1-not literal), and this seems to be the message John was giving to the oppressed Christians of that time.

This same idea is born out even further when we note the expression used “from Him who Is, and who was and who is to come” (1:4,8; 4:8) which is changed to “who art and who wast” in 11:17 and 16:5 (Note: the KJV has “and art to come”, but this is not found in the NASB nor the originals, and thus does not belong here. It is also interesting to note that we find he “hast (past tense) begun to reign” in 11:17 and “didst judge” in 16:5). Thus, we find that the “to come” part has been fulfilled at this point by the action taken already, and not something yet to happen over 2,000 years in the future.

This being so, recognizing the time element of the book of Revelation, there is no way Jehovah Witnesses, Premillennialists, Armstrong, Adventists, etc. can claim Revelation is either being fulfilled today or refers to events yet in the future. This same error lies in the way of the popular Historical approach taken by the Gospel Advocate commentary and some other brethren today. They are “too late,” just as those who contend the kingdom is yet in the future are “too late” in their recognition of the time element involved. And, efforts to apply Matt. 24:6-7 to events today in this same light also ignores the context of what is under consideration here too (see v. 1-3, 34). If we went no further, these two points alone are sufficient to refute most of the error taught about the book of Revelation. But there is one more point we need to note to complete our picture.

The third point we need to grasp is the full jigsaw picture itself, as we look at the book of Revelation as a whole. Why was it written, and what was its message? The book was written as an encouragement to the Christians of that time in the face of discouraging persecution from the Roman government. The tribulation was already on them, and more were yet to die (2:10, 3:10, 6:11). In view of these continued deaths, the cry was raised, “Is it all in vain?” “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will Thou refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth” (6:10), and John’s message is the reply to this cry. The book centers around their cry for vengeance-nor for the sake of revenge itself, but as a testimony it had not all been in vain. But, first, God says, it is all according to a plan: others must first die too (6:11), but “a little while longer,” and My purpose will then unfold. Now, note in 16:6-7 that Christ “didst judge” these things, giving His enemies blood to drink for having poured out the blood of the saints, and the “altar” (cf. 6:9) now sees that “true and righteous are Thy judgments.” Again, in 19:2, in direct reference to 6:10, we find “He has avenged the blood of His bond-servants on her.” And, finally, in triumph, those who had remained faithful to the Lord throughout the persecution are now sharing in the triumph of the cause of Christ in 20:4-6. Thus we see the picture, each part of it contributing to the whole, and all tied to “its own special background and history” (The Saints Victorious by James P. Miller, p. 31).

Hendriksen, in More Than Conquerors, p. 11, says that the purpose of the book is “to comfort the militant church in its struggle against the forces of evil. It abounds with consolations for afflicted believers.” Again, in the foreword of his book Revelation: Message From Patmos, Weldon Warnock adds, “Revelation was written to serve an immediate need for the suffering Christians of Asia Minor. It was written to console, comfort and assure those saints who were experiencing affliction, even death, at the hands of the Roman Emperor, Domitian, and his cohorts. It fulfills this need perfectly.” And, Ray Summers in his commentary Worthy Is The Lamb, p. 100, adds, “This does not mean that every detail of the book is to be an immediate fulfillment. The interval of time between the beginning of relief for the Christians and the final consummation was not revealed to John; neither he nor the other Christians needed to see that. They needed the assurance of immediate relief and final complete victory. That is exactly what was given them.” I believe the chart which accompanies this article (which I have composed from personal study of the book as a whole) well illustrates this message as it is carried through the book of Revelation.

But Why Figurative?

At this point, the question is again raised, But why then is the book figurative? Why didn’t John just come out and say that? Remember Pharoah’s reaction in Ex. 5:2, 5-9? The pattern for giving a message to God’s people, which they understood and their enemies thought was “the ravings of a lunatic” was then set in Ezekiel 4. The same was now employed here the Christians understood the wonderful promise of relief and victory, but the Romans thought it was the writings of one “not worth bothering with.” Again, from Ray Summers’ commentary, we note the following: “Often one is led to question as to why literature is presented in such a cryptic manner as characterizes apocalypses. The answer to such a question is seen in the fact that this literature was written in dangerous times. The personal safety of both writer and reader was endangered if the persecutors understood the true meaning of the book. For this reason the message of the apocalypse was written so as to conceal and to reveal—to conceal the message from the outsider but to reveal its message to the initiated” (Worthy Is The Lamb, p.5).

All that is contained in this book: the events, the beasts, the judgments, etc. must be kept within the concept of the time, nature and purpose of the book, or we no longer have a context, but a pretext. This does not mean that it does not contain a message for us today, for surely it does, just like the message on church discipline found in 1 Cor. 5. We must not become discouraged and assume God has lost control, but to recognize He has a purpose and in the end, He will vindicate His cause!

The failure to recognize these important truths, though, has led to many speculations-all the way from the Premillennial position to the Jehovah Witnesses’ position to the Historical Position (which has to be revised every 100 years to account for “new events.” This view, by the way, also reverses the beasts of Rev. 13 as well).

Revelation is much like the American battle of Independence. We declared our Independence in 1776, but it took a war to confirm it. Dan. 2:44 and Heb. 12:28 affirmed we have received a kingdom which could not be destroyed. It was tested by Satan, and confirmed by the Lord. As before, Satan went down in defeat, even though he threw everything he had against the church in its infancy: The power of the Roman government, the pressure of Caesar worship and the worldliness of the city of Rome as well. His final defeat has been foretold (Matt. 25:46), but he will not surrender! Would you rather follow a loser, or to follow our Lord in His final victory and the glories of Heaven, which He offers as a reward for those who remain faithful to Him?

Truth Magazine, XX:18, p. 8-10
April 29, 1976

By Cecil Willis

A doctrine often taught is the subject of our investigation for the next few weeks. Some time ago I read a proposition affirmed by a denominational preacher. It read: “Resolved: That there is only one person in the Godhead. . . .” There are many good people in the religious world who believe this teaching to be founded on the Scriptures. Perhaps some are unfamiliar with the statement of the doctrine. It maintains that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are not different entities, but are only different manifestations of the same person. It is often referred to as the “Jesus Only” doctrine. It teaches that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are really all just one person. If this doctrine is taught in the Bible, all of us ought to believe it; if it is not taught in the Bible, none of us should believe it.

This week we want to spend our time in studying the passages that have been cited as proof-texts allegedly proving that there is just one person in the Godhead. I have not chosen passages that I think may be used by the proponents of the doctrine, but I have gone through some of their written speeches with one specific purpose of learning what they consider to be the best proof-texts of their doctrine in order that we might investigate them.

First of all, let us notice the passages cited as their proof texts from the Old Testament. Remember now, these passages are supposed to prove that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all one person. Isa. 43:10 is one passage cited as proving this doctrine. It reads: “Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” This passage says nothing about God, Christ and the Holy Spirit all being one person. It does assert that there was no god made before Jehovah, which I believe as strongly as they. Isaiah is contrasting Jehovah with idols, and all one has to do to learn this is to read the next two verses. Of course, our friends who use this passage as a proof-text never seem to do this. But verses 11, 12 read: “I, even 1, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour. I have declared, and I have saved, and I have showed; and there was no strange god among you; therefore ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and I am God.” In contrast to idols, God is the only God. This is the teaching, also, in Deut. 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” No idol can be put in God’s stead.

Furthermore, Isa. 44:6 is cited as proving that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all one person. It reads: “Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God.” But what does the context indicate Isaiah is referring to when he quotes God’s words? Verse 9 says, “They that fashion a graven image are all of them vanity.” These people were trying to substitute a graven image for Almighty God.

In seeking to prove the identity of Jesus and God, they argue that Jesus was but another manifestation of God. I turn to the creed book of one denomination which teaches this doctrine and read: “The one true God manifested Himself in the Old Testament in divers ways, and as the Son while he walked among men . . . As the Holy Spirit after His ascension” (Articles of Faith, United Pentecostal Church, page 16, paragraph 4). According to this statement of the creed, Jesus was not really the Son of God; He was just a manifestation of God. This doctrine undermines the Sonship of Jesus Christ, which the inspired writers sought to sustain.

Now this next argument we are about to review may seem a bit far-fetched to some of you, but I stated I am going to investigate the grounds of this belief by reviewing the argument as made by the proponents of the doctrine. They cite 2 Cor. 5:19 in which Paul said, “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.” From this it is argued that Christ was but a manifestation of God, and hence Christ as He pilgrimaged with man and God must be one and the same person. But does the fact that one is making manifest another indicate that they are identical? John the Baptist said, “And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, for this cause came I baptizing in water” (Jno. 1:31). John said he came baptizing in order that he might make manifest Jesus Christ. Because John made manifest Jesus Christ, are John and Jesus therefore identical? Paul also made manifest Jesus Christ: “But thanks be unto God, who always leadeth us in triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest through us the savor of his knowledge in every place” (2 Cor. 2:14). Paul’s work was to make Christ manifest in every place. When Paul made manifest Christ unto the people, did that make Paul the same person as Jesus Christ? Did Paul and Jesus become one person because Paul made Jesus manifest? If not, why did God and Christ become one person when Jesus manifested God? Well, the fact is, Jesus’ manifesting God did not make them one person.

But one other point, and we must proceed to another of their arguments. They argue that since God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself (2 Cor. 5:19), God and Christ must be identical. If this argument were sound it would defy man. John said, “if we love one another, God abideth in us” (1 Jno. 4:12). If the fact that God was in Christ proves that God was Christ, then God’s being in us would prove that we are God. This is a fallacious argument, and I think it is apparent to all, so let us proceed to another.

Perhaps the most frequently quoted passage in striving to prove that God and Jesus are one person is Jno. 10:30. At least it sounds like it might begin to hint at what they teach. In this passage, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” But I know of no doctrine that has more trouble than this one. Every passage they cite to prove that Jesus and God are one person denies this to be true. Notice Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” In speaking of Himself, Jesus says “I”, which is one, and “the Father” which is another “are one.” They are not both the same person. Is Jesus His own father? Can one be both his own father and his own son? Certainly not, yet this is exactly what these men would have us believe.

It just so happens that when Jesus said “I and the Father are one” He did not say “I and the Father are one person.” They may be one, and yet not one person. Jesus prayed that the disciples may be one: “Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me” (Jno. 17:20, 21). Jesus prayed that the disciples may be one as He and the Father were one. Was Jesus asking that all the disciples of Christ throughout the world become one big man? This is absurd. He was simply praying that they might be united, or work as one.

In teaching on marriage, Jesus declared that man and woman should be one: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. So that they are no more two, but one flesh” (Matt. 19:5, 6). When husband and wife become one, do they become one person? Can one person be both a husband and a wife? The point these passages illustrate is that we may be “one” and not “one person.” All the disciples are to be “one,” yet all of the disciples can never become “one person.” The husband and wife are to be “one,” but they can never become “one person.”

God and Christ are one, but they are not one person. One of them is the Father; the other the Son. But if God and Christ are not one person, how are they one at all? “God and Christ are one in doctrine, 2 Jno. 9, not in person. God and Christ are one in protection, John 10:29, 30, but not in person. They are one in words and work, John 14:8-11, not in person. They are one in name, John 5:43, not in person. They are one in purpose, John 14:16, 28, not in person. They are one in fulness, but not in person” (Wallace-Vaughn Debate, pg. 31).

When Jesus said, “I and the Father are one,” He did not declare the doctrine men read into his statement. He did not say they were one person. And there is a vast difference in being one, and in being one person.

In John 14, Philip requested that Jesus “show us the Father.” Jesus replied by saying, “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” Quo. 14:8, 9). But once again, observe that Jesus spoke of Himself, and of the Father. Was He His own Father? Someone should answer this question either yes or no. Really what Jesus was teaching is the same thing that Paul declared in Heb. 1, in which he declared that Jesus is the express image of the substance of God (verse 3). Furthermore, in Phil. 2:5-7 Paul said that Jesus counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped. Jesus was indeed divinity manifested in flesh, so when they saw the Son of God, Philip and the rest, were seeing God in human flesh.

Jesus said “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” This is another instance in which the proof-text denies the doctrine. Here again Jesus refers to the Father. One cannot be a father before there are two persons. One cannot be a father without there being a son. For example, Adam was created, and was a man, but he was not a husband before Eve was created to be his wife. Neither could God be a father without reference being made to His Son.

Actually, the doctrine we are discussing denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Of course the adherents of the doctrine would say this is not so. But they teach that there is just one person in the Godhead. That one person is both Father and Son. So Jesus is not the Son of God. He is His own father, and His own son. No passage in the Word of God teaches this doctrine. We have tried to be fair in our choosing of the passages cited as proof-texts, and in our review of them. Next week we shall study passages which indicate that there are three persons in the Godhead.

Truth Magazine, XX:18, p. 3-5
April 29, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

When one defends the truth against compromisers and their sympathizers, it is charged that, “He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness” (I Tim. 6:3-5). In effect, those who seek to expose the errors of the day are egotistical fools who do nothing but stir up stink and strife and surmisings and suspicions. They know nothing. Their minds are perverted and corrupt; so, “from such withdraw thyself.” These things are all mouthed and mumbled against gospel preachers who seek to terminate present problems of Pentecostalism and Calvinism before they can germinate further. In truth, anyone who fights any false doctrine at any time will be so accused and accursed.

But did you notice who Paul was describing in the text quoted above? He was not painting a picture of those who “fight the good fight of faith.” Whose portrait is it then? Who is the one that “is proud, knowing nothing?” Who is the man who generates “questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings?” Paul answers that it is the man who dares to “teach otherwise, and consent(s) not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness” (1 Tim. 6:3). He is the guilty party. The one who will “teach otherwise;” the man who will “consent not to wholesome (sound) words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ;” the man who will not submit “to the doctrine which is according to godliness,” that man is your troublemaker.

Brethren have often unwittingly denounced faithful Christians who were standing in the ranks for the cause of truth. It was true in the warfare against the presumptions of the premillennial party and the encroachments and innovations of institutional entities. And it will continue to be so. However, if you are one who does it, from now on it will not be because you do not know better. You will be doing it because of hatred and bitterness against the faithful who stand and fight while you lie down and gripe, or you will be doing it because of your sympathy for the errors that are being broadcast. Either way, some one has your license and pedigree, for it is the one who teaches “otherwise” who is the cause of strife, surmising, and slander.

Truth Magazine, XX:18, p. 2
April 29, 1976