Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

From Missouri: A sister in Christ has written asking several questions. We shall take up each one and comment separately. Actually, her first question is the heart of her queries.

1. ADo you believe it is a sin to drink a glass of wine?” If the wine is what is presently known as an alcoholic beverage, then, yes for me to drink it would be a sin. And it would be a sin for our inquirer since she stated that her husband’s “drinking a glass or two of wine. . . really bothered me for a while and still does to a certain extent.” “And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). This does not mean that a thing is right just so we believe it is right; rather, it shows an act that is right in itself becomes sin if we do it while thinking it is wrong. Do not violate your scruples, your conscience. It is the last vestige of restraint between morality and those “who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness to work all uncleanness with greediness” and eagerness.

Further, it is a sin for our querist because she wonders and worries over “what kind of influence it might have on the children.” My dear sister, you tell me “what kind of good influence” it could have on the children. Will it lead them to greater trust and faith in God? Will it induce them to study the Bible? Will it prompt them to eschew evil? Will it cause them to rise up and call their mother “blessed?” Will it direct them into “the way of sinners” or “the paths of righteousness” which? Will it deter them from lusts, base behavior, and alcoholism? You tell me. You ponder “what kind of influence it might have on the children,” and then tell me if you find anything in drinking that will be for their ultimate and eternal good.

2. “Why did Jesus turn the water into wine at the marriage feast if he didn’t mean for them to drink any of it?” No one argues that Jesus “didn’t mean for them to drink any of it.” Jesus transformed the water into wine so they could drink of it. However, our questioner reasons from a false premise.

She assumes and presumes that “wine” always contemplates an intoxicating beverage. “. . the contention of some of my correspondents that the Greek oinos, always meant fermented and intoxicating liquor is totally inaccurate, and only. arises from ignorance, or prejudice” (Don DeWelt, Paul’s Letters To Timothy and Titus, p. 304). “The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine. That was the pure juice of the grape. It was not brandied wine; nor drugged wine; nor wine compounded of various substances, such as we drink in this land.

The common wine drunk in Palestine was that which was the simple juice of the grape. We use the word wine now to denote the kind of liquid which passes under that name in this country-always fermented, and always containing a considerable portion of alcohol-not only the alcohol produced by fermentation, but added to keep it or make it stronger. But we have no right to take that sense of the word, and go with it to the interpretation of the Scriptures… An argument cannot be drawn from this instance in favour of intemperate drinking… Nor can an argument be drawn from this case in favour even of drinking wine such as we have. The common wine of Judea was the pure juice of the grape, without any mixture of alcohol, and was harmless. It was the common drink of the people, and did not tend to produce intoxication” (Barnes Notes On The N. T., p. 272).

(1) Sometimes the word for wine, oinos, refers to a non-intoxicating beverage. (2) It may refer to a fermented beverage that could only become harmful if consumed in great and immediate quantities. (3) Admittedly, oinos (Hebrew, yayin) may have reference to “strong drink.” In Genesis 9:21 it produced a state of drunkenness in Noah. The context must determine the nature of the wine. In Isaiah 16:10, Jeremiah 40:10, and in Revelation 19:15, “wine” is used to describe the juice of the grape. The same word is used to designate liquor, but even here we observe that “The liquors of this land in the strength of their intoxicating properties differ so widely from the light wines of Palestine that even the most moderate use of them seems immoderate in comparison” (J.W. McGarvey, Fourfold Gospel, p. 118).

3. “Why was Timothy told to drink a little wine for his stomach’s sake if it was a sin? Again, one must grant that this wine is comparable to our modern day wine that is intoxicating, but this we are not willing to grant. Paul here prescribed wine for medicinal, not social purposes. Drugs may be taken in medicinal form that would be sinful to imbibe socially. One who uses this passage should cease to drink water and drink very little wine. Ever know of one who gave up water (Drink no longer water. . .) while he tried to justify his drinking by this verse? Neither have I.

But if it be objected that Paul here admonishes “drink no longer water only or exclusively” (Cf. NASB), then the water is to be mixed with the wine. This would further dilute any intoxicating powers it might possess. Be it remembered, though, that this wine is not what we think or conceive as wine today.

4. “I am trying to think of where the passage is that says for the woman not to be given to much wine wherein is excess. (The verse in mind is undoubtedly Titus 2:3-LRH). Doesn’t this indicate she can drink a little?” When Peter said that brethren did not run with “the same excess of riot” with the world, did he thereby imply that they engaged in a little riotous behavior? Right above, he had mentioned “excess of wine.@ If this permits a little wine, why does not Aexcess of riot@ allow a little riotous activity (1 Pet. 4:3, 4)? When Paul said, ALet not the sun go down upon your wrath,@ are we to suppose he permitted wrath from sunrise to sunset? When elders and deacons are shown to be men who must not be Agreedy of filthy lucre,@ does this justify a lust for ill gotten gain just so it is in moderation?

Let us not see how closely we can live like the devil while claiming life in the Son. This disposition seems to motivate those who want to drink Aa little.@ It is contrary to the tone, tint, and tenor of the New Testament. ABe ye holy; for I am holy@ (1 Pet. 1:16). AWine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise@ (Prov. 20:1). ALook not thou upon the wine when it is red . . . at the last it biteth like a serpent@ (Prov. 23: 31, 32).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:45, p. 4-5
September 19, 1974

By Lindy McDaniel

In the May 23rd issue of Truth Magazine, Brother Cecil Willis featured me in an editorial stating that I teach “pernicious error.” The grounds for the accusation is that I teach that a child of God can constantly stand in the grace of God. Cecil attacks this view as being the equivalent to the Baptist position of “once saved, always saved,” and leading to a loose view of sin and of grace.

Cecil and I agree that Christians sin daily, as the Bible clearly teaches and experience demonstrates (1 Kings 8:46; Ps. 130:3; Ps. 143:2; Isa. 64:6; Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 3:32; and 1 John 1:8). The point of controversy involves sin and separation from God. While I believe that every sin the Christian commits can potentially separate him from God (see James 1:15), Cecil believes that every sin automatically separates the Christian from God. This latter position insists that when the Christian sins (and none of us can say that we do not sin (1 Jno. 1:8), he is “severed from Christ” (Gal. 5:4), or “fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4), or in a state of condemnation (see Rom. 8:1), or has his name blotted out of the Lamb’s book of life (see Rev. 20:15), etc. This position logically says that a Christian must constantly be “in” and “out” of a state of condemnation.

If Cecil’s theory is correct, the nature of the Christian life is one of constant fear, an even should the Christian pray hourly for the forgiveness of sins, he would still have no assurance that he would be in a saved condition. This theory must insist that right standing before God at any point in time is based upon sinlessness. Although the Bible clearly teaches that the child of God can fall and be lost (see John 15:1-6; Heb. 6:4-6; Heb. 10:26-27; 2 Pet. 2:20-22, etc.), the nature of the Christian life is one of “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17) as contrasted to fear and bondage (Rom. 8:15).

The Bible teaches that a Christian can abide in a state of grace. Paul wrote: “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God” (Rom. 5:1-2). See also John 15:1-6; Rom. 8:1; Rev. 3:4-5; Phil. 4:1; 1 Pet. 5:12, and countless other passages.

Abiding in the grace of God is conditioned on a living faith (see Rom. 5:1-2). Our faith is demonstrated by “walking in the light” (1 Jno. 1:7) bearing fruit (John 15:1-6), keeping God’s commandments (1 John 2:4), continually confessing our sins (1 John 1:9), etc.; but none of these conditions demand sinlessness. When a Christian ceases to possess a living faith, God’s grace through Jesus Christ is no longer appropriated to him (Rom. 3:28 and Eph. 2:8-10). In this connection, the word “faithful” describes one who is “walking by faith,” and such a one, although not sinless, is indeed in favor with God (see 1 Cor. 4:17; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, etc.).

I deny emphatically that I believe in “once saved, always saved” as has been charged. I deny emphatically that I believe that a child of God need not make confession of sins! On the other hand, I freely admit that I believe a child of God can “walk in the light without being sinlessly perfect. Thank God for that fact!

It has been widely reported that Cecil and I are divided over “doctrinal differences.” Many have inquired about the statement to this effect found in the last issue of Pitching For The Master, a paper which I edit and write. Cecil, without my knowledge or consent, changed my original statement by adding the word “doctrinal.” From my point of view, it is not true that Pitching will no longer be published by the Cogdill Foundation because of doctrinal differences. It is much more accurate to say that it is the Cogdill

Foundation Board’s reactions to these differences (as described in this article) that has finally resulted in our not being able to work together.

I am extremely sorry that it has become necessary for me to answer Cecil’s public charges. I am shocked and perplexed as to why they were made, but I cannot stand back and allow the facts to be misrepresented. This is all I intend to say publically about the matter. There is ample work to be done in the kingdom without getting side-tracked into endless arguments over pointless controversies which can only gender division and strife. Let brotherly love continue.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: For about a month I have been away on an extended trip for gospel meetings. Hence, several issues of TRUTH MAGAZINE had to be prepared prior to my leaving. It now is less than two weeks until the debate which Brother Jesse Jenkins and I are to hold. Hence, I cannot at this time spare the time to write the reply that I had intended to write to the above article from Brother Lindy McDaniel. Yet I think it might be unfair to him to permit more time to lapse before he is given opportunity to be heard regarding my previous article. Our basic disagreement lie in the fact that Lindy thinks a Christian who sins as a result of ignorance or from the weakness of the flesh continues to stand in the grace of God, even though he has neither repented of, nor confessed the sin. He applies this point specifically to the usage of instrumental music and institutionalism. Herein lies our basic disagreement. Already I have written about 15 pages, showing Lindy’s vacillation on this question, but to complete the job will take about that many more pages. So I have chosen to print his article now, and perhaps will publish my reply later. I must prepare three issues of the paper, and then be gone for meetings and the debate for a five week period.–Cecil Willis)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:45, p. 3
September 19, 1974

By John McCort

Many of our religious friends believe in the doctrine of “irresistible grace.” Briefly, this doctrine states, 1.. God predestines or unconditionally selects certain individuals to be saved and certain individuals to be lost. 2. Those chosen unto salvation God calls through the Holy Spirit. 3. The Holy Spirit opens the heart of the chosen sinner so that he can understand the gospel. 4. The direct calling of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted or rejected by the chosen sinner. Advocates of this doctrine quote such passages as Rom. 8:30, “Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he called. . .” (KJV). This article will specifically deal with the nature of our divine calling.

Definition of “Called”

There are several Greek words that are translated “call.” The primary word for “call” in the New Testament is the word kaleo. Under kaleo, Vine says,”. . .derived from the root kal-, whence Eng. “call” and “clamour” (See B.C., below), is used with a personal object, to call anyone, invite, summon, e.g., Matt. 20:8; 25:14. . .” (Vines Expository Dictionary, p. 163). Kaleo is also translated “Bidden, Invited, Bade.” Under “bidden” Vine has this to say about the Greek word kaleo, “to call, often means to bid, in the sense of invite, e.g., Matt. 22:3, 4, 8, 9; Luke 17:7, 8, 9, 10, 13, R.V.: Rev. 19,9” (Ibid, p.125).

The Greek word kaleo, translated both “call” and invite,” does not carry with it the idea of an irresistable or unrejectable command. It carries the idea of an invitation. An invitation can either be accepted or rejected. A person receiving an invitation has the option of declining. Interestingly, the Latin Vulgate (Latin translation of the Bible) translates the word kaleo as in vitati, which is with word from which we derive our English word “invitation.”

How We Are Called?

The Scriptures teach that we are called to be Christians, not by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit, but through the gospel. 2 Thess. 2:14, “Whereunto he called you by our gospel.” An examination of the cases of conversion in the book of Acts never reveals any operation of the Holy Spirit on the sinners’ heart before hearing the gospel.

The Calling Is Universal

The gospel invitation is universally extended. Jesus gave the great commission,” “. . Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” (Mk. 16:15) “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will (not whosoever God wills, JWMc) let him take the water of life freely.” (Rev. 22:17) God does not wish that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. (2 Pet. 3:9); “who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim. 2:4) God is no respector of persons. (Acts 10:34; 1 Pet. 1:17) The Scriptures nowhere teach that sinners are unconditionally and irrevocably called by God through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit on predestined individuals.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:45, p. 2
September 19, 1974

By Norman E. Sewell

In almost every congregation of God’s people there are some who have the strangest attitude imaginable, for one who claims to be a child of God. He shows this attitude in his lack of diligence in attendance, as well as the fact that he never shares with another the story of salvation in Christ, or never encourages the physically or spiritually sick by showing his interest in them. It almost seems that to him Christianity is a drudgery, something to be endured, something which must be “put up with” for a hour or so on the Lord’s day (morning, not evening). He seems to be saying by his actions, “What is the minimum required of me in order to get to heaven?”

When we consider the great love of God for us; we should indeed by happy to serve Him. “Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God; and such we are “(I John 3:1). In fact, those who show no interest in more than just minimal effort usually have failed to grow and develop as they should and are aptly described by Peter, `For he that lacketh these things is blind, seeing only what is near, having forgotten the cleansing from his old sins “(2 Peter 1:9).

Consider this thought. Who in this world has more reason to be joyful? Who has more reason for hope and more reason to praise God? Only the obedient child of God truly appreciates and shows that appreciation for the love of God.

Dear brother and sister in Christ. If you have this long faced attitude about service to God, you need to change your mind. You need desperately to repent of your stubbornness, your stiff necked attitude, and humble yourself before God. Please think seriously on these words from the inspired apostle Paul to the Philippians. “Rejoice in the Lord always: again I will say, Rejoice. Let your forbearance be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. In nothing be anxious; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding shall guard your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:4-7). Brethren, rejoice in the Lord.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:44, p. 13
September 12, 1974