Truth Magazine

By James Sanders

To the Occidental mind, Hebrew is all backwards and complex. It is virtually useless. Too many of the letters look alike and the consonants are written from right to left, just reversed laterally from the English writing. Books written in Hebrew are opened at the back and read toward the front. In ancient Hebrew there was no system of vowel notation. The reader, finding only the consonants, had to supply the proper vowel. For example, a simple word like did would be written as DD. But so would every other word that began and ended with the letter D. Words such as DaD, DiD, DeeD, DeaD, and DuDe in Hebrew would all appear as DD.

This, in part, explains why names such as Adithaim, Absalom, Ahithophel, or Cushanrishathaim are so difficult to pronounce. Hebrew is Oriental, not Occidental. It is a language from the East and not from the West. But there are other reasons. The pronunciation of Hebrew names in the English Bible is based upon three things: (1) spelling, (2) accent, and (3) pronunciation of the individual letters.

1. Spelling.

The spelling of Hebrew names in the English Bible is not natural. Letters are often deleted. Names such as Adam, Solomon, Aaron or Moses are accurately spelled: ‘Adham, Shelomoh, Aharon and Mosheh. But in the English Bible, Hebrew names are all spelled as if they were Latin or Greek words. The pronunciation in many cases then, becomes difficult and strange.

2Accent. .

The accent of Hebrew names adds to the problem. The accentuation is based on the Latin scheme, never on the Hebrew. This makes the pronunciation awkward and very unnatural. The accent should occur on the last syllable rather than on the first or second. There are, of course, exceptions but this is the general rule. The secret in pronouncing Hebrew is to say the entire word in one breath with emphasis upon the last syllable.

3. Pronunciation of individual letters.

Hebrew has sounds that are not reproducible .in English. Many consonants are guttural (pronounced in the throat). The Hebrew letters, ‘Aleph and ‘Ayin have no English equivalents. But in the English Bible, Hebrew letters are pronounced as if they were English letters.

The Hebrew names which occur in the English Bible are spelled as if derived from Greek, accented as if Latin, but pronounced so far as the individual letters are concerned as if native English words. Little wonder that many Hebrew names are hard to say. The oriental may well think us the backward one — and perhaps with good reason.

List of References

Orr, James (ed.). The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1939.

Yates, Kyle M. The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew, New York: Harper & Row Publishers. n.d.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 46, p. 2
September 28, 1972

By Larry Ray Hafley

“Why We Baptize In Jesus Name” is the title of a tract by Mrs. T. M. Bowen. It is published by the United Pentecostal Church. The tract correctly and scripturally sets forth two facts; namely, (1) Baptism is immersion, and (2) Baptism in water is essential to salvation. However, the major portion of the tract is an attempt to establish a “formula to be used in baptizing.”

The Tracts Position

The tract does not adequately or clearly define its theme. The following debate proposition, signed by Mr. Paul Ferguson, and endorsed by the First Apostolic Church (United Pentecostal) in Aurora, Illinois, U.S.A., vividly declares and describes Mrs. Bowens meaning of a “formula to be used in baptizing … .. The Scriptures teach that the formula used in the New Testament baptisms contained the name of Jesus audibly invoked over the candidate and this therefore is one of the essentials of Christian baptism.” This is the position the tract seeks to affirm.

What About Mt. 28:19?

The tract answers and destroys its arguments on other passages by its comments on Mat. 28:19, “Go . . . teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Commenting on this, Mrs. Bowen says, “He (Jesus) did not command them to use that as a formula, but commanded them to baptize in the name.”

This statement completely eradicates, eliminates, and annihilates the Pentecostal baptismal formula doctrine. This comment shows that even they recognize the difference between telling the disciples what to do rather than what to say. Keep that fact in mind-Jesus did not “command them to use that as a formula” (did not tell them what to say), but commanded them to baptize in the name” (told them what to do).

The Issue

In discussing the “formula” to be used in baptism, the tract, true to Pentecostal preaching and practice, cites such passages as Acts 2:38; 4:12; 8:12, 16; 10:48; 19:5. These verses ascribe salvation and the remission of sins to the name of Christ, but that is not the point of difference.

The Issue Is Not:

1. Are we baptized in Jesus, name-we are.

2. Should we baptize in Jesus name we should.

3. Were people baptized in Jesus name in the New Testament-they were.

4. Is salvation by the name of Jesus — it is.

The Issue Is: Must we orally pronounce or audibly invoke the name of Jesus over a candidate for baptism?

It will always assist one to keep in mind what the issue is and what it is not when discussing this question with Pentecostals. There is a vast difference between baptizing in Jesus name and calling the name of Jesus over a candidate for baptism. Passages like Acts 2:38; 8:12, 16; 10: 48; 19:5, show what was to be done or what was done, but none of them tells us what was said or what is to be said.

The Doctrines Absurdities

If Acts 2:38 contains the formula to be spoken, then the formula must be used twice, once as the person repents in the name of Christ and once when he is baptized, for it says, “Repent, and be baptized … in the name of Jesus Christ.” To repent in the name of Christ, must the name of Jesus be spoken over the candidate before he repents? Pentecostals would answer, “No.” Hence, one may repent in the name of Jesus without having someone pronounce a formula. It is the same with respect to baptism. But if one persists and insists that something must be said when baptizing, then the same words must be used when the person repents.

Further, Col. 3:17 says, “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Does this mean someone must repeat a set rule of words over you before you can do or say anything in the name of Jesus? It requires but little perception to picture the absurdity of such a wrested and wretched doctrine.

In I Sam. 17:45, David came against 1-4 Goliath “in the name of the Lord.” Surely he did not have a formula of words pronounced over him before he could properly come “in the name of the Lord.” Thus, when we read, “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5), it does not infer that anything was said over them to make their baptism in Jesus name. Again, this shows what was done; not what was said.

We are to give “thanks unto God … in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 5:20). Does this mean someone must speak a formula over the person who gives or offers thanks? It does if the same reasoning that is used by Pentecostalism in Acts 2:38; 8:12, 16; 10: 48; 19:5, is applied.

Conclusion: Christians do not doubt or deny the essentiality of baptism in the name of Jesus. One cannot be saved, cannot have the remission of sins, unless he has been baptized in Jesus name (Cf. Lk. 24:47; Acts 2:38). This is what must be done. What passage gives a formula for what is to be said while this is being done? The tract under consideration has no answer because Mrs. Bowen and her fellow formularizers have no Scripture.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 45, pp. 12-13
September 21, 1972

By Wallace H. Little

Due to the time spent by many Filipino preachers preparing for and being with the visiting American brethren, Dudley R. Spears and James P. Needham, my mail from that nation has been sharply reduced during the last few months. Nevertheless what I have received has been a real source of joy. Consider some of this information.

Baptisms

The news of baptisms is always exciting. Juanito Balbin working with Bro. M. Enoch reported: eight baptized on 6 May, fourteen on 19 May, five on 21 May, one on 26 May and finally four more on 28 May. This was all done by these brethren in and around the city of Kidapawan in a series of public teaching opportunities. Pablo Dayao wrote of six baptized and fourteen liberal brethren restored to the truth on the institutional error in Binalonan, Pagasinan. These renounced their former practices, left the groups where they were worshipping and placed membership with faithful churches. Bro. Miparanum in Buug, Zamboanga del sur mentioned two in his most recent letter while L. Sendil reported four in Margosatubig, Zamboanga del sur. Castorio Gamit in Angeles City listed five recently baptized there.

I have letters from several brethren since Needham and Spears completed their preaching trip to that nation. These had accounts of twenty in Lambayong and another eleven in MLang baptized by the visiting American preachers.

Romulo B. Agduma

In an earlier report I gave a brief biographical sketch of Castorio F. Gamit of Angeles City, Luzon. Now I want to do the same thing with Romulo B. Agduma, of MLang, Cotabato, Mindanao. Few men have done as much for the cause of Christ there, stood as long under fierce persecution with no help but His and created as much of a favorable climate to teach truth to liberal brethren as Bro. Agduma.

He was born on 5 September 1928 in Luzon, and moved with his family to the island of Mindanao when he was nine. His parents, sisters and brothers are all Christians. He himself was immersed into Christ in 1943. During World War 11 Christians there endured many afflictions. In addition to those imposed directly by the Japanese, these occupying authorities permitted the Muslims to do pretty much as they desired to the Christians. Saints had many problems with worship also, meeting in open fields, under trees or wherever they could avoid being molested. With grape juice unavailable, they resorted to using the juice of the vine itself.

Bro. Agdumas education is limited but both be and the fine woman he married completed the now-defunct Zamboanga Bible College. They were married on 7 April 1950, the evening of their graduation. Bro. Agduma then began preaching in earnest, although at that time he was without outside support. For a number of years he and his wife provided for their material needs by tailoring and farming until a rat-infestation in that area destroyed its economy and drove many businesses including theirs into ruin. In 1954 his support was picked up by brethren in the United States. Since then his experience has been considerable, preaching in lectureships and meetings as well as in local work. He wrote extensively both in pamphlets and personal correspondence. As a result, a small group of brethren pulled off from liberal churches and began meeting in MLang, with Bro. Agduma as the regular preacher. It was during this period his son and three daughters were born.

It was also during this time he began to question the Scripturalness of some of the beliefs and practices of Christians there, including himself. As far back as 1954 he started opposing some facets of institutionalism. Later he wrote the church supporting him requesting a copy of Bro. J. D. Thomass book We Be Brethren. Jady W. Copeland was the preacher there. Instead of the book, Jady subscribed to the Gospel Guardian for him. It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of this. However, as significant as it was, I want to make it clear that with the Bible as his only guide, Bro. Agduma had already stood against some of the unscriptural practices of both Filipino preachers and the so-called American “missionaries.” The thrust of his study from the Guardian was to organize and firm UP his ideas, and come to a depth of understanding of the problems. For a time, liberal Filipino brethren continued using him in lectureships and meetings, hoping to get him back. They pleaded with him to stop teaching this “anti doctrine” lest, they said, “Our support in the States be affected.”

At this point Agdunia was, also partially supported by a liberal church in Harlington, Texas. He wrote, asking them to stop their support, unable to continue accepting their money in good conscience. Brethren, that took faith and courage especially there! By this, the liberals understood he was totally serious. Persecution began in earnest He was blocked out of the pulpits of half the churches which formerly used him, and the remaining ones were those smaller and struggling (isnt it ever so?), and virtually cut off and alone in his fight. Bro. Agduma is a prolific writer. His, letters often run eight to ten single-spaced pages. He used this talent and his tremendous drive during these years. The results abundantly show just how effective one man can be, if he trusts the Lord and puts his heart into His work. I doubt a single preacher on Mindanao today learned the truth on the institutional apostasy from any other than him personally or someone taught by him. The cause of Christ there owes much to Gods work through the efforts of this good man.

The liberals then resorted to carnality, reducing themselves to the same level of tactics men in error always embrace when they find truth against them. In the many attempts to stop him, these refused to acknowledge the real issues, and sought to ruin his reputation through false ones. He was labeled “anti,” reported to brethren in the U.S. as unworthy of support, became the object of gossip accusing him of living with a woman not his wife and was even undermined at the church supporting him. However, Jesse G. Jenkins was the preacher there at that time, and he effectively refuted the lies being circulated against Agduma. One blatantly materialistic effort was made to “buy him back” with an offer of higher support than he was receiving. As the fight became hotter, he was completely cut off from most Filipino brethren in 1966 by being “disfellowshipped” by many churches. No one ever bothered to explain how a church could disfellowship one who was never a member of it. His mail was intercepted and sometimes confiscated. I came into contact with him in the latter part of 1966 and since, have done what I could to encourage him. Through him I have also contacted other preachers in that nation standing for truth, and some assistance has been provided them.

Romulo B. Agdums influence among faithful Christians there is considerable, and rightly so. He started opposing the institutional apostasy by himself when he was a very young preacher. Although by no means old now, he continued his opposition to this evil without faltering from the beginning, for many years now, in spite of the roughest sort of persecution by brethren. Today while he no longer has to right the good fight of faith by himself, his fight is as strong as it was then.

Bro. Agduma is a man in whom all may place the utmost confidence. His integrity is above question. He has been tried and proven in fire. I do not know of a man there in whom I have any greater trust.

Other Matters

All who have written concerning the recent preaching trip of the two American preachers spoke very highly of them and their work. Juanito Balbins comment was as nearly typical as any, when he said, in part, “. . . We were very much benefited by the coming and teaching of Bro. Needham and Spears. No amount of money would value their coming. . . .” Several made specific mention of the pointedness of their lessons, their urging to continue living as proper examples before brethren and others and their urging to correct misconduct as soon as it occurs. There is little doubt immense good resulted from this visit, part of which cannot be assessed for some time. I am personally very grateful for their work there, and the reception accorded them by Filipino brethren. Their trip, its success and their safe return is the answer to many prayers.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 45, pp. 10-11
September 21, 1972

By Paul K. Williams

I am sure that all of us have noticed, sometimes with alarm, an erosion of the old, accepted moral values in America. Things which once were taboo have now become accepted. Sex before marriage, uttering profanity in movies and television, and even homosexuality are outstanding examples. Things just are not the same anymore.

It is curious to me how American religion has reacted to this. In fact, I have been greatly disappointed. Leaders in the largest denominations, instead of speaking out in opposition to this loosening of moral standards, have brought forth a new concept which condones, even encourages, much behavior which is both against the old accepted standards and, more serious, is against the teachings of the New Testament. They have dressed their doctrines tip tinder the names of “The New Morality” and “Situation Ethics.” I am sure that you have encountered both terms.

A Religious Leader Explains

Recently while watching television I heard one of these religious leaders explaining “Situation Ethics.” It was his contention that the only unbreakable law given by God is the law of love. He said that all other laws of Christ are relative and are to be interpreted according to the circumstances. This is why the doctrine is called situation ethics — each situation calls for a different response. The thing which governs is love. Under certain circumstances it may be “right,” in the view of the situation ethics proponent to commit fornication, to lie, to steal, even to rape. Just as long as the person is operating according to the Bible principle of love, he can violate any of the laws given in the Bible.

I flatly charge that this doctrine insults God, deifies man, and perverts the Bible concept of love. Let me explain.

Insults God

First, this doctrine insults God. It says that Gods word does not furnish us everything we need in morality. It says that going by the Bible is not always the best thing-that we must be willing to violate Gods word in the name of love.

What kind of God do you worship? Do you worship a God who makes mistakes? Do you believe in a God who cannot give perfect rules tinder which man must live? Well, I dont! I worship the God of the Bible-the maker of Heaven and earth, the creator of man, the One who knows everything about man and who has o the power to make perfect rules. I worship the God whose word is described in 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

The word of God can be depended upon in every situation, because the One who wrote it knows everything. He does not make mistakes. And when He wrote that “all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone” (Rev. 21:8), I understand that He does not want me to lie — even in the name of love. When He writes, “Flee fornication” (I Cor. 6:18), I understand that no matter how much I may love that girl, I must not take her to bed until we are married.

God is not a God of mistakes — but the doctrine of Situation Ethics makes Him a God of mistakes. Gods law is perfect. We had better not question it. We just need to obey it!

Deifies Man

Second, the doctrine of situation ethics deifies an. While it downgrades God, it elevates man to the level where lie is supposed to be able to see the final results of his actions. He would have to be able to see all the results of his actions, or else how could lie be capable of judging, even on the basis of love, what action is best tinder the circumstances?

Let me illustrate. In the television lecture the story was told of a German bishop who told a lie in order to save a criminal from being executed. After the lecture a panel discussed this incident and were agreed that the bishop did right, even though lying is against Gods law. Now I want to know: On what basis could the bishop, or the people on the panel, judge? They could only judge on the basis of the final result. If everyone began to lie in order to protect people who might be executed, what would be the result? And is it always best for a person who is a criminal to escape execution? Unless all these possibilities are taken into consideration, and the final result of ones actions are thoroughly known, one cannot take the law into his own hands and decide – whether on the basis of love or not!

Man has a bad tendency to think too highly of himself. The doctrine of situation ethics is a perfect example of it. God has made the rules, but man thinks be has the intelligence and knowledge and judgment to break them and do a better job than God can! That is real arrogance! It makes God fallible-and man infallible. Certainly this doctrine must stink in the nostrils of God.

Perverts the Bible Concept of Love

Third, the doctrine of situation ethics perverts the Bible concept of love. It assumes that you can love God while breaking His commands. But that is impossible! Jesus said in John 14:15, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” In John 15:14 He said, “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.” Bible love is fulfilled when we have a spirit of obedience-not rebellion; when we desire to do everything that Gods word commands. You cannot separate Bible love from obedience. A person can obey some commands without loving God, but you cannot love God without trying to keep all of His commands. Love without obedience is not from God.

God takes a different view of sin from what we do. What harm did Eve do when she ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? The only harm was that she disobeyed God. She thought that good would come of it-she would increase in knowledge and taste something that was good for food. But God had told her, “No.” The result was her punishment. No amount of reasoning will excuse us today when we break Gods laws. Sin is still the transgression of the law. (I John 3:4)

The situation ethics proponent says, in effect “Let us do evil that good may come.” He says: “Lie to protect the guilty man so he will not be executed.” But Paul took care of that argument in Romans 3:8. He says that the man who says, “Let us do evil that good may come” has a just damnation!

The Truth

What then is the truth? It is the opposite of what the situation ethics proponent says. God is infallible. He knows everything and has given us a perfect law which will guide us perfectly under every situation. Man is fallible. He cannot know as much as God knows and cannot know enough to decide matters of right and wrong. He must depend upon Gods law to teach him what is right. And the love of God means keeping His commands. I John 5:3 says, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.”

We need to cultivate a spirit of humility, submission and obedience to God. We must not allow ourselves to think too highly of ourselves. We must just obey God and trust that the results will be pleasing to Him.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 45, pp. 8-9
September 21, 1972