Truth Magazine

By Ken McDaniel

“And the Levites shall speak with a loud voice and say to all the men of Israel: `Cursed is the one who makes a carved or molded image, an abomination to the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and sets it up in secret.’ And all the people shall answer and say, `Amen!’ ‘Cursed is the one who treats his father or his mother with contempt.’ And all the people shall say, `Amen!” Cursed is the one who moves his neighbors landmark.’ And all the people shall say, `Amen!’…” (Deut. 27:14-26).

Amen! What does it mean? When should it be used? Who should say it?

This is a word that has been in use for thousands of years. It comes from the Hebrew language from which it was transliterated, first into the Greek language, and then into English. From its origin to today, its meaning is virtually the same.

Wilson defines its Hebrew usage as, “let it be granted, let it be done, and unalterably confirmed” (Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies).

Thayer defines it in its Greek usage as meaning primarily, “firm, metaphorically faithful.” He goes on to say that “it came to be used as an adverb by which something is asserted or confirmed: (a) At the beginning of a discourse, surely, or a truth, truly; so frequently in the discourses of Christ … `I solemnly declare unto you’ e.g. Mt. 5:18; Mk. 3:28; Lk. 4:24… (b) at the close of a sentence; so it is, so be it, may it be fulfilled …’ `It was a custom,’ he adds, `which passed over from the synagogues into the Christian assemblies, that when he who had read or discoursed had offered up a solemn prayer to God, the others in attendance responded Amen, and thus made the substance of what as uttered their own …”‘ (Thayer Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament).

The American Heritage Dictionary defines its English usage as, “Used at the end of a prayer or statement to ex-press assent or approval.” Thus Amen is used today as it was in times past as an affirmation of what has been prayed or stated, not simply to say, this is the end of the prayer. So when we say Amen to a prayer or statement, whether uttered by ourselves or someone else, we are saying, “This is true, or may it come to pass, may it be fulfilled.”

As the definition of Amen clearly evidences, proper use of the word is not limited to the closing of prayers. Since it is used to indicate both agreement and desire, it may be appropriately uttered when a statement is made that is true and that we strongly agree with or that we desire to come to pass (see 1 Kings 1:32-37; 1 Chr.16:36; Neh. 5:13 and others). Therefore, as long as all things are decent and in order, and the one or ones voicing agreement are sincere, Amen may be fittingly spoken during a sermon, a Bible study, close of a prayer, or at anytime.

The only ones who should utter amen, though, are those who wholeheartedly agree with what has been said, or who truly desire the same to come to pass. As Thayer pointed out, when one says Amen, he makes the substance of what has been said his own. For this reason one should not amen a prayer if he has not heard all that was spoken. How does he know for sure if he agrees with or desires it? Paul taught this principle in 1 Corinthians 14:16: “Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uniformed say `Amen’ at your giving of thanks, since he does not under-stand what you said?”

If, on the other hand, one does agree, he should not be ashamed or embarrassed to say amen. In Deuteronomy 27, God instructed the Israelites to do so. Consequently they did not hesitate. They made it their practice as did the early disciples.

Who then among us will say, “Amen!” When you strongly agree with what a teacher or preacher has said, will you say “Amen”? When you have heard all that was said in a prayer, and it is your desire, will you say, “Amen”? If you are sincere, don’t be afraid to voice your agreement.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 18, p. 11
September 19, 1996

By Larry Ray Hafley

__ living for the Lord is difficult, try dying without him.

 a church without elders is bad, try worshiping with unqualified ones.

 your children’s needs, noise, and scattered toys are driving you crazy, wait until they are grown and gone and your house is silent  maddeningly silent.

 your preacher preaches too long, perhaps your sins provide him with too much material.

 you are the only one whose work is unnoticed and unappreciated, talk to a diligent deacon in the local church.

 you will cease serving God because life is unfair, what will you say to Joseph, Jesus, Job, and Paul at the Judgment?

__ you have time to sin, your watch has stopped.

__ a clenched fist is bad, a closed, clenched heart is worse.

__ kindness is its own reward, reward yourself.

__ you have your pride to uphold, you probably need to let it down.

 you can have respect by demanding it, you will never command any.

__ living like a fool is cool, you are not so hot.

__ sin is like magic, you are right  it turns sheep into goats.

 a spoiled, crying baby is hard to please, wait until you have to deal with immature, adult versions.

 you can stand tall by cutting others down, you will not have a leg to stand on.

 you are not receiving everything you deserve, be thankful.

 living alone is the worst fate in the world, you need to talk to someone who is trapped in a bad marriage.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 18, p. 24
September 19, 1996

By Donnie V. Rader

The week of June 19-20, 22-23, 1995 Gene Frost and John Welch debated the question of whether the inner being of Jesus was changed when he came to earth. The first two nights Gene Frost affirmed, “Resolved: The Scriptures teach that the inner being of Jesus, His Spirit, was unchanged when He came to earth.” The last two nights John Welch affirmed, “Resolved: The Scriptures teach that when Jesus came to earth His spirit was changed.”

That debate is now in book form. The value of having the debate in book form is that the material is easier to study. It is easier to follow each speaker’s argument. With the book the reader can read and reread the more involved points and flip back to things referred to earlier in the de-bate. I have the videos of the debate and have watched them. For me, I got a clearer picture of the points being made by reading the book.

There are times the one who is studying a debate will want to go back to a previous speech to see what the disputant is responding to. That is much easier with a book than with a video or audio tape. Additionally, some of the charts, that are not as clear on a tape, can be examined closely in the book.

Reading a debate book allows the reader to look at the arguments being made rather than being impressed or “turned off’ by the personality and manner of either speaker.

In the “Foreword” Gene states that John initially endorsed the publishing of the debate. However, after much delay John complained that he had been insulted in the negotiations and therefore would not give his “permission” to have the debate transcribed. John copyrighted his charts and forbade that they be published in the transcript. Gene stated, “We will honor his copyright of his charts. They are not essential to following the debate as one reads it. The text of his charts are in the text of his speeches.” (Fore-word).

If any one wants a copy of John’s charts they are avail-able from him on his CD-ROM: “The Humanity of Jesus.”

This short article cannot give a complete analysis or summary of the debate. However, a few observations about the content of the book is in order.

Gene Frost contended that the inner being (the eternal spirit identified as God) of Jesus was not changed or altered when he came to earth. He argued that “any characteristic that could be divested would be an acquired characteristic, and not an intrinsic characteristic. There-fore, there is no part of the very nature of God that can be surrendered and God still be the God of heaven. All that make the being or nature of God  all the characteristics that make God `God’  is unchangeable” (First speech, p. 2). Three passages were used as major arguments: Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 1:12, and Hebrews 13:8.

John Welch argued that if Jesus limited himself in one spiritual attribute, that constitutes the change that Frost’s proposition denied. John said, “Anytime we can find in-sight, feeling, and will, we have identified the spirit, the inner being of man or God” (First speech, p. 8). Frost pointed out that they were debating the “inner being.” Frost said, “the proposition is that Jesus was unchanged in this inner being. We’re not talking about the emotions, the insight, the will. We’re talking about the being… there’s a difference between what the spirit possesses, the power, etc., and the being” (Second speech, p. 13).

Welch made four major arguments (one each night). In fact, Welch tried to be in the affirmative every night. Mon-day: the knowledge of Jesus. Welch contended that if Jesus learned anything that suggests a change in his spirit. Frost responded by citing that Jesus had unlimited knowledge (p. 33-34). He cited passages showing that Jesus knew such things as where he came from, what was in heaven, why he came to earth, the thoughts of others, how he would die, when he would die, who would betray him, when all he came to do was finished and where he was going.

Tuesday: the temptation of Jesus. Welch contented, “If he was tempted, his spirit had to be changed” (p. 40).

Thursday: the suffering of Jesus. Welch said, “If, ladies and gentlemen, he was troubled in spirit, it was a change in his spirit because, friends, God is not troubled” (p. 57).

Friday: The death of Jesus. Welch said, “Death constituted a change in the soul of Jesus and it constitutes a change from several standpoints” (p. 80). The most shocking part of the debate was when John argued that the spirit of Jesus died. Read the following quote carefully.

God before coming to this earth, Jesus, changed. He was spirit before coming to this earth. Now then, we want to know tonight. Did the Son of God die for us? Quite simple. Or was it just a body that died. You know all of the heresies that are associated with that simple question. You know all the people who have taught that the spirit never died and never was there, that it left right before death or right after death, that it was only a body that died on the cross. You know those heresies. We want to know (p. 80).

As you read the debate you will notice that John Welch spent a lot of time quoting from brethren. His stated that the reason for that was, “We’re trying to show you that what we’re teaching you has been taught and believed in the churches of Christ for a long time. It is not new” (p. 80).

In the debate book you will find a good thorough discussion of the nature of God which gets at the heart of the issue (cf. pp. 71-78).

The last night of the debate Gene Frost summarized the difference:

When this controversy began the issue was over whether Jesus divested or was divested of his divine qualities and powers. John Welch, from the beginning, contended that Jesus surrendered, divested, had given up his divine powers and qualities. And I, from the beginning, contended that Jesus retained his deity (Col. 2:9), “in him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily” and only limited the powers as they would prevent his role as a servant (p. 85).

You will find reading the book interesting. I enjoyed reading the book much more than I did watching the videos.

The book is a 100 page 8’h x 11 (double column) book. It is spiral bound. It sells for $6.50 (postage and handling included). Order from Gene Frost, 712 Victoria Place, Louisville, KY 40207. If you have an interest in this issue that has disturbed brethren for the past several years, you will want to buy this book.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 18, p. 23-24
September 19, 1996

By Aude McKee

There is a saying I have heard all my life in Indiana. Two people are about alike so you “shake them up and see which one will fall out first.” So we are ready to put Waylon Jennings and Rubel Shelly (preacher for one of the churches of Christ in Nashville) in the same sack. On June 27, 1996, in the Nashville Tennessean, Jennings was quoted as saying, “Of all the religions I have run into, the Church of Christ has probably got it wronger than anybody. They’re self-righteous, narrow-minded, and truly believe they’re the only ones going to Heaven. If you don’t believe the way we do, they say, you’re going straight to hellfire and damnation. With a side order of brimstone.”

Then on June 28, in the Nashville Tennessean, Rubel Shelly replied to Jennings. According to “Brad About You,” Shelly “acknowledges the church in days past might have fit such a description. He hopes though, the church has grown beyond the views that only church of Christ parishioners are true Christians.” Shelly then went on to say, “Thanks for the quote. It will serve me well in trying to teach against what I inherited and have had to come to terms with.”

I suspect there is a major difference in where Jennings and Shelly are coming from. Jennings’ problem is probably ignorance of what the New Testament teaches, and Shelly’s problem is lack of respect for divine authority. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build My church.” He used the singular number when he spoke of the church. In Ephesians 4:4, we learn that there is “one body,” and in the same book (1:22-23) we are told that the body is the church. You don’t have to be an Einstein to figure out that Jesus only has one church!

In 1 Corinthians 12:13, Paul said, “we are all baptized into one body.” That baptism must be preceded, of course, by sincere faith in Jesus Christ (John 8:24), a public confession of that faith (Matt. 10:32, Acts 8:35-39), and repentance of past sins (Acts 2:38). When the people on Pentecost (Acts 2), obeyed the teaching they heard from the apostle Peter, what church did they become members of? The Catholic Church did not see the light of day until about the beginning of the seventh century, and Protestant denominations were unheard of before about the 16th century, so to suggest that the people on Pentecost became either Catholics or Protestants would be ridiculous!

Waylon Jennings needs to study and learn what the New Testament teaches. Rubel Shelly needs to repent and come back to the convictions he once entertained.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 18, p. 14
September 19, 1996