Truth Magazine

By Robert L. Love

“Raccoon” John Smith, a pioneer preacher in the 1800s was once asked by a denominational preacher, “If your doctrine be true, Mr. Smith, why has the sword so little power on this audience tonight?” “Because,” promptly replied Smith, “You teachers of human systems have so long hacked it against traditions, wrapped it about with your creeds and disciplines, and blunted it so against your anxious seats and mourning-benches, that sinners can feel neither edge nor point. “

The denominational preacher then asked, “I’d like to know the difference between your baptism and our mourningbench?” “Difference?” said Smith “one is from heaven – the other, from the saw-mill.”

On another occasion “Raccoon” John Smith was asked, “if the gospel is so very plain, as you say it is, why do you have to labor so hard to get the people to understand it?”

“I have often prepared ground in the wilderness for a turnip patch,” replied Smith, “And though I had the kindliest soil, and the best of seed, and the sowing was easy, I never got top or root till I first took my axe, and hoe, and briar knife, and went in and whacked and grubbed, and cleared away the ground. The Lord knows I do not esteem it hard work to preach the simple gospel to those who are prepared to receive it; but it is labor indeed to root out prejudice, and cut down systems, and clean away the sectarian trash that cumbers the minds and hearts of the people.”

Do we not need the same attitude as this great pioneer today in preaching and teaching? There is much being said today in many places concerning positive and negative preaching. It is popular to be positive and very unpopular to be negative. Preachers are often dismissed by a congregation because of a stand for the truth which is labeled as negative. One of most insidious inroads to error and compromise is a failure to rebuke false doctrine and teachers (2 Tim. 4:14).

In the book of 2 John we learn that we must not bid God’s blessing upon those who fail to teach the doctrine of Christ. To fail to preach against error (negative) is by silence to bid such God’s speed. Is this positive? Many seem to feel that opposition to false teaching demonstrates a lack of love. But God “hates every false way” (Psa. 119:104), and so must we. Jesus said, “The truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:32), and nothing else will do it. As we study and learn God’s teaching, we must also be able to identify what is not God’s teaching and we must have the courage to oppose it. Paul wrote about some who would “pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:7) and others who “by their smooth and fair speech beguile the hearts of the innocent” (Rom. 16:18). God’s people then were expected to identify and oppose false teaching; does he expect less of us today?

The Lord warns, “Believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they be of God, for many false prophets are gone out into the world” (I Jn. 4:1). If we are going to contend earnestly for the faith, we must know the teaching of the word of God, and measure every teaching we hear by what God says in his blessed word. And we must be willing to expose and oppose every false teaching in and out of the church by what God says. Acting out of love for God and man, we are told, “Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). The next verse then shows why: such false teachers will lead people away from Christ. If, through lack of courage or a perverted sense of love, we do not oppose the false teacher, we become partaker in his works (Ezek. 33:8-9; 2 Jn. 9-11). Opposition to the false teaching is designed to destroy its influence, minimize the damage done and enable us to establish the truth of Christ which sets men free.

It costs to “stand fast in the faith” (1 Cor. 16:13) and “contend for the faith” (Jude 3). But when a soldier fires at the enemy, he must expect some retaliation. Let us never suppose that when we oppose false teaching that Satan and his ministers (2 Cor. 11:13-15) will leave us alone! But “the faith” is worth living and dying for. Therefore, it is worth fighting for. Let us, then, ever study God’s word that we may know what “the faith” is, and what it is not. The idea is growing to “just look for the good in everyone and thus you won’t have time to be critical and if one is critical he is negative, weak and narrow-minded.” We should be careful for this is one of most effective ways to build a system of error and apostasy. One of the most effective ways I know to bid God speed to error is to criticize those who are faithfully preaching the gospel – a part of which is to rebuke error.

Let us recognize that the faith is “once for all delivered,” thus that anything differing from what the apostles gave is not from God. And once we have identified that faith, let us have the conviction and the courage to contend earnestly for it. I am afraid of one when asked where he stands wants “to straddle the fence.” This reminds us of the preacher who would preach on neither heaven or hell, and said it was just because he had friends in both places. God forbid!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 14, p. 431
July 21, 1988

By Paul Harvey

If I were the Prince of Darkness I would want to engulf the whole earth in darkness.

I’d have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree – thee!

And the old I would teach to pray – to say after me “Our father which art in Washington.”

Then I’d get organized.

So I would set about, however necessary, to take over the United States.

I would begin with a campaign of whispers.

With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.”

To the young I would whisper that “the Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that man created God, instead of the other way around. I would whisper that “what is bad is good and what is good is nerdish.”

In the ears of the young married I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be extreme in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct.

I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull, uninteresting.

I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa.

I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing, less work. Idle hands usually work for me.

I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could; I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction; I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.

If I were the Devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects but neglect to discipline emotions; let those run wild.

It would take a court order to get God evicted from the schoolhouse but with the assistance of some preachers I’d get that court order.

With flattery and promises of power I would get the courts to vote against God and in favor of pornography.

Thus I could evict God from the schoolhouse, then from the courthouse, then from the houses of Congress.

Then in his own churches I’d substitute psychology for religion and deify science. That way men would become smart enough to create super weapons but not wise enough to control them. If I were Satan I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle. I would embrace religion until it suffocates.

If I were the devil I’d take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.

I would demand “rights” for wrongdoers until the courts shackled lawmen. I’d let men hide behind a fig leaf of “privacy rights” while they misused their own children.

In other words, if I were Satan I’d just keep right on doing what he’s doing.

Paul Harvey is a syndicated, Chicago-based columnist and radio commentator.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 14, p. 427
July 21, 1988

By Steve Wolfgang

About a year ago, Alan Cloyd (editor of the Restoration Leadership Quarterly produced by the Vultee church in Nashville) made an announcement in that journal regarding a proposed discussion among brethren “divided over institutions and the cooperation question.” He reported at that time that a discussion was tentatively planned for March, 1988, in Louisville, KY. A few months later, that same journal announced that Herman Alexander of the Preston Road Center for Christian Education in Dallas, and myself, had agreed to make arrangements for brethren of both persuasions to discuss these issues. In the January 7, 1988 issue of the Guardian of Truth, I published an article “On Meeting With Institutional Brethren,” explaining my involvement in this endeavor, and seeking to Meeting inform brethren generally about this proposal. Obviously, March 1988 has come and gone and no meeting has yet occurred. Such a meeting is still in the active planning stage, but since several things have changed since the last published reports, I am sending this article explaining the current status of this endeavor to several journals of circulated among brethren. The editors of those journals may publish it or decline to do so as they see fit. This report will probably be more informative if my January 7 article referred to above is read first.

While several others have had positive input into the process of formalizing the details, they have left me free to make whatever arrangements seemed best. Thus, should someone not be pleased with the plans I describe below, I am the one to be criticized. Although there are things which perhaps could be better arranged, I have done the best I could. Some brethren from both sides of this issue have been outspoken and critical, often before they knew enough to be critical about, and sometimes before most of the arrangements had been made! I hasten to add that many more brethren of both persuasions, while expressing cautious optimism toward such a meeting, have been decidedly favorable toward such a discussion of issues which have divided. I want to say personally that I appreciate the willingness of brethren, whatever position they may hold on any issue, to come together and discuss our differences. I have been preaching more than twenty years, and this is the first time that anyone from “the other side” has reached out to ask, “Can we talk?”

Plans have now been made for three days of discussion in Nashville, Tennessee, on December 1, 2, & 3, 1988. In order to provide a “neutral setting,” the facilities of the Doubletree Hotel in downtown Nashville have been procured. This is a quality, business/convention – type hotel in downtown Nashville, and will be able to provide comfortable facilities for those who are coming from out-of-town. These dates will allow us to obtain a flat rate of $45 per room per night, with a maximum of 4 persons per room. (Thus, two people staying in the same room would pay $22.50 each per night; four persons per room would pay $11.25 each; all prices subject to tax, of course.) Occupying these rooms will also give us access to a large meeting room which can be arranged with theater style seating with a capacity of 480 seats which should be adequate for such a meeting.

Just as each one attending will bear his own expense, so each one comes representing only himself. This is not an attempt to formulate doctrine, issue some edict, or establish some “brotherhood position.” Although only a certain number of brethren (about 21 from each persuasion) will be actively participating as speakers, respondents, or moderators, “whosoever will may come” to attend these meetings, to listen to what is said, and to question those who speak. The topics to be discussed will include the following. I am listing also the brethren who have agreed as of this date to serve as moderators (M), speakers (S), and respondents (R). (See below for a description of responsibilities of each of these tasks.)

I am also affixing tentative times for each session (note the stress on the word tentative in the arrangement of these and other details).

Thursday, December 1, 2-5 p.m.

Suggested Topics: Are there “patterns” revealed in the Scriptures? etc. How Do We Establish/Ascertain Divine Authority? What is the role of Examples? of Inferences/Conclusions?

S: Clinton Hamilton

R: James W. Adams

M: Dale Smelser

Thursday, December 1, 7-10

“Overview and Current Situtation” – History; How Churches of Christ Separated and Grew Apart; The Current Situation; etc.

S. Steve Wolfgang

R: Marshall Patton

M: Colly Caldwell

Friday, December 2, 9-12 a.m.

“Collective (Church) Activity and Individual Activity” – What are the Biblical Criteria for Distinguishing the Two? etc.

S: Ferrell Jenkins

R: Harold Comer

M: Karl Diestelkamp

Friday, December 2, 2-5 p.m.

“What Is the Work of the Church?” – Discussion will likely include fellowship halls, church kitchen/recreational facilities, and larger issues of “social gospelism,” family life centers, etc.

S: Paul Earnhart

R: Robert Jackson

M: L.A. Stauffer

Friday, December 2, 7-10 p.m.

“What Relationship Should Institutions Sustain to Churches?” – Discussion including orphanages, colleges, etc.

S: Mike Willis

R: Larry Hafley

M: Dick Blackford

Saturday, December 3, 8-11 a.m.

“Cooperation of Churches” – Definition: What is Cooperation? How May Churches Cooperate? When and under what circumstances?

S: Ron Halbrook

R: Keith Sharp

M: Dan King

Saturday, December 3, 12-3 p.m.

“The Question of Fellowship” – What does the Bible mean by “fellowship”? What kind of unity can exist between separated brethren? On what basis?

S: Harry Pickup, Jr.

R: John Clark

M: Jamie Sloan

Two speakers, one from each persuasion, will prepare in advance and present “main speeches” on each given topic, approximately 30 minutes in length. The respondents will be free to reply as they see fit, each one speaking only for himself. These diresponses” will be allocated about 20 minutes. I realize that everyone will want more time than we can possibly allocate, but I believe that with care and precision, everyone can cover the main points of what has divided the churches over these issues.

Moderators will not only introduce speakers and respondents, but will fulfill an important function as a “questioner” of the speaker and respondent of the opposite persuasion. At some point (probably after the two main speeches and two responses), written questions will be collected from the audience. It will be the responsibility of the moderator/questioner’to select from the written questions submitted the dozen or so which best focus the issue under discussion. Several brethren of the institutional persuasion are at work assembling a slate of speakers, respondents, and moderators from that perspective, but due to various hindrances and circumstarics these have not been finalized at this date. Thus, I do not yet know who will be the speakers, respondents, and moderators from the other side, but felt it important to share what information I do have with brethren to forestall any further misinformation about the meeting. I plan to publish another report on the progress of these meetings as soon as-those names are available to me.

Some brethren have expressed misgivings about this meeting. Some may think there has been enough discussion of these topics in the past. Many would see further discussion of these issues as futile; others, as irrelevant. In many ways, I can understand such feelings. Perhaps further discussion of divisive issues will do nothing to change anything. But I cannot help but feel that dispassionate discourse among alienated Christians must be attempted whenever the opportunity exists. New generations have arisen on either side of these issues who know nothing whatsoever of why brethren have disagreed and divided over them. I do not know exactly what may result from such a meeting, but I am willing to put forth the effort necessary to attempt to talk to others, whether or not they may ultimately agree with my understanding. I am glad to learn that there are others of like mind.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 14, pp. 432-433
July 21, 1988

By Dennis C. Abernathy

The acute need in the world today is respect for the Bible as the Word of God. The ignorance of the Bible is both alarming and appalling. The ignorance of the Bible is seen in the spread of Oriental religions. All kinds of pseudoprophets are on the rise. But God has spoken unto us by his son, Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:1-3), and is not speaking by some guru or self-appointed latter-day “Messiah.”

The ignorance of the Bible is seen in all of the conflicting doctrines that are propagated in the name of the Lord and are believed by a gullible people who should be examining what they hear in light of Bible teaching (Acts 17:11).

Ignorance of the Bible is also seen today in the prevalence of sin. Adultery, homosexuality, drunkenness are rampant. What a disgrace, shame, and tragedy! Evidently people think they can live such lives with impunity, but not so (Gal. 6:7; Rom. 6:23).

I believe far too many people have the idea that they can do with the Bible what they please. It is really the Roman Catholic concept that the Bible is authoritative only because the church declares it to be so. In other words, the Bible is infallible only because the “infallible” Roman Catholic church claims that it is infallible. The claim is that the apostolic writings do not “assert their own inspiration” and were not inpired until the church declared them so in the fourth century A.D. Read the following from a Knights of Columbus ad back in 1955: “Yes, the Bible is truly a Catholic Book. They were members of the Catholic church who, under God’s inspiration, wrote the New Testament in it entirety. It is the Catholic church which treasured it and gave it to the world in its original and unaltered form. It is the infallible authority of the Catholic Church that always has been the only sure guarantee of its inspiration.” Again, hear John A. O’Brien, former President of Notre Dame Univerity: “If she (Catholic Church – DCA) had not declared the books composing the New Testament to be the inspired Word of God, we would not know it. The only authority which non-Catholics have for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the authority of the Catholic church. The church is not the child of the Bible, but its mother.”

Evidently this erroneous teaching (or better put, heresy) has been embraced by many non-Catholics as well. I’m sure you read a few years back about the National Council of Churches new translation (?) that attempts to eliminate what they call “male bias” in Scripture. This was produced by an eleven-member committee appointed by the NCC’s Division of Education and Ministry.

Much of the controversy revolves around such references to God as “Father (and Mother)”; the substitution of “Sovereign One” for “Lord”; and “the Human One” for “the Son of Man.” The committee members at the governing board meeting defended their translation as a document in which “the whole congregation is being addressed in its Scripture.”

But, back to our point. Committee member, Burton Throckmorton, Jr., professor of the New Testament at the Bangor (Maine) Theological Seminary, and a minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA), expressed the following concerning his understanding of the writtern Word of God. “The Scripture is the church’s book. It was written by the church (and) for the church.” He further said: “There’s no reason . . . that I can see why the church can’t add to its scripture — delete from its scripture. I think the church can do with its scripture what is wants to (do) with its scripture.”

There you have it my friend. The Bible is really not inspired at all! It simply says what the church wants it to say. Actually, according to this pernicious teaching, the church is far more important than is the Word of God.

But may I ask: “How do you prove the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church?” Would one use such Scriptures as Matthew 16:18,19 or John 20:23? You could not use the Scriptures because they are not infallible unless the church says they are. So hence, you could not prove an infallible church by using an “uninfallible” Scripture!

But really what Catholicism does is claim and declare the church to be more important than the Word of God. This is why you find so many practices in Catholicism which are not found in the Bible. For example, where is Bible authority for a “vicar of Christ on earth”? Where is Bible authority for “praying to Mary and/or saints”? Where is Bible authority for “the mass,” “the rosary,” a “special priesthood,” “celibacy”? All of these practices must of necessity come from the “living voice of the living church,” because they definitely do not come from the Bible! When people will accept religious practices unauthorized by the Bible, they obviously respect whatever sanctions these practices more than they respect the Bible.

In the days of the Judges “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 21:25). What is the difference in those people then and the Catholics and Burton Throckmorton, Jr. and a host of others now? They all simply do what they want to with God’s Word.

As long as men of this caliber fill the pulpits of churches, what more can be expected than a gross ignorance of the Bible? It is a clear case of the “blind leading the blind,” with the destiny of both being the “ditch.”

May we ever respect the Bible as God’s all-sufficient and final revelation to man (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3; Jude 3; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Pet. 4:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 14, p. 430
July 21, 1988