Truth Magazine

By Roy E. Cogdill

In distinguishing between faith and opinion, as they affect the individual’s obligation to unity, one of the main difficulties is the problem of making a proper clear cut distinction. There must be unity in matters oi faith; but in the realm of opinion there must be liberty, generosity, proper consideration and the right attitude toward one another in order for the “unity of the Spirit” to be kept in the “bond of peace.” The realm of faith is the realm where there is no choice-“Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” (Rom. 10:17) for God has chosen and man is not at liberty to follow his own pursuits or make his own decisions. He must decide to obey or disobey. This is the alternative in the realm of faith.

In the realm of opinion God has not spoken, but has left man free in keeping with the principles of righteousness to make his own decision, follow his own choice, and exercise liberty. There are certain restrictions to be observed in this liberty: (1) One must not violate his own conscience (Rom. 14:23, 1 Cor. 8:7). (2) One must not by his example lead a brother to violate his conscience and thus to sin (Rom. 14:13-16, 19-21; 1 Cor. 8:7-11; 1 Cor. 10:28-33). (3) One must extend to others the same liberty which he exercises in such matters (Rom. 14:3-6, 10-12). (4) One must follow after those things, in faith and practice, that make for peace and that will edify (Rom. 14:19).

In seeking some elementary principles by which such decisions may be made we have already suggested that we ask ourselves, “Has God revealed His will in this matter?” We surely recognize that if God has revealed His will, it must be accepted and followed by all, whether it concerns a matter of practice by the church or of personal righteousness in the life of the individual. Christianity is a way of life and attitude of heart that says about all matters concerning which the will of God has been made known, “Thy will be done, not mine.” When we violate the faith and practice prescribed by the Lord for His Church, we are guilty of lawlessness and the same thing is true when we refuse to live in our own personal lives in harmony with the will of God in any matter. We compromise with error in the first and with sin in the latter and condemn ourselves in either case for not respecting the will of God.

When one can state his position or conviction in plain Bible language, it is safe to say it is a matter of faith in which there is no personal liberty to teach or practice anything else and no compromise can be made. But when a persuasion or position is taken that necessitates the use of imagination, presumption, human sophistry, etc., then it cannot be sustained by Bible teaching or expressed in Bible language and therefore cannot rightly be held as a matter necessitating common faith and practice, required or bound upon all or made a matter of fidelity to God or fellowship among brethren. We should be able to state in plain Bible language what we believe or teach to be essential matters of faith and practice and that which we can rightly make matters of fellowship. Circumstances do not alter the principles of truth an-m righteousness which God has revealed to be His will and man’s duty. In this realm there is no compromise except with sin and error.

Whether or not God has made a choice, revealed His will or spoken on a particular matter is pertinent and material in whether it is a matter of personal liberty or whether a contrary persuasion or practice may be tolerated and fellowship remain intact. Let us illustrate:

(1) The word of God does not teach that “how one ,may be baptized” is a matter of the “convenience and preference of the candidate” as some human creeds express it. Rather than that God has made the choice in this matter and He has made it known. Baptism is immersion. The meaning of the original word, the unvaried practice of New Testament days, the circumstances surrounding the action, and the Bible description of the action, all demand this conviction and practice. When any man teaches pouring or sprinkling, he has denied the faith, defied the will of God and exercised a choice where God has not given man the right to make one. To fellowship such teaching or practice is rebellion against the will of God as much as to practice it. We can choose whether to be baptized in a natural or artificial pool, the hour of the day or night, and in a good many other matters, but we have no choice as to how it shall be done, whether by immersion or by some human substitution therefore. We either obey God or we do not obey Him.

(2) God does not allow a choice about which day of the week is the day of assembly for the saints in memory of the Christ. The New Testament plainly teaches that the saints assembled on the First Day of the Week, upon which Christ arose from the dead, to commemorate His death by observing the breaking of bread as He ordained (Matt. 26:26-30, Luke 22:15-20, Cor. 11:23-30, Acts 20:7). When a Christian neglects or forsakes this assembly he commits a willful sin (Heb. 10:25-26), and such cannot be tolerated in a spirit of generosity and God be pleased. We can chose the hour of the day, the place of assembly, etc., but we either obey God or disobey Him as to the day in which it shall be done.

(3) God has made the choice and man does not have one, in the question of what kind of music shall be used in praise to Him in Christian worship. All that the New Testament teaches is, “sing” (Matt. 26:30, Rom. 15:8-9, 1 Cor. 14:15, Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, Heb. 2:12, James 5:13). When we add another kind of music we are guilty of transgressing divine authority and doing our own will and not the will of God. Such an attitude cannot be tolerated, for it is sinful, however sincere and honest men may be. We can choose whether to sing with or without a book, the part we sing whether bass, tenor, soprano, or alto; but when we choose to use instrumental music to accompany our singing in worship to God, we transgress the commandment of God.

(4) God has given the church an organization through which to accomplish the divine mission assigned to it upon the earth. Divine choice has been made in the organization of the church and its government and that choice has been revealed in the scriptures. It is the local church, made up of saints in its own community, with its elders and deacons (Acts 14:23, Phil. 1:1, Acts 20:17-28, 1 Pet. 5:1-3). Men have no choice but to respect the will of God by following this pattern or organization and do the work of the church through this organization or like Korah (Numbers 16), rebel against the sovereignty of God. When human societies are substituted for God’s organization to do any work of the church the same sin has been committed as when sprinkling is substituted for immersion, instrumental music is added to the worship, or another day of the week is substituted for the Lord’s Day. We can choose particular methods, details, and in other matters where God has not chosen, but the organization to do work of the Lord’s Church has been chosen by the Lord. We either confine ourselves to it or we rebel against God. Such rebellion cannot be tolerated and fellowshipped.

(5) In the realm of personal like and character the same priniciple is true and must be respected. Concerning the right to put away ones companion by divorce and remarry, the Lord has a gain made the choice and legislated that “And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, expect it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her wnich is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9). This is not what Moses said but “I say unto you,” Jesus said. Either there is no other scriptural reason for divorce and remarriage or what Jesus said is not true. Tolerance, generosity, popular practice and approval, leading to the endorsement and encourage of some other situation violating the law of the Lord in this matter is sinful and just as wrong as to have another kind of music or substituting some other practice for baptism. It does not matter what any preacher teaches or approves, the Lord’s will must rule if we are to avoid sin and destruction. In the case of fornication a man or wife may choose to forgive the guilty companion and continue to live with them (divorce in no sense was made mandatory), or not to forgive the companion who has been an infidel to the marriage relationship. But when one chooses to divorce a companion and remarry for some other reason than that which the Lord has given, he is guilty of the sin of adultery and will be condemned. Such a one cannot be fellowshipped by the church and will of God be done (1 Cor. 5).

Truth Magazine XX: 35, pp. 552-553
September 2, 1976

By Harold V. Trimble

On April the first of 1976, Herb and Eva Waddell of Bremerton, Washington took my wife and me to Vancouver B. C. where I emplaned on a J.A.L. 747 to fly directly over to the North Pole to Tokyo and the next day to Manila, R.P.1, My son, John David, a pilot with Eastern Airlines, obtained a reduced rate, “tourist”, enabling me to return part of the money, four hundred dollars, to four different churches.

About forty to fifty brethren greeted me warmly with garlands and necklaces. I yelled “Mabuhay” (long live, or viva!) and they responded warmly. I then told them I loved them in the Tagalog dialect and they all yelled. We were as one from that moment.

For a week I preached morning, noon and night hi and around the city awaiting the coming of Jady Copeland. Combating the noise of dogs’ barking, hogs’ squealing, and horns’ blowing along with breathing the Manila smog, bumper to bumper black exhaust smoke and fumes, my throat was soon made raw but I had to keep on preaching!

Jady’s arrival was most welcome and exuberant. He and I had planned to take one day a week for rest but it was not to be! Leaving Manila with three traveling companions, Billy Hayuhay, Noli Villamore, and Victor Tibayan Jr., we went to Davao by plane. (This same flight was the one later captured by dissidents when thirteen people died and the plane was destroyed).Many brethren met and welcomed us in the Mindinao area. We went to the hotel for two hours of rest and then started out, rounds in the city and in the barrios.

Jady went with Brethren Romulo and Ruben Agduma and I went with Ruben Notarte, who interpreted for me, and with many other preachers who accompanied each of us. Some “thugs” determined to force us to ride their old Jeepney and when we got on a-bus they surrounded the bus and would not let it go. A large crowd began to gather and these men pounded on the side (one got on top and was pounding!) and we were plenty glad to see soldiers with machine guns appear to force them to let us go, Moslem dissidents have burned many “houses” of the saints within this area and they are now displaced persons. Soldiers in sandbagged machine gun nests checked travelers about each four or five miles. We heard shots fifed during the night arid prayed for all of them and went right back to a tired sleep.

Vehicles were rough and roads rougher and my hips were tenderized from riding on boards covered with plastic and no padding. It was fortunate that we did get one day’s rest during the month for Jady got sick that day and we both needed rest. Eating dog, and drinking boiled water combined with the heat and taking baths in dish pans with cold water, hand pumped right out of the wells surely would not classify this as a pleasure trip.

Many of the preachers whom Americans support went with and stayed with us as much of the time as they could and would have been with us the whole month if they had the “meance” to do so. Many letters tell of local preachers’ using materials presented by us in the home congregations. We tried to strengthen doctrinally, morally and spiritually and to encourage them in the face of poverty. Many examples of sacrifice, courage and faith would put us to shame. There is the “walking preacher” who, in the heat and with feet that are sore, walks miles over mountains to preach to small poverty stricken groups. Just a little help would buy him new shoes and partial transportation.

One preacher of a denomination obeyed the gospel after preaching seventeen years in a nice church building and living in a lovely preacher’s home. His wife gave up the presidency of the women and being called on for public prayer before men. She is superintendent of a public school and very capable. It was so hard to give up instrumental music and such prestige but truth and conscience constrained them. Now they furnish their own home and he preaches in shanties leading people to the truth.

One Baptist preacher who had found the truth before our arrival had so taught the people in San Pable that we reaped a harvest of twelve, mostly Baptists. lie was asking each “Do you receive Christ as your personal Saviour”? when Eddie Ramiro said “No! No! Not that! You must confess Christ before men like this”.

Another preacher had just moved into the nice preacher’s home in Pagadian City. He had beer, “crippled by Connie Adam’s preaching and caught by ours”! When he was baptized he knew only two things; certainly as to salvation and uncertainty as to what he would do and where he would move and how he would live.

Of course there are some who are unworthy. Native preachers warn these and if they do not shape up they are marked and American supporters are notified. Brother Samodal, a capable preacher, committed fornication. Brethren separated themselves from him. His support was stopped. His original penitence (?) was not so penitent and for a long time he could not preach. He came with great sobs of grief and his body shook as tears streamed down his face. Brokenly he begged God for forgiveness and pitifully he pleaded to be restored to the favor of his brethren and have the honor to preach again.

Someone asked, “was the trip worth it”, meaning the great expense of money, time, trouble and danger. If such faith and sacrifices as described is good to see, it was worth it. If sixty people’s being baptized is right, it was worth it. If restorations save souls from death, it was worth it. If encouragement of the brethren is needed, it was worth it. If seeing people hopelessly confined to one city until they die from leprosy rejoicing in hope is beautiful, it was worth it. If seeing people willing to spend and be spent for truth’s sake is right, it was worth it.

From Manila I flew to Okinawa for five nights work and we baptized Captain Mike Head’s wife of eight years ir, the China Sea. Yes, it was worth every penny that was freely but not frivolously spent.

The “follow up” of such trips is as necessary as “the point after a touchdown” and often determines the winning or losing of the game, As many as six air mail letters a day arrive and place before us the needs of our brethren in the Islands. I have a four pound paper sack filled with as yet unanswered letters. Besides this report to niany churches and individuals I must answer each letter while doing the work of an evangelist and elder at home.

Here is what they need: Number one, they need $upport; that is $pelled $upport correctly. For one hundred dollars per month one good, capable and well recommended inan could quit his tailoring and preach full-time to his tribe. One of my faithful guards was receiving five dollars a month and it had to be stopped for legitimate reasons. His wife and daughter take in washing, by hand, but he keeps on preaching! Small amounts we would count as nothing and be ashamed to send would mean so much to them. Five dollars of our money would be thirty-five of theirs. Ten would be seventy plus and twenty would be about one hundred fifty in their nioney. Five to eight of their pesos is a days wages for laborers. More than just existence levels of support is needed for they must pay for travel to and froin and iiiany of them pay rent for meeting places, help helpless brethren, and one preacher has slept over a thousand people in his home in one year! That church in Pagadian City is growing!

They need your old song books! Often they have four or five of two or three kinds of books and try to find the sante songs with different page numbers which is confusing. They sing in English. And they need tracts by the thousands and literature as well as Bibles. Good used Bibles would be welcomed. It is cheaper to buy Bibles in their native tongue than new ones here and ship them, Commentaries, dictionaries, lexicons et ai are needed, and avidly sought and used. You wish that they had some of those that you have and are not using? Ask the local congregation to gather up from all willing givers these books and send thein on. Remember “If wishes were horses, beggers, would ride”! Don’t just wish, do something about it, now!

Yes, they need GOOD, light, used clothing but not winter clothes, Get the people in the Islands to obtain permission from their health department in writing and send this to you so you in turn can send relief. Send the packages to the church of Christ in care of (an individual), and state on the packages “Not to be sold”, and “Relief for members of the church of Christ”. Officials appropriate goods in general for relief in general.

Write me if you or the congregation v4shes to help some of these worthy people. I will send you letters from these men and YOU correspond with them. I will not become a one-man-Don Carlos Janes-missionarysocietyi Do not send money to me to send to them. I was warned before I went that their poverty and pleas for help would get to me, and they’ll get to you too! Wouldn’t you be glad to know that after four years of correspondence, patience, prayer and benevolence that you had converted a leper who in turn started the church and is now preaching the gospel of hope to the hopeless? One Ohio sister did this!

Thank each and every one of you sincerely for help and prayers in our behalf. To me this sounds so inadequate but again, heart-felt thanks!

Truth Magazine XX: 35, pp. 550-551
September 2, 1976

By Cecil Willis

After our study last week concerning the different baptisms mentioned in the New Testament (please try to read that article before this), and our conclusion that the baptism in which we must be essentially and vitally interested is the baptism commanded by Christ in the great commission, we are prepared this week to think concerning “Who should be baptized?” Is baptism to be adminstered indiscriminately upon all men, or are there certain prerequisites to being baptized? The Lord made it plain that not just any person is to be baptized, although at the same time, it was revealed that men of every nation have a right to obey the gospel. Christ said, “Go ye therefore and teach all nations” (Matt. 28:10), and “Go ye therefore and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mk. 16:15), which teaches us that the requisite to baptism is not nationality. God does not know us by race, for men of every nation, clime and tongue have an equal right to heed the call of Christ. John recorded, “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And fie that heareth, let him. say, Come. And he that is athirst, let him come: he that will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17). But even though all men have a right to obey the gospel, still there are certain moral and mental conditions that must abide within them before they may pleasingly be immersed into Christ, or before they may be baptized.

One Who is Taught

Let us now reflect upon some of these conditions that must exist before one may be baptized, or let us see who can be baptized. Christ said “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you ” (Matt. 28:19,20). One trait that the candidate for baptism must possess is the mentality to be taught. Teaching must precede his baptism, and then after he is baptized he must be further taught the ways of the Christian. life. One who does not have the mind capable of being taught is not a subject of baptism, for one must be taught before he can be scripturally baptized. This requirement ehinainates the mentally deficient, and. infants. There are many denominations that pretend to baptize infants, ordinarily when the child is eight days old. They cannot be recipients of Christ’s baptism, for thev must have the intelligence or mental strength to be taught the gospel. Children, or babies have the potential mentality, but their tender minds have not developed enough to be taught the gospel of Christ, and consequently, babies gre not proper subjects of baptism.

One Who Believes

One must also be a believer befoi,e he can be considered a candidate for New Testament baptism. In Mark’s account of the Great Commission, Christ said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but be that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16). In the records of conversions found in the New Testament, but specifically in the book of Acts, one sees that before men and women were baptized, they were believers in Christ. In Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost, the Jews were accused. by Peter of having crucified the Lord of glory, and even though it is not definitely said that they became believers, it is certain. that they did. for they cried out, “Men and bretliten what shall we do?” After they had become believers, they were then told to be baptized in the name of Christ. When Philip went down to the city of Samaria. and proclaimed to thern the Christ, the Scripture says, “But when they believed Philip, preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, tbey were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12). Before these men and women obeyed the gospel of Christ, they became believers. The next verse of this same chapter records the account of another man’s obedience. “And Simon also himself believed: and being baptized, he continued with Philip; and beholding signs and great miracles wrought, he was amazed” (Acts 8:13). Before Simon was baptized, be became a believer. Paul, in his evangelistic tours, went to the city of Corinth with the message of eternal truth, and found men and women who responded readily to his preaching by accepting the gospel, but notice when they were baptized: “And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue believed in the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8). It is therefore seen that before one was baptized in New Testament times, it was necessary for him, to be of such ability that he could be taught. He might then weigh the evidence presented, believe it, and therefore meet the requisite of faith. Then he is prepared to be baptized., after he has genuinely repented. One could not be baptized until he had believed. This would be admitted by all denominations, theoretically, and yet many of them have practices that transgress their admission.

But, what are the consequences, and what is the significance of the truth that one intist be a believer before he may be baptized? Here it is: There are m.any churches that take little babies, generally when they are eight days old, and claim that they baptize them (even though they usually only sprinkle them). Regardless of the action, regardless whether one sprinkles or immerses a baby, it is impossible to baptize a baby with New Testament sanction. Before one can be baptized be must be a believer. I kindly ask, “Is it possible for an eight day old baby to rationally consider the evidences presented for the truthfulness of the gospel? Can a baby consider the testimonies to Christ’s divinity, and therefore reason to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? Can a baby believe in Christ? I dare say, that no thoughtful person will answer any of these questions in the affirmative, but each question is answered with an emphatic, “No!” It is impossible for an eight day old baby to believe the gospel of Christ, or to obey the gospel of Christ. It is unreasonable to say that an eight day old baby can believe Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Yet, if a baby cannot believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, he cannot be scripturally baptized.

Denominational preachers have so keenly felt the impact of New Testament teaching stating that one must be a believer in order to be baptized, and they have become so well aware that their former position that a baby might be baptized without faith was without the approval of divine precept, that now they have modified their teaching, so that now some denominations that practice infant baptism, claim that the babies have a “child-like faith,” and so they are believers. Think just a minute with me please. Isn’t it absurd to argue that a little baby, that cannot even recognize its mother, that knows not the difference between day and night, has the ability to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? A doctrine like this is the height of folly. And yet there are many good people who have not considered the rationality or the scripturalness of this doctrine, and they therefore remain in churches that teach that a baby can be baptized, either without faith, or even more absurd, they are in a church that teaches that an eight day old baby can believe in Christ. Surely when honest men and women realize how utterly foreign to the Scriptures this doctrine is, they will leave these manmade churches, and repudiate the error of their past life. We only ask you to search the Scriptures daily to see if these things be so.

One Who is Penitent

But these are not the whole of the requisites of baptism. One must also be penitent of his sins before he can be baptized into Christ with the sanction of Christ. Once again we refer you to the day of Pentecost in which three thousand Jews heard the word of the gospel preached to them for the first time, believed it, and cried out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” These Jews realized and admitted their guilt, and therefore they wanted to know what they must do in order to be saved. Peter answered their question as to what they were to do, by telling them to “repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Before they could be baptized they were to repent of their sins. This was not a commandment that was necessary in the New Testament era, but is not binding upon men today. it is just as necessary that one repent prior to his baptism now, as it was two thousand years ago when Peter commanded it on the day of Pentecost.

But here is the application of this truth. Before one can repent, the forces that the Bible says produce repentance must operate upon his heart. We studied in a prior lesson how that the goodness of God leads men to repentance (Rom. 2:4); the longsuffering of God is conducive to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9); the fear of judgment should produce repentance (Lk. 13:1-5); godly sorrow produces repentance (2 Cor. 7:10); and finally the desrre to be saved should be a motivation to repentance (Acts 2:38). In relation to infant baptism, this question must be propounded and answered. Can a week old infant be moved to repentance by these forces we have just mentioned that produce repentance? Is it possible for a child of this age to repent of his sins? To ask the question is to answer it. In the first place, an individual unaccountable to God’s law can have no sin. Of course, the denominationalists teach that the reason why it is necessary to baptize these infants is because thoy have inherited Adam’s sin, and are therefore inherently totally depraved, but the child does not bear the iniquity of the father, nor does the father bear the iniquity of the child. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezek. 18:20). This child does not have any sin, and if it did have, it would be impossible for him to repent of those sins. Repentance is a change of mind. It is the decision to cease sinning. Can a few day old baby rationally, reasonably, and intelligently consider his sill; consider God’s reaction toward sin; consider the blessings that God has bestowed upon him, and the pupishment that God has in store for the persistently impenitent; and with these considerations resolve to quit sin? Certainly no! But one cannot be baptized until he repents. To place the argument in syllogistic form, it would be stated like this.

One cannot be scripturally baptized until he genuinely repents.

A baby cannot repent.

Therefore, a baby cannot be scripturally baptized,

This is a point that no denominational preacher can answer, and I venture, that they will not even try.

As Philip was sent by the angel of the Lord down to the road that went down from Jerusalem to Gaza, he came upon an Ethiopian eunuch, who had been to Jerusalem to worship. This Ethiopian was returning in his chariot, and as he went on his way, he was reading from the prophet Isaiah. From this scripture he was reading, Philip began and preached unto him Jesus. “And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (Acts 8:36-38). The chariot was commanded to stand still, and Philip went into the water and baptized him. This man had to confess his faith in Christ before he was baptized. Paul said, “because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the moth confession is made unto salvation” (Rorn. 10:9,10). A baby may be baptized if lie has faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, this faith coming by the preaching of the Word, if he sincerely repents of his sins, and if he confesses with his mouth his faith in Christ. All of these are impossibilities, and so is the baptism of a baby.

One Who is Willingly Obedient

Another thing it would be well to think about is the fact that one must Tender obedience to the gospel of Christ willingly (Rom. 22:17). If one does not obey of his own volition, his actions are voided. God is not going to compti one to submift. If man should compel one to do the acts commanded of God, and one does them unwillingly, God is not satisfied. Who makes the decision to have a baby baptized? All of us know that the parents make the decision. They realize that the baby does not have the ability, as yet, to make such a decision, and so, the parents decide to have the baby baptized. Would the Lord be pleased for my parents to decide for me to serve him? Would that help me any? Surely not! One’s parents cannot decide to obey God for him, and this is precisely what is done when the parents of a new-born baby decide to have him baptized. God says that the individual is to make the decision, and not someone else make it for him, and so on another count, the baby cannot be scripturally baptized. Inasmuch as we have had much to say about the impossibility of a baby’s being baptized, one might ask, “What is the condition of a baby?” The truth is, a baby is not lost or saved. He is not lost for he has not reached the age of accountability, and therefore is not respopsible in the sight of God, therefore he could not be lost. On the, other hand, a baby cannot be saved, for it never has been lost. Being saved is predicated upon having been lom. The baby is safe. It is neither lost nor saved, but it is safe. But we will have to further discuss this in our lesson next week, the Lord willing.

Truth Magazine XX: 35, pp. 547-549
September 2, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Nigeria: “1. In Numbers 22-24, how did Balaam get to know Jehovah? Was he an Israelite? 2. In Luke 10:18, was this the time Satan was hauled down to earth as it is said in Revelation 1.2:9 ? 3. In Luke 10:20, when did registration of the saved begin in Heaven? Was it before or after the establishment of the church?”

Reply:

Questions About Balaam

References to Balaam appear in Num. 22-24; 31:8, 16; Deut. 23:4; Josh, 13:22; 24:9; Neb. 13:2,; Mic. 6:5; 2.Pet. 2:15-16; Jude 11; Rev. 2:14.

Balaam was a. “prophet” (2 Pet. 2:16), “and the Spirit of God came upon him, And he took up his parable and said . . .” (Num. 24:2,3). “And the Lord put a word in Balawn’s moutin” (Num. 23:5, 16). Balaam “I heard the words of God, and knew the kriowled-ge of the most High, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open” (Num. 24:16) Balaam “knew the knowledge of the inost High’ because God revealed it unto him. He knew God’s voice because God “put a word in his mouth.” It does not say Balaarn knew the Lord as his Savior, Rather, he knew the Lord’s mind or knowledge by revelation. The only way to know the Lord as Savior is to obey Him. “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments” (1 Jn. 2:3). That has ever been true. Whether at “sundry times” or “in these last days,” one must keep or obey God’s word in order to know Him as Savior arid Sanctifier.

“Balaam (was) the son of Boor of Pethor of Mesopotamia” (Deut. 23:4). “Balak the king of Moab hath brouaht me from Aram out of the mountains of the east” (Num. 23:7). Balaam. is never listed and labeled as an Israelite. Citations to Balaarn separate him from the children of Israel (Cf. Num. 31:8, 16; Josh. 13:22; 24:9; Neb. 13:2). “Balaam. is one of those instances which meet us in Scripture of persons dwelling among heathens, but possessing a certain knowledge of the one true God. . . . His religion, therefore, was probably such as would be the natural result of a general acquaintance with God (though) not confirmed by any covenant” (Wm. Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, p. 93).

Luke 10:18 and Satan’s Fail

“And. the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (Lk. 10:17, 18). The text shows that Satan’s fall was seen in his loss of power. “The devils are subject unto us through thy name.” In this way, Satan fell.

Compare Matthew 12:29, “Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then be will spoil his house.” In the context, Jesus bad cast out a demon, It was obvious that He had done so, thus, many began to inquire, “Is not this the Son of David.?” The Pharisees could not deny the miracle, so they cast reflection on the source of it. They said, “He casts out (lemons, but he does it by the power of Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.” Jesus proceeds to manifest the folly of their contention. First, their argument would meav that Satan is fighting against himself. He is using Jesus to cast out himself. Second, the Jews claimed that their disciples cast out demons. Therefore, Jesirs asks them, “by whom do your children cast thf~m (the devils) out?” The inference is that they must do it by Beelzebub as you say I do. In effect, their ebildven are also in league with Satan in casting out demons. Third, in Matthew 12:29, the verse quoted above, the strong man is Satan. His goods are his dernons. The one who spoils the goods must first bind Satan, the strong man. So, Jesus is showing that He has bound Satan in order to “spoil his house,” i.e., cast out devils. The same principle is in Luke 10:18. Satan fell because Jesus power overthrew him in that “the devils are subject unto us through thy name.

The text in Revelation 12:1-12 is not directly related. There the victory was achieved “by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony” when Satan was cast out into the earth. This refers to the death of Jesus, whereas, Luke 10:18 recalls an event in His ministry. John 12:31-33 may be conipared. to Revelation 12:1-12.

Question Three: The Lamb’s Book of Life

“Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20). See also Ex. 32:32, Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27; Heb. 12:23. Exodus 32:32, 33 shows “registration of the saved began ir heaven before the establishment of the church.”

Truth Magazine XX: 35, p. 546
September 2, 1976