Truth Magazine

Kept By the Power of God:

A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away

by I. Howard Marshall

One of the recent publications which has been raising a furor in evangelical circles is this book by I. Howard Marshall. In the “Forward,” Clark H. Pinnock said,

“The form of the book is simple and straightforward. The author does exactly what is needed to be done. He conducts a historical-grammatical investigation of all the Scriptural materials which treat the subject of apostasy and falling away, and produces ample evidence to support his thesis that the security of the believer is conditioned upon his faithfulness to Jesus Christ. It is simply not possible to maintain that the warnings in the Bible against turning away from the truth describe an imaginary or hypothetical danger. They are addressed to us all, and we all must heed them. Dr. Marshall’s case rests on solid exegetical foundations, and is not to be set aside on dogmatic or a priori grounds. It is very common in this area of doctrine to hear people arguing from election or predestination, or Irresistible grace so as to reach the opposite conclusion. But this will not do. To the word and to the testimony. Unless Dr. Marshall can be refuted exegetically, he cannot be refuted at all. The evidence of Scripture cannot be cancelled by the systems of men” (p. 9).

Pinnock has well analyzed Marshall’s book in this foreword. Marshall’s book systematically examines all of the passages in the New Testament pertinent to the possibility of apostasy and to the security of the believer. In his examination of these passages, Marshall demanded that presuppositions from Calvinism cannot be allowed to influence the verdict of the scriptures themselves. He charged that Calvinists generally prove [he doctrine of perseverance from election or irresistible grace and not from the scriptures themselves. Thus, he called for a reexamination of the scriptures. Beginning with Old Testament and Jewish backgrounds, Marshall proceeded to examine the pertinent passages in the Synoptic Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, epistles of Paul, Hebrews, catholic epistles and Johannine literature to see what the scriptures themselves say about the possibility of apostasy.

In his conclusion, Marshall said,

“In our study we have found repeatedly that the way to persevere Is simply-by persevering. The believer is not told that he is one of the elect and therefore cannot fall away, nor Is there any particular character of his faith which indicates that he is the kind of person who cannot fall away. He is simply told to continue in obedience and faith and to trust in the God who will keep him from falling. He perseveres by persevering. Perseverance is not some particular quality of faith or something to be added to faith, but the fact that faith continues” (p. 208).

Thus, Marshall has denied the Calvinistic doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy. Calvinists, consequently, are not very impressed with Marshall’s book. James M. Boice, “pastor” of the Tenth’ Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, reviewing the book for Eternity magazine, said,

“The express purpose of this expanded doctoral thesis by a lecturer in New Testament exegesis at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, is to go beyond the Calvinist-Arminian stalemate on matters of backsliding, perseverance, apostasy, free will, and irresistible grace. But this is just what it does not do. It certainly does not go beyond Calvinism. It merely abandons it” (October, 1975, p. 52).

Marshall’s book is well worth the price that it costs. However, I felt that the author used too much space in considering the options suggested by modernism in his book. I cannot see that those who do not believe the Bible to be the Word of God have much concern about what the Bible says on any subject so far as their faith is concerned. Their faith does not rest on the scriptures. Notwithstanding this minor criticism, the book is well worth your purchase price. That other students of the New Testament reach the same conclusion regarding the possibility of apostasy as we do is encouraging.

Truth Magazine, XX:3, p. 13-14
January 15, 1976

 

By Roy E. Cogdill

(Preface: Since the middle of last summer, after my father suffered two light strokes, I have been trying to help him with this paper. He is required to stay in bed most of the time. Although he still is editor, I have been doing the actual “paste-up” of most of the issues. Recently, the following letter came to me from Brother Roy E. Cogdill. He included the article printed below. The letter to me speaks for itself. Stephen P. Willis.)

December 8th, 1975

Dear Steve,

I have written an article concerning Cecil. I would appreciate it so much if you could slip it in the Magazine at the earliest possible date without his knowing, if possible.

Sincerely,

Roy Cogdill (signed)

Editing a paper and especially a religious paper is not an easy job. There is a tremendous responsibility connected with it as there is with trying to insure that the truth is taught through any medium. An editor is responsible not only for what he writes but for whatever is printed in the paper he edits and for the impression that it leaves upon the minds of the readers of that paper.

The paper not only carries his own convictions concerning the truth but the concept of all who write for it. If he permits someone to mislead others by teaching something that is not true in the pages of the paper for which he is responsible, he is an accessory to propagating error and perhaps by it damning someone’s soul. This means that if he prints something which he cannot accept as the truth that he must state dissent and point out the error or see to it that others do so and it should by all means be done in the same issue of the paper. One false doctrine when accepted leads to another just as one lie leads to another lie and the end is to be lost, for to be saved one must believe the truth (2 Jno. 9-11; 2 Thess. 2:10-12).

The pages of a religious paper are to be kept filled with the truth that will build up and edify the souls that read it, strengthen their faith in the Lord and His Word, and direct their service, worship and lives aright. Truth must be plainly taught on every issue (the whole counsel of God, Acts 20:27) and error must be reproved and rebuked every time it rears its ugly head. That will involve the editor not only with enemies of the truth, but with those who have been close friends and sometimes means that even they will become his bitter enemies for none of us become so gracious as to enjoy being corrected in the mistakes we make even though we may be Christian enough to accept such correction. Too many times we “kick against the goads” instead.

An editor is many times maligned, severely criticized, misrepresented and resented, ostracised by many and pulverized, if possible, by others. It is like many other responsibilities that must be assumed in certain tasks that are not pleasant and all easy. His skin must thicken as his faith and fidelity to the truth waxes stronger in the accomplishment of his duties. It takes a strong man, impervious to what others may think and say about him when his duty is done to be a good editor of a medium through which the truth is taught.

Cecil Willis is not a pretentious man. He does not eat, live and breathe out his ego and personal judgments in what he preaches or writes. He fears God, honors the brotherhood, loves the truth, and in a straightforward manner fearlessly does what he believes to be his duty without being overly concerned about the consequences aside from pleasing God and serving to the best of his ability the interests of the Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He is not easily daunted when doing his duty and has trained himself well to forget personal interests and ambitions and do whatever truth and righteousness in the sight of God may demand of him.

I have known him all of his life. I knew his father and mother before he was born and have watched with keen interest his life as a Christian, a preacher of Christ, a writer and editor. I know how he agonizes over the alienation of former friends and the personal judgments that he has to make many times that involve brethren whom he knows and loves. I also know the attitude of his heart toward the truth and the Kingdom of God and his whole hearted dedication and devotion to serving Him. I have spent many hours with him personally, for weeks at a time, as we have studied and worked together and as we have traveled to a good many parts of this world – far away from home and loved ones – not because we enjoyed or desired to be away from them but because a door of opportunity was opened to serve the Lord and we felt impelled to take advantage of it. Frequently I have heard men say that a man’s first duty is to his family. That has one exception-The Lord and His Cause.

I not only know the attitude of Cecil Willis but I know that he loves the Lord and the truth more than his own life and that he has gone when he did not have the strength physically to go. He does not spare himself. I have been associated with very few men that unceasingly, day and night, have meditated upon the truth and matters pertaining to the Church of our Lord more wholly than he. He has impaired his health at an early age by such whole hearted devotion and unrelentingly driving himself in doing what he regarded as his duty that needed to be done. His liberality and generosity is not only evidenced in the service he renders to the Lord and others (and those who are indebted to him for encouragement and help of a varied nature are legion) he also gives unsparingly of his resources to every need that he is aware o# about him.

His ability and preparation is far greater than most. He has taken careful advantage of his opportunities and stands today capable, confident because of his faith in the Lord, and in His Word, and ready to defend and “contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” He knows no compromise. In personal life he is clean, holy, and committed to doing the will of the Lord whatever the cost. His integrity is beyond assault. Yes, he makes mistakes, as all of us do, but I have not seen him make any that he was not willing and ready to correct when they came to his notice.

Such a man is the editor of Truth Magazine. and I thank God for him and the tremendous good he has done and is doing. He is at present under the order of his physician recuperating from some physical ailments and curtailing his travel, and to some extent his work, in order to overcome his physical difficulties and be once again able to continue “full steam ahead” in his work. If there is any serious criticism justly that might be leveled against him, it is such commitment and dedication to his work that he has not taken care of himself. You see a man cannot play golf several times a week or stay on a diet of proper food for his body, or sleep ten or twelve hours a night and take a two hour nap in the afternoon and do the work that Cecil Willis has done for years. I would guarantee that while the doctor has him in bed resting – supposedly – he is reading and writing and carrying on his work until late in the night. I pray that God may give him the strength to continue his course with all wisdom, trying to conserve his strength and lengthen his years, and increase the influence he has and his ability to do much more good in the days to come. Why did I write this? Well, I just felt like including it among the little writing I try to do these days, and because it is the way I feel about Cecil Willis, because I know him and love him for what he is and what he has done and is trying to do for the cause of Christ. He did not know I was going to do it and if I can slip it past his editorial scrutiny, he will not know, until he reads it in the paper.

Truth Magazine, XX:3, p. 12-13
January 8, 1976

By Donald P Ames

Morals here in America have declined at an increasingly rapid pace during recent years, and little evidence is available to show any reason for optimism that such is going to slow down. Movies have become more and more vulgar, with emphasis on sex purely for the sake of a sex scene. Books continue to sink lower and lower in the mire, and now it has even become so commonplace, the President’s wife feels safe speaking out in favor of sexual experimentation outside of marriage, and calculates it will gain her more favor than disfavor, commenting that society has moved forward far enough “we ought to become more tolerant in our views” of such.

But while morality has continued to decline, God’s standards have not! The Word of God has not relaxed its position regarding the fact such is not to be tolerated (Heb. 13:4), and that those who practice such things shall not enter the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6-9-10, Gal. 5:19-21). In view of such, we need to speak forth plainly and strongly that society may learn the dangers it is rushing headlong into.

The problem is growing, and pretending it does not exist is certainly no way to confront it. But how fast is it growing? According to a recent AP release in the Gary Post-Tribune, October 25, 1975, the problem is growing by leaps and bounds, and affecting younger and younger people every year. Dr. Gerry Oliva, medical director of the Planned Parent Federation, reports they are now receiving requests for birth control pills, etc. from children as young as 9 years old! “Agency counselors throughout the country are totally overwhelmed by these kids,” she said. Reporting on California alone, she noted the birth rate in girls 12 years old has jumped from 18 in 1966 to 32 in 1974-nearly a 100 per cent increase.

In Rockville, Maryland, a spokeswoman for the National Center for Health Statistics (a bureau of the Dept. of HEW) reports that of the 3,136,965 births in the U.S. in 1973, there were 12,861 births to girls under 15 years of age. Of that total, 11,412 were first births, 276 were second births, 15 were third births, and 8 were fourth births! There were also 1,150 births for which the center did not know the birth order.

Certainly this points to a growing trend that is alarming. It shows a lack of concern on parents’ part, and a rapidly loosing of morals on the young peoples’ part. It also reveals a great need for more lessons on pre-marital sex and situations that lead to such, as well as refutation of the “new morality.” It shows a need for lessons directed to those involved-both young and parents! We also need to emphasize that getting married “to cover up” such is not making it any more pleasing in God’s eyes, nor can such be justified on the basis “I had to be popular.” Sin is sin, and needs to be exposed as sin-not “great sins” and “little sins,” but just plain sin.

But to add to the problem, the National Organization for Women (NOW) has finally decided to show their true colors, and join efforts with those seeking to justify homosexuals and lesbians. Strong promoters for the falsely so-called “Equal Rights Amendment,” they have frequently been accused of this goal from the start, only to claim we did not truly represent them. But in a recent four-day conference in Philadelphia, the members of NOW gave their organization a “mandate” to work for lesbians’ rights. “Another successful resolution increased funding of NOW’s Task Force on Sexuality and Lesbianism, and for the first time the organization spoke out in support of homosexual rights” (Gary PostTribune, October 28, 1975; emp. mine-DPA).

Dismissing the opposition as minor “philosophical” differences, “Ms. Decrew” (liberal president of NOW) said such differences “would be eased by moving on with planned programs.” And what does that include? She went on, “Our proposals have opened the way for new women to join the organization who might have felt uncomfortable before-poor women, gay women, minority women” (emp. mine-DPA). Of course nothing was said of those who might be “uncomfortable” to stay in an organization seeking to justify and support these lesbians. No wonder the differences would “be eased”-if they did not like the “packing the conference” with lesbians and homosexuals, they could get out! (Of course that has been the ultimate conclusion they have been after all along, and the results of their goal to get the ERA passed).

Certainly this action, combined with the favorable news coverage being given homosexuals and other “gay” people of today is not going to make our task any easier. We are going to have to begin to speak out and to be heard. America is fast going down the road of moral decay and will become the same kind of stench in the Lord’s nostrils the Jews were when God said, “Were they ashamed because of the abominations they have done? They were not even ashamed at all; They did not even know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; At the time that I punish them, They shall be cast down” (Jer. 6:15).

America needs to wake up! But even more important, we as Christians need to also wake up and lift up our voices against such before the tide becomes so strong it can no longer be swept back. Sex is good and acceptable where God put it-in the marriage relationship! But misuses and perversions of it as practiced by many today is not what God planned, and will result in the fall of this nation and souls lost in eternal damnation. And the latter should be of concern to us all!

Truth Magazine, XX:3, p. 11
January 15, 1976

By H.L. Bruce

The fact that God has taught on a theme should arrest our will and propensities to a complete deference to His teachings. His truth is exceedingly important! Our will is so insignificant! His truth’s majestic! Our propensities mundane! We. are wholly inadequate to direct, design and pursue the way of life of our own merit. Jeremiah expressed it this way, “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). Isaiah told Israel, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8-9).

In Israel, men were not authorities. They were not qualified to be. They were inadequate. Their need for Divine guidance was more than evident. Their tendency to stray was ever present. In evidence of this we read, “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib: but Israel doeth not know, my people doeth not consider” (Isa. 1:3).

The limitations of men in the field of authoritative adequacy are pretty well unvaried. If men of our time had the ability to chart their own course through life and into the life beyond, then the death of Christ and the giving of his will was unnecessary.

It is necessary for all of us to prostrate our will before the Divine throne in acceptance of the judgments which God gave through His sinless Son before we can ever be acceptable in heaven’s sight. We must be brought low and realize our ineptness before God, and lay the accommodations of our own will along with the servitude to all human passion on the altar that we may perceive the avenues of Divine justice in God’s restrictions and expressed favors toward men.

The apostle Peter exhorted, “Humble yourselves, therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time” (1 Pet. 5:6). The truth as revealed in the will of God, should be the course of our objectives at all times. It is by the truth that the soul is purified (1 Pet. 1:22), that men are made free (Jno. 8:32), in which we are to walk (3 Jno. 3); and by which we will ultimately be judged (Jno. 12:48). God’s word is truth Ono. 17:17). In view of this the teachings of the scripture on any subject, and upon all doctrines taught, should arrest our most careful and submissive thought.

Today we need to take time to become informed, and to inform others, or, else suffer the results of the consequence of Divine displeasure. In many areas of neglected warnings and study, God’s people have suffered irreversible consequences. Popularity, pride, prestige and acceptance among men, of every sort, is at times best served through the avoidance of controversial material. Such unholy objectives can but passively occupy the mind of the one who is a defender of the truth and a contender for the faith. We cannot allow our personal likes, dislikes or the disposition to please men to subdue our need to subject our will to the will of God’s designated Potentate. The apostle Paul expressed his attitude and need in these words, “For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

Therefore, all dispositions to please self, friend, foe, relative or brother must be removed from the will of him who profits from deep drinking of God’s eternal truth. Every man should be influenced to thus subdue self.

The moral code revealed by inspiration, in God’s volume constrains our will to the specifications there in contained. The one who follows the works of the flesh, . . . shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:1921). One of the accomplishments of God’s grace is that we, through it, are urged to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world (see Titus 2:11-12).

It is obviously proper for concern to be expressed with regard to any subject upon which God has taught. The subject of divorce is within this scope. It should be our desire to exercise all actions and do all instructions only in accord with what God has expressed in his revealed will for us. We should never allow our emotions, sympathies or practices to take the lead in the formulation of views and expression of thought.

There are some dangers that we would all do well to by pass: (1) We could merely give detatched advice in vague generalities which could but faintly be interpreted as either corrective or instructive in nature. (2) Laws could also be made which bind beyond Divine restriction. (3) Looseness can be expressed and encouraged which give liberties beyond authorized proclamation.

We need to be explicit and neither make nor break laws. The weighty and momentous question is, “What is God’s Law?” God has revealed it to us through His Word. But we must study, search and investigate it that we may understand and apply the instruction contained therein. When souls of men are involved and eternal destiny is in the balances the gravity of the thought is inescapable.

In everything we do we must have both divine sanction and legal right. The requirements of both God’s law and civil law are in harmony. The Bible teaches that to reject civil law is to waiver at God’s ordinance (see Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). Marriage, according to Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:1-9; Mk. 10:2-12; Rom. 7:1-4; et al, involves the leaving of parents, cleaving to companion, becoming one flesh, with both civil and Divine sanction.

The Divine purpose of marriage is also revealed in God’s Word. Fornication is avoided, companionship established and the human race equitably populated through a union between man and woman that was designed by God to abide throughout life (1 Cor. 7:2; 6:17-18; Gen. 2:18; Matt. 19:5-6; Rom. 7:1-4).

God, in His Word, has been very precise as to conditions and circumstances under which a marriage may terminate. There is the expressed implication in the fact when two people take each other for life companions that death is the determining factor in marital cessation. This is the consideration in Matt. 19:6, where Jesus taught, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” To this the Holy Spirit, through the apostle Paul agreed in the illustration of Romans 7:1-4; where he said, “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

To this Jesus made exception in Matt. 19:9; 5:32. There He taught that if the companion be guilty of fornication that the innocent party has a right to put the guilty party away and exercise personal license to remarry. Liberty is not expressed or implied to the guilty party to either disengage his marriage, because of his personal guilt, or to benefit thereby by the contract of another marriage. If so, where is the Bible text that so indicates?

According to the Bible the person who has a right to remarriage is the one whose companion has either died or been put away for the specific guilt of fornication. (Please read Rom. 7:3-4 and Matt. 19:9 in reverential and Godly fear in view of the time when we must all stand before Him who shall judge us according to His word.)

There is a line of erroneous reasoning, which bypasses the need’ for Divine authority. This doctrine teaches that if a married person is guilty of fornication that he has thus dissolved his marriage, and if he has dissolved his marriage that he is not married; being thus not married he is in no sense bound to his former companion; consequently may remarry.

That line of rationality, however accommodating and desirable it may be … however many problems, if true, it may solve, is hardly short of expressed subterfuge and is wholly lacking in either Divine expression or implication.

A person cannot, by the authority of Christ, teach the guilty party that God, Christ or the Holy Spirit has extended any such liberties. The reason that such cannot be done is quite simple: There is neither page, paragraph nor line in the entirety of God’s revelation that so indicates.

According to God’s Word people who have never had a companion have a right to take one (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5-6). If one’s companion has deceased, the remaining companion may, with God’s approval, remarry (1 Tim. 5:16; Rom. 7:3-4). Or, if one’s companion is guilty of fornication, the innocent party has a God-given right to put him (or her) away because of this, and elect to remarry'(Matt. 19:9).

But, the Bible no where teaches that the guilty is extended the license and accomodation, due to his own guilt, to be free and thus remarry. Such conclusion depends exclusively upon rationality and speculation.

Even the reasoning is fallacious. The fallacy is in the form of a “non-sequitur” line of thought. Webster defines “non-sequitur,”. . .It does not follow: an inference that does not follow from the premise; specifically a fallacy resulting from a simpler conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from a transposition of a condition and its consequence” (7th edition, page 574).

There you have it: It simply doesn’t follow that because a person has been immoral, ungodly and messed up his life by committing fornication, that the Lord has authorized or extended license to him to remarry.

The erroneous “non-sequitur” reasoning is relied heavily upon by those who conclude that “living in adultery” is not the idea of Matt. 19:9. “Committeth adultery” is from a Greek verb in the present indicative active which indicates progressive action in the present time; continuous, or linear, action in the present time, is the idea (see Essentials of New Testament Greek, by Ray Summers, page 11).

Also William H. Davis had this to say, “Continued action, or a state of incompletion is denoted by present tense-this kind of action is called durative or linear. The action of the verb is shown in progress, as going on” (Davis’ Grammar, page 25). Sometimes it is argued that since punctiliar, or point action has been expressed through the present verb form that the adultry of Matt. 19:9 is a one time affair. Such reasoning is faulty and depends upon the same erroneous reasoning as just mentioned. To be more explicit, IT SIMPLY DOESN’T FOLLOW that because in some isolated instance the present indicative active form is so utilized that such is the precise case in Matt. 19:9.

Another indication that adultery on the part of one who has remarried, utilizing his own guilt, is something that is continuous, consequently lived in, can be seen in that the time element of one being bound and resultant guilt, as per Rom. 7:3-4 is so long as her husband is alive.

My friends, IT SIMPLY DOESN’T FOLLOW THAT A PERSON MAY REMARRY AS A RESULT OF A BROKEN MARRIAGE DUE TO HIS OWN GUILT. It simply doesn’t follow that because punctilious action MAY be expressed by a present verb form in some isolated case that it WAS so utilized in Matt. 19:9.

It does follow, though, that as long as an innocent companion lives the other party has no right, with Divine sanction to another mate.

This is a grave matter. Souls are involved and all views held by men cannot be right. Many are wrong: the consequences of which leave many in adultery while being taught erroneously that they, through their own guilt could remarry. It is absolutely necessary to lay aside all prejudice and pride and humbly submit to God’s will in order to go to heaven. The divorce question herein discussed is important and should be neither ignored nor taken lightly. Those guilty of adultery will not go to heaven impenitently. It is a distressing thought to even consider standing before God, in judgment and contemplate the disappointment of the adulterers who were led to believe that they are innocent, by those extending liberties which God never extended. “For our God is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:28). Next week, 1 Corinthians 7:15-Issue and Perspective.

Truth Magazine, XX:3, p. 8-10
January 15, 1976