Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

For a good many years there has been conversation, controversy, and even conflict as to which is the better Bible translation. That conflict usually is settled, quite subjectively, by each person deciding that the one he uses is the best one.

As a preacher, I am stuck with the American Standard Version. If I did not think it was an accurate translation, I would switch to a “better” one. One brother recently published a translation and named it “The Better Version.” I guess he leaves little room for controversy, or even doubt, by his choice of a title for his translation. But after studying from, and memorizing from the American Standard Version, I have concluded that if I were to attempt to change to some other translation now, I would never be sure what translation I was quoting from. It probably would have to be called the “Willis Interpolation.” So I have no plans to make a change in my preaching Bible.

For the purpose of study, one might find many translations helpful. A few brethren quite usefully specialize in collecting and comparing translations. Brother Luther Martin is one good example on this point. Many competent literary critics have said that the King James Version is strong in English, but weak in Greek; while the American Standard Version is strong in Greek, but weak in English. In my opinion, this is a fair comment to make while comparing translations.

This morning I was reading an article in Christianity Today on “How To Choose A Bible,” written by Gerald F. Hawthorne, who is Professor of Greek at Wheaton College in Illinois, having earned his M.A. at Wheaton, and his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Those degrees are supposed to squelch all criticism to his judgments. No, they do not do that, but they do indicate that he is speaking on a subject upon which he has made considerable preparation and study. His comment on the King James Version as compared to the American Standard Version is this:

“For careful study I recommend that you use several translations, but that you begin with the American Standard Version (ASV) or the New American Standard Bible (NASB). These Bibles are exceptionally faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts. So if you do not know the original languages but want to know what the original says, use either of these two translations.

Now that wise advice nearly has to be correct, for he and I are in agreement on the subject matter. I guess I can cite him as an authority on that subject, seeing that we already are in agreement.

One other comment he makes might be of some interest to you. He says:

“Zondervan also publishes The New Testament From Twenty Six Translations. This volume prints the KJV and, right below each KJV line, only the significant differences from the KJV found in the other twenty-five translations. It is a handy tool, but weakened by the fact that the editor gives no criteria for what he considers a significant difference.”

Professor Hawthorne presents some interesting observations, but for these two quotes the title “A Bouquet and Some Thistles” came to my mind. But for a certainty, one should use every means at his disposal to learn what God said in the original languages. For those of you who are not, or cannot be, careful students of Greek and Hebrew, then the choice of a reliable translation becomes a matter of supreme importance.

Truth Magazine, XX:15, p. 3
April 8, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Ohio: “A person who had never been married, marries, unaware that their mate has been involved in an unscriptural divorce. This relationship is then shattered by divorce. May the person who was deceived ever marry?”

A brief review of some New Testament passages may help to answer this question.

1. Matthew 14:1-4; Mark 6:14-18: Herod had “married” his “brother’s wife.” Though he had “married” Herodias, she was still “Philip’s wife.” God did not recognize the union. It was adultery, therefore, it was “not lawful” for Herod to have her.

2. Romans 7:1-3: A woman who married another man while her husband lives “shall be called an adulteress.” In other words, without benefit of the exception of fornication (Matt. 19:9), the woman “is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth.”

The case mentioned by our querist can be answered in the affirmative. The one deceived can marry. The one deceived was involved in a relationship with one who was already joined to a mate. It was not lawful for the married one who was unscripturally divorced to have another. In God’s sight, this one had a marriage partner. God did not accept the union with the one who was deceived.

James P. Needham received an identical question. Though worded a bit differently, it doubtless referred to the same situation. His response was, “On the basis of the information supplied, therefore, I would say that the deceived person would have the right to remarry. Since God does the joining in marriage (Mt. 19:6), and does not join or recognize unions between unscriptural partners, these two persons were never married in the sight of God. That being the case, the deceived partner has never been married in the sight of God. He/she has been guilty of unintentional fornication, of which he/she should repent.

“In reality, the ignorance of the deceived party has no bearing upon whether God recognized the union. He would not have recognized it if the person had walked into it with eyes open. Thus the results and the solution to the problem would remain the same.”

These remarks cannot assist the ones mentioned by our querist, but let problems like this be a lesson to those who are not entangled in marital difficulties. Parents must teach their children the soberness and seriousness of the marriage relationship. Those contemplating marriage must weigh the consequences of a mistake. It is not an idle fling. Beware! Be careful!

Truth Magazine, XX:15, p. 2
April 8, 1976

By Wallace H. Little

Among God’s people today, one of the many issues needlessly dividing brethren might be identified by what is represented in the title. To some who are pushing their opinions to the level of law, “segmented worship” describes congregations which allow brethren to partake of the Lord’s Supper either during the morning assembly, or the one at evening, depending upon their ability to get to the one or the other. Cecil Willis has written that every error among brethren has started from overemphasizing some point of truth. This situation bears out his statement.

There is little doubt some have abused the fact they had opportunity to take the Lord’s Supper during evening assembly as an excuse for their sin of failing to assemble at all times. My comments here are in no way to serve this group. But the fact something is abused does not make the thing itself sinful; only the abuse is wrong.

I had a tract written by a brother in Christ who went to some length to demonstrate the sinfulness (?) of allowing the Lord’s Supper to be offered during Sunday evening assemblies after it was also offered during morning worship. The main thrust of his argument was that such constituted what he termed “segmented worship” and the New Testament is silent on authority for any such thing. To his credit, he is consistent. He has persuaded the congregation where he worshiped to disband Sunday evening assemblies. But his consistency extracted quite a price from the other brethren there, in loss of edification they could have during evening worship.

His claim of segmented worship demands a little more examination, from a viewpoint he neglected in his tract. I would like to see some evidence from the Bible that having two or more periods during the Lord’s Day when we obey Christ in the things He has commanded for public worship constitutes “segmented worship.” This is not contained within God’s Word; it is not speaking as God’s oracles (1 Pet. 4:11); it is the language of Ashdod (Neh. 13:24).

Historically, God’s people established a pattern quite different from that which we use today. The early church met in extended assemblies (note Acts 20:7, where Paul preached until midnight, then continued on to the break of day – see verse 11). Assemblies then were apt to be lengthy proceedings, rather than the one hour we meet today on the Lord’s Day morning for worship. Likewise, during the restoration period and on down well into the Twentieth Century, assemblies were likely to extend over three and four hour periods, often broken at noon when brethren either ate food they brought with them on the grounds on good days, or in the buildings when the weather was poor.

Our so-called “segmented worship” (referring to the fact we break around noon, then return during the evening) is nothing but a concession to our taste permitted by the better means of transportation we have. It is no real difficulty now for a family to drive ten to fifteen miles to the building, attend Bible class and worship, then drive the same distance back home for dinner; later during the evening, make the return trip for another hour of worship. Such a practice was unheard of however, until the near-universal availability of automobiles among brethren.

I am not trying to prove anything by the practices of brethren. The New Testament is our only standard. But these practices do indicate what brethren for years and centuries understood the Bible to teach; we know their beliefs by their practices.

Now let us go back to the Bible and see if this so called “segmented worship” is all that bad. I will not quote from the entire text, but you read it all: Luke, in Acts 20:7-11, wrote, “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight . . . When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.” If Biblical authority for “segmented worship” is desired, consider this, and Acts 2:46 where the strong implication is of the same thing.

And let us stop this senseless, destroying argument!

Truth Magazine, XX:14, p. 13-14
April 1, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

Recently the Dallas and Cincinnati Baptist Associations, both of which are members of the Southern Baptist Convention, dumped, deposed and disfellowshipped four charismatic congregations from their Associations. Pentecostalism has invaded and permeated Baptist Churches. The Dallas Association “branded the movement as a radical departure from `historical Baptist practices.’ And the Cincinnati Baptist Association, which also kicked out two congregations, called the emphasis on tongues speaking and faith healing `unscriptural’ and `un-Baptist.’ Other leading Baptists, like Dr. W. A. Criswell of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, have charged that charismatics `border on heresy’ and that their worship experiences are `of the devil’ ” (The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Ky. Dec. 30, 1975, p. A6).

Some Questions Raised By These Events

Very vital and interesting inquiries are resurrected by these happenings.

First, “by what authority” does a Convention oust a local church and “who gave thee this authority?” The ouster and eviction of four charismatic churches from the Baptist premises manifests a power larger and higher than the local church, but beneath Christ, the head of the church. Where is such an institutional, ecclesiastical hierarchy to be found in the Bible? Of course, Baptist Churches are not New Testament churches, so they can devise and develop governmental structures as they desire, but supposing, as they do, that their churches are of Christ, who or what empowers any organization to “kick out” a congregation? The shades and shadows of Rome darken the Baptist horizon.

Second, have these Pentecostal Baptists “fallen from grace?” They are “branded” as a “movement” which is a “radical departure from ‘historical Baptist practices,'” to say nothing of scriptural New Testament principles. They are labelled “unscriptural” which is nearly as bad as being “un-Baptist.” Their doctrine is said to “border on heresy” and their “worship experiences are `of the devil.’ ” How much worse can people wax? So, have these Baptists been “severed from Christ?” They have been “kicked out” of the Southern Baptist society, but have they been given the boot by the Lord? Or can one be too bad to be in a Baptist Association but still good enough to go to heaven? It is a fundamental, cardinal Baptist tenet that a child of God cannot fall from grace and be lost. Will the Baptist Associations of Dallas and Cincinnati tell us whether these Baptist charismatics will be saved in their “unscriptural,” “radical departure” that is “of the devil?”

Third, these non-historical, hysterical Baptists are accepting people from “Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, and Roman Catholic backgrounds” into their charismatic community. That is to be expected, but Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics: (1) Substitute sprinkling for baptism; (2) They sprinkle water on infants; (3) And they believe in infant salvation and church membership based on their sprinkling. However, the Southern Baptist and Pentecostal denominations do not believe in the above mentioned items. How will they face and deal with such matters in their integrated, charismatic churches? Does the Holy Spirit tell Baptists to immerse believing adults but to ignore screaming infants while He tells the Lutheran or Catholic charismatic to splash the baby and dunk the adult if he requests it? There is a real conflict and controversy in this regard that cannot be casually waved aside by a chorus of “Praise the Lord.”

Fourth, the Baptists are traditional “trinitarians.” They believe there are three persons in the Godhead; namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (There is a Pentecostal. Southern Baptist Church near Louisville, Kentucky, which is called the Trinity Baptist Church.) These Baptists now claim kinship with the “Pentecostal experience” of Holy Spirit baptism, tongues speaking and faith healing. But the United Pentecostal Church, “the greatest of all Oneness organizations,” teaches that there is only one person in the Deity, Jesus Christ. How will they hurdle this barrier of belief? United Pentecostals cannot tolerate the rejection of their “Oneness” or “Jesus Only” theory. Historically, the “Oneness” Pentecostals left the “trinitarian” Assembly of God denomination over that very issue. There never would have been a United Pentecostal Church if the “Oneness” versus the “Trinity” concept could have been harmonized and unionized. (See Arthur L. Clanton’s book, United We Stand, published by the Pentecostal Publishing House in Hazelwood, Missouri.) How will the “trinitarian” Baptists and the “Oneness” Pentecostals resolve this issue? Or does the Holy Spirit speak out of both sides of His mouth on this topic also?

Fifth, the Pentecostals believe that water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is “for the remission of sins.” Not even a “radical,” “unscriptural,” “of the devil” charismatic Baptist could be led to accept Acts 2:38! Again, their “Pentecost experience” has their fellowship wires crossed. What lineman among them can settle the water baptism question? Since they both claim the “gift of knowledge,” how do we determine which one is telling the truth? See Isaiah 8:20 and 1 John 4:1,6. Surely, the Spirit does not “reveal” such an important matter as how one acquires the forgiveness of sins in two different ways!

Purpose and Conclusion

Much more could be said in this muckraking article, but this is sufficient to show: (1) That acceptance of subjective experiences does not bring about unity of or in the Spirit; (2) That the charismatic movement is characterized by self contradiction and confusion; (3) That denominational, ecclesiastical organizations are toothless and unarmed in their opposition to internal (4) That there is a constant need to teach the mold, the pattern, “the form of sound words” in all areas and aspects of worship in the Lord.

Truth Magazine, XX:14, p. 12-13
April 1, 1976