Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Under the above caption, Bedford Andrews wrote in the Missionary Baptist Searchlight of February 10, 1975. He discussed the baptism of John in general and the reference in Mark 1:4 in particular. “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” Mr. Andrews correctly and scripturally concluded that in Mark 1:4 John “baptized in water all who repented and came for water baptism. That is all there is to it.” If that had been “all there is to it,” we would not be writing these lines, but Mr. Andrews could not resist making a few comments on Mark 1:4. “Notice,” said he, “in Mark 1:4 it says, `. . . baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.’ The word `for” as used here many times means “because of” instead of the other way it may be used. For example see verse 44 of the same chapter. Here the leper-already cleansed, mind you–is told to offer `for” thy cleansing. Now, did he offer to get to be clean, or because he was already clean? Well, Jesus had already cleansed him of leprosy and after cleansing told him to offer `for” it. How do we know this is the proper use of the word `for” in the term `. . . baptized for the remission of sins,’ Mark 1:4? Because those who repent of sin have everlasting life, are saved, born again, sons of God, in the family of God, etc. Acts 11:18; Gal. 3:26, and other Scriptures. Mind you, baptism is for the remission of sins, but the ones repenting, and only those, were baptized by John the Baptist; therefore, we must conclude `for” as used here to mean “because of” and not in order to obtain remission.”

Does This “For” Mean “Because of?”

Mr. Andrews tortured both his grammar and his doctrine. His argument on Mark 1:4 is based on the meaning of `for” in verse 44. Unfortunately, the Greek word “for” in verse 44 is peri,,,while in verse 4 it is eis. “For (pert) thy cleansing” appears in Mark 1:44 as quoted by Andrews, but it is “for (eis) the remission of sins” in verse 4.

After being healed of his leprosy, Jesus said, “See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them” (Mk. 1:44). The last expression of ‘for” is the Greek preposition, eis. It is “for (eis) a testimony unto them,” while the first phrase is “for (pert) thy cleansing.” To say the least, Mr. Andrews was careless. To say the worst, he was deceitful. Surely, he was simply unaware of his error.

But the leprous man was not formally cleansed. True, he was “cleansed” in that his “leprosy departed from him” (Mk. 1 1:42), but according to Leviticus 14:2-9, he was ceremonially unclean. The leprosy was healed (Cf. Mk. 1:42; Lev. 14:2). But he was “to be cleansed” after going through the prescribed ritual (Lev. 14:7, 8). Only on the seventh day was he declared “clean.” So, Mr. Andrews argument fails and falls whether or not the term “for” is the same or not

The leprous man was to offer “those things which Moses commanded for a testimony” (Mk. 1:44). The last ‘for” is the same word as appears in Mk. 1:4, “for the remission of sins.” Was the leper to offer “because of” a testimony, or “in order to” declare unto them? Certainly, he was to make the offerings, not because a testimony had been rendered, but in order to effect testimony unto them. So, the argument on “for” backfires. John baptized those penitent ones “for the remission of sins.” Compare Matthew 26:28 and Acts 2:38.

Repentance, Salvation, and Acts 11:18

Mr. Andrews says “those who repent of sin have everlasting life, are saved, born again, sons of God, in the family of God, etc. Acts 11:18; Gal. 3:26.” His statement is true only if he uses the term repentance as it is used in Acts 11:18. In this text, the Jews rejoiced that God had granted the Gentiles “repentance unto life.” This includes their believing in Christ and their obedience to the command to be baptized (Acts 10:34, 35, 43, 48). After their belief and baptism, it is said that God had “granted repentance unto life” unto the Gentiles. After, “mind you,” and not before.

However, if Mr. Andrews means that one has “everlasting life” and is saved the very moment he repents, he has himself in conflict with his doctrine. Missionary Baptist doctrine says repentance precedes, comes before, faith. Thus, if one is “born again” the moment he repents, he is “saved” and has “everlasting life” before he believes. Hence, Mr. Andrews would make faith unessential to salvation or at least subsequent to it.

And that is the way Andrews was using the term. He is considering repentance prior to baptism in Mark 1:4. At the point of repentance, one is “saved” and “born again,” he says. Thus, according to Andrews, one repents, is saved, and then is baptized “because of” the remission of sins. And since faith follows repentance in the Baptist Scheme, he has one not only “saved” before baptism but also before faith.

Mr. Andrew’s Predicament

Let us try that last paragraph on Mark 1:15. The Lord said, “Repent ye, and believe the gospel.” According to Andrew’s usage of Mark 1:4, one is “saved” and has “everlasting life” after he repents, but before he is baptized. Will he deny this logic on this passage? Let him attempt it. Compare Mark 1:4 and 1:15. On Mark 1:4, Andrews says, “Repent (be ‘saved, born again’) and then be baptized ‘because of the remission of sins.” That is the gist of his argument. Parallel-wise, let him explain the statement eleven verses later: “Repent ye (have ‘everlasting life, are saved, born again’) and believe the gospel.”

Mk. 1:4-(1) Repent (2) Salvation (3) Baptism

Mk. 1:15-(1) Repent (2) Salvation (3) Believe

IF NOT, WHY NOT?

In his haste to explain away any connection between baptism and the remission of sins, Mr. Andrews ‘has crossed himself and Baptist doctrine. Will he tell us why salvation comes before baptism in Mark 1:4 but why it does not come before faith in Mark 1:15? With his reasoning, one may use Acts 11:18 in considering Mark 1:15 as readily as he uses it in Mark 1:4. So, Andrews has salvation appearing before both belief and baptism.

Today, “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his (Jesus’) name among all nations” in this manner: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10;10). “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38).

Truth Magazine XIX: 30, pp. 475-476
June 5, 1975

By H. L. Bruce

George Herbert once said, “He who cannot forgive others breaks the bridge over which he must pass himself.” Benjamin Franklin put it like this, “Doing injury puts you below your enemy; revenging one makes you but even with him; forgiving it sets you above him.” “Forgive and forget.” Charles Spurgeon said, “When you bury a mad dog, don’t leave his tail above the ground.” Many a man will be lost, not because he was a liar, adulterer, or murderer, but because he refused to forgive.

Terminology

There are seven words in the scripture which denote the idea of forgiveness, three in the Hebrew and four in the Greek. In the Hebrew Old Testament they are “kapar, ” to cover; “nasa, ” to bear-take away guilt; and “salah, ” to pardon. “Nasa” is used of both human and divine forgiveness. The other two, “Kapar” and “salah, ” are used only of divine forgiveness. In the Greek New Testament the words are “apolyein, ” “charizesthai, ” “aphesis” and `paresis.” “Apolyein” is found numerous times as “to put away,” e.g. a wife (Matt. 5:31), but only once to signify forgiveness (Luke 6:37). “Paresis” is also found only once (Rom. 5:23), and suggests “disregarding,” but without any suggestion of indifference. “Charizesthai” is used only by Luke and Paul, and only by the latter in the sense of “to forgive sins” (2 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13; 3:13, etc.). It especially expresses the graciousness of God’s forgiveness.

The most common New Testament word for forgiveness is “aphesis.” It conveys the idea of “sending away” or “letting go.” The noun occurs fifteen times. The verb with the same meaning is used about forty times (see Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, p. 226).

The God of heaven, through the greatest and grandest book that was ever written, offers unto us the most sublime blessings extant. Among those blessings, one will find the forgiveness of sins. Jehovah-God promised through the prophets and inspired the New Testament writers to confirm, that he would remember our sins no more (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 8:12; 10:17). Through God’s communicated revelation, we find extensive teachings on remission of sins. In it we read, “I will heal their backslidings, I will love them freely” (Hos. 14:4). “And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you” (Eph. 4:32).

The Need For Forgiveness

The need for forgiveness is universal. In Gal. 3:22, the apostle Paul wrote, “But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” Along this same line, the apostle John concluded, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” (1 Jn. 1:810).

It is necessary that we not only recognize the scope of our guilt before God, but we must also have a forgiving heart. As a matter of scriptural ethics, there are no limitations whatever as to the number of times that we forgive others. Jesus taught that we extend forgiveness “seven times a day” (Luke 17:4), and until “seventy times seven” (Matt. 18:22). Limitlessness is the idea! We will not be forgiven of our heavenly Father if we fail to forgive others their transgressions (Matt. 6:14-15; 18:23-35). We should forgive, on and on, those who sin and turn to us for forgiveness.

Duty to Forgive

We are our brother’s keeper and we have a responsibility to each other. If a brother sins against us, we have a responsibility to try to save him. In Matt. 18:1518, Jesus said, “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.” Another passage emphasizes the same enjoined obligation. Jesus said, in Luke 17:3, “Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him, and if he repent, forgive him.” In far too many instances the obligation to rebuke a brother, with a view to his restoration, is completely ignored.

On the other hand, we also have a responsibility: If a brother has something against us, we have an obligation to go and seek reconciliation. Jesus said, in the sermon on the mount; “Therefore if thou bring thy gift before the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” (Matt. 5:23-24).

According to this, we have an obligation either way: If we have been transgressed against, we have an obligation to go, rebuke and try to restore. If, on the other hand, we know of one who has “aught” against us we have a responsibility to go and be reconciled.

In many instances, the hard, cold truth is that problems exist when the involved parties do not want them solved. Grudges are held without any desire or intent to forgive. Then there are offenders who have too much adamant, stubborn pride to repent. When conditions like these exist, unsolved problems may be expected to linger. However, when all parties are respectively penitent and forgiving-conciliate and restoring-problems will soon be amended. We should heed and practice the inspired admonition, “Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye” (Col. 3:13).

The Cost of Forgiveness

It is not only important that men have a forgiving attitude toward one another, but we all must receive forgiveness from God or else we will die in our sins and consequently, meet the Lord unprepared (see Jn. 8:21). In Revelation 21:27 we read, “And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” To understand the importance of forgiveness, look to Calvary. Jesus Christ came into this wicked, sinful world, lived among men, died the ignominious death on Calvary’s cross for the sins of mankind. My friend, he died for us. The Hebrew writer said “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Heb. 2:9). In another text, the apostle Paul wrote, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief” (1 Tim. 1:15). Christ died for us. He considered our sins important. His blood is the price paid. He poured it out that we might have forgiveness of sins. According to Luke, Jesus said, “Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46-47).

Alien sinners need forgiveness. In their state of alienation, they are lost. In describing their plight to the brethren at Ephesus, the apostle Paul explained, “That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12).

In order for them to be saved, aliens must believe in the Deity of Jesus (Jn. 20:30-31, repent of their past and alien sins (Acts 17:30), confess Christ before men (Romans 10:9-10), and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). In doing this, they enter Christ (Gal. 3:27). It is in Christ that “redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins” can be enjoyed (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14).

Truth Magazine XIX: 30, pp. 470-471
June 5, 1975

By Roy E. Cogdill

Nothing is more important than truth. Only the truth can make men free. Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Error will only further enslave, but truth makes men free! The wise man said, “Buy the truth and sell it not” (Prov. 23:23). Truth is supreme in its value. We can afford to pay whatever it costs and when once we possess it, we cannot afford to take any price for it. The importance and necessity of it should be always exalted in our hearts.

There is no substitute for truth. It can be replaced only with error. Nothing else is “just as good as truth.” Yet even in spiritual matters that concern the soul, we are often told that we should accept a substitute for the truth, for something else is just as good.

Truth is always consistent. It is never out of harmony with truth. There is no contradiction in truth. Whenever an apparent contradiction seems to exist, it is because we do not know the whole truth. There are not two correct answers to the same problem or question. When there is a variance, both cannot be right.

Truth is always narrow. Every kind of truth is narrow. Mathematical truth is narrow. Two and two make exactly four-no more, no less, and whoever says they make anything else is wrong. There are thousands of numbers that two and two do not make (error is broad) and only one that they do make-truth is narrow.

Scientific truth is narrow. Under ordinary conditions at sea level, water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, just that, no more, no less. There are thousands of temperatures at which water does not freeze. Suppose a man should say: “I am very broad in my scientific beliefs. I am not one of your scientific bigots who insist that water freezes at just 32 degrees, and that all who think differently are wrong. No, I admit that water freezes at 20,’ 25, 30, 32, 38 and 40 degrees, and at any other temperature. Just so a man is sincerer, it does not matter at what temperature he believes water freezes. I am broad in my science.” What would we think of such a man?

Historical truth is narrow. A given event took place in one particular way. There are thousands of ways in which it did not take place. It is the business of a jury to so consider the testimonies of the witnesses, each giving his impression, that they can determine just how the event did take place. So the historian is to use the date to determine just how the events he describes did take place. Suppose a professed historian should say: “I have very broad views of history. I abominate the narrow bigotry which says that a given event took place in only one particular way and that whoever says differently is wrong. I believe the event took place in a hundred ways, and just so a man is sincere, it does not matter how he believes it took place.”

Geographical truth is narrow. There is but one right direction to London from where the reader sits, while there are thousands of wrong directions. If you point toward London, you must point in one definite direction. If you point in either of a thousand other directions, you are not pointing toward London. Suppose a man should say: “I am not one of your geographical bigots, who say that there is only one right direction toward London, from where he stands, while all who point in any other direction are wrong. No, indeed, I am broad in my views of geography, and any way a man chooses to start, is the right way to London, if only he be honest; and whichever way he starts, he will get to London just the same.” What would intelligent people think of such an attitude?

Application

How does it come to pass that what is recognized as the most arrogant nonsense in all other realms, is greedily swallowed when it comes to the realm of religion, where truth is most important? Whether a man be right or wrong in mathematics, in science, in history, in geography, etc., is of comparatively small importance, but his character and his eternal destiny depend upon his being right in religion. Only the truth has the power to make men free from spiritual bondage.

While truth is narrow, it does not follow that anything is truth because it is narrow. One would be just as narrow if he affirmed that two and two make five and nothing else, as to say two and two make four. We may be narrow and still be wrong. Narrowness alone does not establish the truth. But if we are broad in what we believe to be the truth, we are certain to be wrong. Truth is narrow, and hence belief of the truth must be narrow.

Truth Magazine XIX: 30, pp. 469-470
June 5, 1975

By Cecil Willis

The fundamental fact upon which the church of Christ was built, and upon which it yet rests is, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. In Matt. 16:16, Peter confessed, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then Jesus said, “upon this rock I will build my church.” The rock upon which the church was built was not the apostle Peter, but the confession which the apostle Peter made, namely that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. How do I know this? In the first place, both the context and the language of Matt. 16 say as much. Not only this, but in 1 Cor. 3:11, the apostle Paul says, “For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” The Sonship of Christ is the foundation and support of the church of Christ.

Univocal Usage of Language

I want us first to see what is meant by the expression “deity of Christ,” and then proceed to see some of the reasons why we believe Jesus to be the divine Son of God. There are many who apparently pay tribute to the Son of God by speaking of the deity of Christ, who actually, upon investigation into what they mean by “the deity of Christ,” are not honoring Him at all. Rather they are blaspheming the Son of God. I mean by that, that there are many who use the language of orthodoxy but certainly do not attach to the language the meaning ordinarily attached to it. That great warrior against liberalism, J. Gresham Machen, said the church “is being lulled to sleep by the use of orthodox terminology which has unorthodox beliefs behind it.” Later, the same writer depicts the problem of a common usage of language like this. “The willingness of unbelievers to use the terms in their sense coupled with a proneness of Christians to understand them in theirs, is causing the great issue between Christianity and unbelief to be obscured” (Machen, Christian Faith in the Modern World, p. 133). To the liberalist, “this use of traditional terminology seems like a stained glass in an old cathedral. It puts everything in a sort of dim religious light; it seems to impart a solemn glow of sanctity to what would appear to be bold unbelief if it were revealed in the true light of day” (Machen, Op. Cit, p. 136).

So, we must be sure that when those about us speak of the deity of Christ, they mean the same thing by it that the Bible means when it declares his divine Sonship. Sometime ago, I heard a denominational preacher say that modernism is as dead as dodo. However, that man just indicated that he is not cognizant of all the modernism that yet really does exist. Certain phases of the liberalistic movement may be waning, but myriads more arise to take their places. I heard that same man speak of what a good Christian Ghandi was; Ghandi was a Hindu, not a Christian. And on another occasion, he said that he was just as prepared to differ with the apostle Paul as he was with me. Modernism will not be dead as long as men like this are yet alive. They speak of the Bible as being the revelation, but they do not mean that the Bible is a supernaturally revealed and recorded revelation. They mean that the Bible is a very fallible, human account of revelation. that it is a very fallible, human account of revelation. When they speak of sin, they do not mean transgression of God’s law but that which is injurious to the body, or an antiquated mental attitude or an imperfect attitude. Modernism yet lives!

As I said, when some preachers speak of the deity of Christ, they do not mean the same thing by it as one who really believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. For example, under questioning, one who pays lip service to the Son of God may tell you that he means that Jesus is the Son of God in the same sense that every other human being is the Son of God, or in the same sense that every Christian is the Son of God. But this definitely is not what the Bible means when it calls Jesus the only begotten Son of God. They speak of Him as a very influential and morally upright, religious reformer. It is true that he was a great religious teacher but one cannot stop here in his estimation of Christ “You may take Him as very God, or else you must reject Him as a miserable, deluded enthusiast. There is really no middle ground. Jesus refuses to be pressed into the mold of a mere religious teacher” (Machen, op. cit., p. 180).

Others who think themselves perfectly orthodox in their attitude toward Christ will speak of Him as the Son of God. But what do you mean when you say that Jesus is the Son of God? Do you mean that He had but one earthly parent and was begotten by the Holy Spirit? Do you mean that He was born of a virgin? They very quickly reply, “Of course, not. We mean that Jesus is the Son of God, in the church’s living experience.” Their doctrine of the Sonship of Christ is simply a part of the historical formulation of the church’s doctrine of Christ. Of course by now, they tell us, we have outgrown those outmoded concepts of him, which include the miraculous. “They will not say that Jesus was born of a virgin. They will not say that He worked miracles. They will not say that the things He said were always true; they will not say that He died as our substitute on the cross; they will not say that He rose from the tomb on the third day; yet, they say, He was God” (Machen, op. cit., p. 134).

Incarnation

What we mean when we say that Jesus is the Son of God is that which those words so obviously mean. In Matt. 3:17, God said of Christ, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” In Mark 9:7, at the transfiguration, God once again said, “This is my beloved Son.” Jesus was the Son of God in a sense in which no other human being has ever been the Son of God. In 2 Cor. 5:19, Paul says, “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.” God was incarnate: in human flesh. To say that Jesus was God is to assert the preexistence of Christ, which, of course, the Bible does. In John 1:14, we read “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.” As John speaks of the Word, he speaks of the Word which became flesh, Jesus. Of that Word he says, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Christ was God (Deity) and existed before He took upon Himself the form and the likeness of a man. In Philippians 2:5-8, Paul says, “Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.” Christ existed before he took on Himself the form of a man. By the deity of Christ, then, is meant that the man Jesus was God. In the first epistle of John, we find we have three first century false doctrines confuted. There were some that admitted the deity’ of Christ but denied his humanity. There were others who said that Jesus was but a human being, thus, not divine. There were others who said that Jesus was but an illusion. But John said that “whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him and he in God” (1 John 4:15). In I John 5:1, he said, “whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God.” The statement, “Jesus is the Christ, ” refuted the three false doctrines with which John was dealing. When one said “Jesus” he asserted the humanity of Christ; when one said is, ” he asserted the reality of Christ; and when one said Jesus is “the Christ, ” he asserted the divinity. By saying that Jesus is the Son of God, then, is meant that humanity really was Deity in Christ, and that Deity really was humanity when the eternal Christ became incarnate in the flesh.

Proofs of the Deity of Christ

After having seen what is meant by the deity of Christ, let us point out some of the reasons we believe in His deity. First of all, I would like to notice with you that Jesus never considered Himself the Son of God in the same sense as the disciples were sons of God. Of course, it is true that Christians are sons. In 2 Cor. 6:17-18, Paul said, “Wherefore come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch no unclean thing; And I will receive you, And will be to you a Father, And ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” But Jesus never classified Himself as being but a man. In all four of the gospel accounts, never once did He speak of “our Father” so as to include Himself in the group. Often He spoke of “My Father,” and frequently “your Father,” but never “Our Father.” In Luke 2:48-49, we read about the occasion when Jesus was separated from His parents, when together they had gone to Jerusalem. When the despondent parents finally found Him, his mother said unto him, “Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold thy father and I sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? know ye not that I must be in my Father’s house?” Note, He did not say, “Our Father,” but “My Father’s house.” In Matt. 7:21, he said “not everyone that sayeth unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.” But someone says, “what about the Lord’s prayer; did not Jesus pray `Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name’ (Matt. 6:9)?” Yes, it is true that such a prayer is recorded, but for one to say this prayer is the Lord’s prayer is really a misnomer. This was not a prayer in which Jesus joined with His disciples. As Luke tells us about this prayer, he says, “One of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, even as John taught his disciples to pray, And he said unto them, when ye pray, say . . .” and then follows what is commonly called the Lord’s prayer. This prayer should more properly be called “The Disciples Prayer.” It is a prayer Jesus taught His disciples to pray. So the first proof we offer for the Deity of Christ is the fact that He never spoke of Himself and His disciples being equally related to God. He never prayed “Our Father who art in heaven,” but spoke of “My Father” and “your Father.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 30, pp. 467-469
June 5, 1975