Truth Magazine

By Earl Fly

I understand that the Firm Foundation editorial of August 29, 1961 says that Gospel Press does not solicit funds from churches and that those who had written and spoken about it “did not know what they were talking about relative to the activities of Gospel Press.”

Inasmuch as I was one of those who talked and wrote about its activities, I publish the following to set the record straight. I have the two original letters from Gospel Press, Inc., signed by Vice-President Paul Hunton.

When the Belmont Heights church in Tampa, Florida, received a letter from Gospel Press signed by Paul Hunton, postmarked Sept. 26, 1960, asking for a contribution from the church to Gospel Press, the brethren considered it in a business meeting conducted October 3, 1960. They instructed me to write the following letter, which was read and approved in a special meeting October 5, 1960.

“Mr. Paul Hunton 
Gospel Press, Inc. 
3813 Hillsboro Road 
Nashville 12, Tennessee

Dear brother Hunton:

“The Belmont Heights church received your letter postmarked Sept. 26, 1960, in which you request the fifth Sunday contribution in October for Gospel Press. The letter was read and discussed Monday night, October 3, in the regular business meeting of the church and the decision was made that I be authorized to write this letter to you, which was read and approved in a special called business meeting, Wednesday night, October 5.

“Some of the brethren here, Wendel Strickland, John Langford, Gerstle Slatton and others, remembered favorably your preaching in this area, and an interest was expressed to hear what you might have to say further about some questions regarding Gospel Press.

“The brethren here have always rejected and opposed church contributions to the Missionary Society to enable it to preach the gospel on the grounds that there is no Bible authority for it, that the church is sufficient to preach the gospel without contributing to and consequently working through human organizations. We believe that Gospel Press, with its Board and Chairman, President, Vice” President, is an exact parallel with this missionary society of yesteryear, which alienated brethren, divided churches, and resulted in a new denomination being born, namely, the Christian Church. For this reason the decision was made not to support Gospel Press in any way.

“We understand that Gospel Press publicly stated in its beginning that it would not solicit or accept church contributions. The brethren are interested to know the grounds for the change. It is also requested that you give Bible authority for church contributions to Gospel Press.

“The brethren here sincerely request your reply to these matters, which will be read to the brethren for consideration in a called business meeting.

Yours sincerely,

BELMONT HEIGHTS CHURCH OF CHRIST, By Earl Fly, Evangelist.”

The following letter, dated October 18, 1960, was signed and sent by Paul Hunton, via air-mail, to the Belmont Heights Church.

“Dear Brethren:

“When we mailed out the letter requesting contributions from the churches we assumed that everyone had read of the revised position of the Board of Directors of the Gospel Press. Contributions are now solicited from churches if the check is specifically for the advertising, tracts to be mailed out, or answering the inquiries. We never have and we do not now solicit funds from churches for salaries or other necessary expenses involved. These expenses are paid by individual contributions. It has been stated in our gospel papers that all contributions raised east of the Mississippi will be used only for the ads, tracts and answering inquiries. I should have stated this again in my letter to you.

“I hope this answers your questions and you will encourage the church to send a sizable contribution in October.

Yours very truly,

(signed) Paul Hunton,

Vice President.”

The reader will please notice that the second letter reaffirmed the intentions of the first to solicit contributions from churches, and I was personally asked to encourage the church to “send a sizable contribution in October.” Surely the Vice-President knew the policy of Gospel Press and the position of its board. If they have now ceased their solicitations for church contributions they owe us an explanation. What are their reasons for the newly revised position to not solicit churches, if this be their latest position when this article is published?

The indisputable facts in this article are published to keep the record straight.

Truth Magazine VI: 2, pp. 1, 24
November 1961

By Luther G. Roberts

The scriptures furnish us completely unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet.1: 3; 1 Pet.4: 11). The organization of the church is in local churches, not in the church in the universal sense of the term. Each church is independent of every other one with its own elders and deacons and members (Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; I Pet. 5: 1-2). There is no organization larger and none smaller than the local church in the New Testament.

There is no organization of churches found in the New Testament. Elders have jurisdiction only over the flock of which they are members. “Take heed to the flock over which the Holy Spirit made you bishops” (Acts 20:28). “Tend the flock of God which is among you” (I Pet. 5:2).

There is a difference between organization and method. The divine church and human organizations both use methods. Note the following parallel:

Matt.28: 19, Teach. How? Organization– Local church? (1 Tim. 3:15), or Missionary Society?

I Tim.5: 16, Relieve. How? Organization –Local church? (Acts 6:1-6), or Benevolent Society?

The Issue, Then And Now

The issue was: Could churches of Christ build and support human institutions known as Missionary Societies through which churches preached the gospel?

The issue today is: Can churches of Christ build and support benevolent societies through which the churches can do their benevolent work? And; Can churches of Christ pool their funds in one local church (a centralized agency) through which to do their work of evangelism? Which shall it be: each church working independently of every other church under its own elders, or the churches pooling their resources in one central agency for that centralized agency to oversee and do the work? (Eph.3: 20-21).

The primary work of the church is spiritual, saving souls from sin (I Tim. 3:14-15; Eph. 3: 8- 11). This obligation rests on no other organized body of people on earth except the local church. Individuals can and should teach and preach the word, but no other organization is revealed in the New Testament to do this work except the local church or congregation (Phil. 1:1; 1:5; 4: 14-18). Congregations may cooperate in preaching the gospel, but each congregation acts concurrently and independently in their work according to the New Testament. “Churches may cooperate but each acts independently.” “Each church (is) God’s fully equipped organization for preaching the gospel.”

“In New Testament no two churches operated under ONE head.” The above three statements are quoted from H. Leo Boles, Sermon Outlines, 28).

Churches cooperated in supporting Paul in preaching the gospel in Corinth (2 Cor.11: 8-9). Each church sent directly to Paul as Philippi did (Phil. 4: 15-18). This is the way it should be done today. After stating that Philippi sent to Paul in Thessalonica, Brother Guy N. Woods said, “They also aided him later in Corinth. (2 Cor. 11:9).” He also said, “Here, too, we see the simple manner in which the church in Philippi joined with Paul in the work of preaching the gospel. There was no ‘missionary society’ in evidence, and none was needed; the brethren simply raised the money and sent it directly to Paul. This is the way it should be done today.” (Teacher’s Annual Lesson Commentary, 1946, page 341). If all the churches were doing it this way today, 1961, there would be no division over this matter as there is.

No church sent its money through another church to preach the gospel through that church according to the New Testament. No church did its own work through another church, or another body of any kind, in the preaching of the gospel so far as the New Testament reveals. And we should be guided by what is revealed in the New Testament and not by what it does not reveal. The late brother H. Leo Boles stated in his treatise on the Eldership that there was no organization of churches in the New Testament.

The church also edifies or builds itself up in the faith (Eph. 4:11-16). The church, the local church, does this work of edification under its own elders and not by or through an outside organization (larger than the congregation), nor by an organization within the organization but smaller than the congregation. An organized Sunday School organization with its own officers within the congregation is an organization smaller than the congregation and is unauthorized. The church studying the Bible under its own elders in the congregation functioning as an organization, and it is the only organization authorized in the New Testament to do this work of edification of the church (Rom. 12:4-7; I Cor. 12:12-27).

How may the church do the benevolent work it is obligated to do? Should it be done by the congregation or by another organization outside the congregation? Those who believe in the all-sufficiency of the church contend that the church should do its own benevolent work under the God ordained organization, the local church or the congregation. The Jerusalem church took care of her own needy with no outside organization whatsoever (Acts 2:45; 4:32-37; 6:1-6). The distribution of the necessities was done by the local church through its members selected to do this work according to Acts 6: 1-6. The distribution was made on the basis of need and it was done by the church, not by some outside organization. On this point brother Woods said, “The church is the only organization authorized to discharge the responsibilities of the Lord’s people” (Ibid., page 338).

When churches were unable to do their own work of benevolence, another church sent money (relief) to help them care for their own needy (Acts 11:27-30). This contribution was sent by the disciples at Antioch to brethren in Judaea. It was sent to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. Sent to what elders? Elders where the brethren dwelt, and that was in Judaea. There were churches in Judaea (Gal. 1:22; I Thess. 2:14).

Some fourteen years later the churches of Macedonia, Achaia and Galatia sent relief to needy saints in Jerusalem. Read these passages carefully: I Cor. 16:1-4; Rom. 15:25-31; 2 Cor. 8 and 9. There was no organization except the local church, and the churches did not send through another church. And when the church in Jerusalem received the money, it was used for the relief of the needy saints in Jerusalem. They did not send it on to some other place. The relief was sent directly, not through another organization, not to another organization, nor through another church even. The benevolent work of the church is not to be done through human benevolent societies or organizations any more than the evangelistic work of the church is to be done through some missionary society. The church has no New Testament authority to contribute to any organization through which to do its work (2 John 9). “There is no place for charitable organizations in the work of the New Testament church. It is the only charitable organization that the Lord authorizes or that is needed to do the work the Lord expects his people today to do” (1946– Guy N. Woods, Ibid., page 340f).

Brother Woods showed in the book Teacher’s Annual Lesson Commentary for 1946 that each church sent its funds by its own messenger to the elders of the church, and we quote him, “The order to give, like that to the Galatian churches, was delivered by Paul, but he did not wish to be made custodian of the offering, lest some one should attribute to him unworthy motives in the raising of it: ‘And when I arrive whomsoever ye shall appoint, them will I send with letters to carry your bounty unto Jerusalem: and if it be meet for me to go also, they shall go with me.’ Thus each church was directed to name its own messenger to carry the offering to the poor saints in Jerusalem” (Ibid., page 351). Brother Woods was eminently right in this statement and proves it by the quotation of I Cor. 16:3. What the church at Corinth did in this matter the other churches did also, just as the church at Troas partook of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week the other churches did also. Brother Woods also said, with reference to this contribution, “It should be noted that there was no elaborate organization for the discharge of these charitable functions. The contributions were sent directly to the elders by the churches who raised the offering.” (Ibid., page 338). Of course, this being true, and it is, the contributions were not sent through some centralized agency, elders or otherwise.

However, at a later date, brother Woods felt called upon for some reason to write upon this same matter and strangely enough, he did not write as he did in the above publication. In discussing this same contribution in the Gospel Advocate, November 18, 1954, page 911, he says this: “Even more to the point are the following pertinent facts: (1) Brethren (plural) were selected by the churches (plural) to gather funds for the poor of Jerusalem. (Rom.15: 26; 2 Cor.8: 18-19, 22-23). These brethren were ‘chosen of the churches’ and are described as ‘messengers of the churches.”‘

Then, brother Woods asked a few questions about this contribution in the same article in the Advocate:

“(1) What did this group of men constitute who wers thus selected?” . . . “(3) Did this group chosen in the foregoing manner constitute an organization? ” (Gospel Advocate, Nov. 18, 1954, page 911). These messengers did not constitute an organization according to brother Woods in 1946. He said then: “We point out that the contribution here alluded to was raised wholly without the high pressure organization methods characteristic of today. There was no organization at all; (emphasis mine–LGR) the churches, in their own capacity, raised the funds, and they were gathered by the brethren specially appointed for the purpose” (Annual Lesson Commentary, 1946, page 340). Brother Woods asked another question in the same article in the Advocate in 1954, “It is alleged that when Paul arrived in Jerusalem with these funds that he gave them to the elders to disburse? If yes, where is the proof?” Why, the proof is brother Guy N. Woods of 1946. Here it is: “Concerning this contribution, see I Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8:1, and 9:2). For another such contribution for the poor of Jerusalem, see Acts 11:27-30. It should be noted that there was no elaborate organization for the discharge of these charitable functions. The contributions were sent directly to the elders by the churches who raised the offering. This is the New Testament method of functioning. We should be highly suspicious of any scheme that requires the setting up of an organization independent of the church in order to accomplish it work.” (Annual Lesson Commentary, -1946, page 338). So, brother Woods in 1946 answered his questions asked in 1954. (Emphasis in above quotation mine–LGR.)

The church can make whatever provisions necessary to support, care for, its own needy, but there is no scriptural authority for it to organize another organization for this purpose. No church with New Testament sanction can become a brotherhood agency to care for the needy of all or of many churches, for there is no such authority in the New Testament. Why cannot the church do its work through a human organization or through the elders of a local church as a brotherhood agency? There is no command for such in the New Testament; there is no example of such in the New Testament; and there is no necessary inference for it there, just as there is none for instrumental music in worship. As I understand it, members of the churches of Christ claim to be guided by the New Testament in matters of faith and practice.

(The above article was originally printed in “Speaking As The Oracles of God”, a new paper edited by Brother Roberts in Oregon.)

Truth Magazine, VI: 1 pp. 22-24
October 1961

By Luther Blackmon

The Latter Day Saints (more commonly known as Mormons) are striving with a zeal that is commendable to further their cause. Having lived in the west where they are stronger and their influence more pronounced I feel that it will be profitable to the readers of Truth Magazine to know something of their system of error.

Their preachers or “elders” go, in pairs, from house to house seeking opportunity to teach their doctrine. I find no fault with this. It is the “what” and not the “how” of their teaching that I wish to notice. “Mormonism” is a system of infidelity. I realize that this is a strong statement, but I am not excited nor in a fit of temper, and before you decide that I am altogether wrong I bid you hear me through.

If these preachers have called on you, they doubtless gave you the impression that they believe the Bible to be the Word of God. This is only partly true. If you have a copy of their articles of faith which they usually hand to those on whom they call, you will observe that one of their articles reads about like this: “We believe that the Bible is the Word of God WHERE CORRECTLY TRANSLATED. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God.” The Bible is the Word of God conditionally. The Book of Mormon is the Word of God unconditionally, without qualification. Just to give you an idea of the attitude Latter Day Saints have toward the Bible I submit a quotation from Orsen Pratt, one of their apostles. They have living apostles you know. When one of the twelve dies he is replaced by another. Note the quotation: “Verses and even whole chapters have been added by unknown persons, and even we do not know the authors of some whole books; and we are not certain that all those which we do know were written by inspiration. Add all this imperfection to the uncertainty of the translation and who, in his right mind, could, for one moment, suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide. Who knows that even one verse of the whole Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original.” Orsen Pratt’s Works, page 218. Remember that this was written by an “apostle.” This is what they really think of the Bible. Don’t argue the Bible with a Mormon. He doesn’t believe the Bible. Make him defend his prophet Joseph Smith’ and Smith’s inspired scriptures, namely, The “Book of Mormon,” “Doctrine and Covenants,” and the “Pearl of Great Price.” Joseph Smith claimed that an angel appeared to him and told him where some plates were hidden upon which was written a revelation which he (Joseph) should translate. The translation is the “Book of Mormon.” As to the translation of the Book of Mormon I want to submit an interesting correspondence between my friend Geo. B. Curtis (now deceased) and Mr. Joseph Fielding Smith, a high ranking Mormon of Salt Lake City. This article from Brother Curtis is taken from “The Gospel Pilot” May 11, 1944. Read it.

THE BOOK OF MORMON AND
ITS WITNESSES

by Geo. B. Curtis

Mormonism must stand or fall by the Book of Mormon. The claimants for Mormonism say that an angel Moroni, presented a set of gold plates to Joseph Smith upon which were characters in reformed Egyptian. By the aid of two transparent stones, the Urim and the Thurnmin, Smith claimed to have translated the Egyptian characters into English. The three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris, testified that “an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates.” It has always been a matter of mystery to me why the angel brought the plates down from heaven to show them while, according to Smith, these same plates were already in his possession with stern commands from the Lord to guard them carefully or “I should be cut off.” How did the angel manage to bring them from heaven while they were in New York is a matter I’d like for some well informed Mormon to make clear to me.

Just how these plates figured in the translation of the Book of Mormon is another matter that the highest ranking Mormons of today cannot explain and continue to support their witnesses. David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses, has this to say about the translation of the Book of Mormon: “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English.” (Whitmer’s Address to All Believers. P. 12.) Let’s get the picture: (1) Joseph’s head in the hat, (2) All light excluded, (3) The seer stone in the hat, (4) The plates were not in the hat, ( 5 ) The plates could not have possibly been in sight of Smith, (6) The characters appeared upon what resembled parchment, ( 7 ) Hence, the Book of Mormon was not translated from the plates at all, but from “a piece of something resembling parchment.”

I presented this problem to the Mormon church at Salt Lake City a few weeks ago The answer coming from the “Office of Church History” is amusing in the extreme. But I shall let our correspondence tell the story. Letter No. 1:

“Box 421, Winslow, Arizona, September 13, 1943,

Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints.

Salt Lake City, Utah.

Gentlemen: I understand that the Book of Mormon was translated in part from the plates found by Joseph Smith and in part by the use of a stone in the hands of Smith. Will you please inform me just where the translation from the plates ended and the translation with the stone began? I shall appreciate this information very much. Sincerely.”

I received the following reply.

“Dear Sir: Answering your question in relation to the translation of the Book of Mormon, wherein you ask which part of the plates was translated by the stone in the hands of Joseph Smith, and which part from the plates, I will say that I think you have become somewhat confused. The entire book was translated from the plates, and the information from Joseph Smith is that he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, through the use of the Urim and Thummin. Very sincerely, Joseph Fielding Smith.”

I wrote to the headquarters of the Utah church again under date of February 4, 1944 as follows.

“Church of Latter Day Saints,

Salt Lake City, Utah.

Gentlemen: Some weeks ago I wrote asking relative to the part of the Book of Mormon actually translated from the plates discovered by Joseph Smith. I received the answer that all the Book of Mormon was thus translated. Some few days ago I came into possession of Whitmer’s Address to All Believers. (1887) On page 12 of this booklet from one of the three witnesses I copy this statement: “I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was the principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation woul appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift of God, and not by any power of man.” (Whitmer’s Address, 18S7, P. 12.)

If the above is true just how did the plates figure in any way in the translation? Was not Smith entirely cut off from the plates with his head in the hat and all light excluded? Does the translation in any way depend upon the plates? If so, how? Was the stone Smith used in the hat the Urim and Thummin? Were they not stones, instead of stone? Do Mormons generally accept Whitmer’s story as given above? If not, how do they credit his testimony as to the verity of the Book of Mormon? Yours in curiosity, Geo. B. Curtis.”

I received under date of February 7, 1944 the following reply:

“Dear Sir: In answer to your inquiry regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon, all I have to say is to repeat what was said before. The only authentic information we have regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon comes from Joseph Smith himself, and that is that he translated the plates through the Urim and Thummim and by the Gift of God. I call your attention to the fact that David Whitmer was never present during the time of the translation.

I do not accept his story regarding how it was done. I do accept fully his story that the angel appeared to him and his testimony as a witness of the Book of Mormon is verily true. You make the most of it. Very sincerely, Joseph Fielding Smith.”

I answered under date of February 9, 1944 thus:

“Dear Mr. Smith. Thanks for the information contained in your letter received today. There are some things, however, upon which I wish further information. You state that, ‘I call your attention to the fact that David Whitmer was never present during the time of the translation.’ Would you mind, Mr. Smith, giving me your authority for such a statement? Mr. Whitmer differs from you on that matter. Hear him: “I testify to the world that I am an eye witness to the translation of the greater part of the Book of Mormon. Part of it was translated in my father’s house in Fayette, Seneca County, N. Y. Farther on I give a description of the manner in which the book was translated.” (Whitmer’s Address, Page 11.)

Now let’s see what Mr. Whitmer has to say concerning the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. “Joseph would put the seer stone into the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing . . . Thus the book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (Whitmer’s Address, Page 12.)

Again you say, “1: do fully accept his story that the angel appeared to him and his testimony as a witness of the Book of Mormon is verily true.” Mr. Smith, why accept his testimony in the one point and reject an equally plain statement on the other?

Please do not think me over inquisitive in this matter. I want to know, I am not a Mormon, but I do not want to form any conclusion that is ungrounded. I think you will agree that here is a matter that needs reconciling. Curiously yours.”

Under date of February 15 I received the following:

“Dear Sir: Answering your question I may say, that there is no mistake and discrepancy needing attention. Very sincerely, Joseph Fielding Smith.”

My reply: (February 18, 1944.)

“Dear Mr. Smith: Your one sentence communication received this morning and appreciated. You state, “There is no mistake and no discrepancy needing attention.” Remember Mr. Smith, your claim to have the truth on the side of Mormonism. The complete fabric of Mormonism must stand or fall with the “Book of Mormon.” To that you will readily agree. Here is the situation: David Whitmer says that Smith placed his head in a hat in which there was a stone; the hat was drawn closely about his face so as to exclude all light; a piece resembling parchment would appear on the stone with the characters and their English translation beneath; the gold plates not in use at all.

Joseph Fielding Smith says that he believes the testimony of Mr. Whitmer when he testifies that the angel of the Lord displayed to him, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris the plates, but that Mr. Whitmer’s testimony is false when he says that Joseph Smith used a hat and a stone, not stones, in translating the Book of Mormon. Mr. Joseph Fielding Smith says that Mr. Whitmer “was never present during the translation.” Mr. Whitmer says, “I testify to the world that I am an eye witness to the translation of the greater part of the Book of Mormon.” (Whitmer’s Address, Page 11.) I think, Mr. Smith, that you will agree that there is a discrepancy between you and one of your “star witnesses.” Will you kindly favor a poor “Gentile” with a better explanation than you have hitherto given. Again, curiously, Geo. B. Curtis.”

And here the matter of the head, the hat, the stone, the plates, the parchment, the Urim and Thummin rests until Mr. Smith or some other Mormon clears the matter. Could any sane man accept such a chain of evidence?

Truth Magazine, VI: 1 pp.16-19
October 1961

By Del Bassett

Recently in the evening edition of a newspaper, Dr. Howar Canon in the Episcopal Church, wrote under the heading, “Days of All Faiths.” He set forth the teaching that St. Joachim was the “father of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” and that “he and his wife, St. Anne, had been married 20 years when their prayers for a child were answered.” He stated that “Joachim must have been well-to-do, though his business or profession is not known.” The writer spoke graphically of Mary learning by miracles of the moment when her father would die, and of her sending angels to help him through his last agony. And, he said, “It was through these angels that the old man learned in his final moments that his daughter was to be the mother of the Messiah.”

Nowhere in the Bible would you get the idea that Mary had left her home before she was espoused to Joseph. When Joseph was reminded to put her away, surely her own father would have learned of an expected arrival without angels having to be sent back home by the espoused daughter. This whole article never gets close to the scriptures except to cross them! Where would one find in God’s record that Mary was ever given power to summon angels and to send them forth to do her bidding? And, remember that all this was before Jesus was born!

Nowhere does God tell us who was the mother of Mary, nor did He reveal whether or not the couple prayed for a child for 20 years. This type of imaginative indulgence satisfies only those who care not for what God has said, but love traditional legends and old wives’ tales.

It seems utterly fantastic that a reputed scholar, a Canon in the Episcopal Church (which, I assume, means a man of great influence), would engage in such mythology. But this Canon gave out a thunderous reference as proof–himself, and not one time d id he refer to any message from the word of God. To me, it seems the canon went off without being properly loaded! God declared, “The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell it as a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord” (Jer. 23: 28). Now, if this Canon had “roared” after first declaring that he dreamed the whole thing up, we might overlook his big boom, but he sets it forth as gospel truth. And when he was questioned as to the article, he gave out with the cold assestion that the Bible surely doesn’t contain all the truth, that we must have legends and traditions to further instruct us. Therefore, I assume this is the basis upon which other “Canons and Priests” set forth the doctrines of their church. While multitudes are being blindly let by these self-styled religious leaders, the Bible lies closed on the pulpit–the voice of the Lord has been stilled.

How deceitfully and successfully the Devil has lulled many good people into a deep sleep of self-righteousness. When someone dares to suggest there will actually be good people in hell, the world rebels at the very thought, usually regarding such a person as either ignorant or a radical. I will make this statement though, at the risk of being considered either or both. Merely being a religious man of influence does not make one infallible, nor does it assure him of going to heaven.

A good example of a religious person who was lost is seen in the case of Cornelius, as recorded in Acts 10. In Acts 10:2, we read several characteristics of this good man. I do not hesitate to suggest that there are but very few who read these words who are a better person than was Cornelius. But, just what kind of person was he?

First of all, he was a devout man, one who “devoted” himself to seeking God, He was, furthermore, a man who feared God. Not only did he fear God, but all of his household did also. He gave alms to the people–money and help to those less fortunate than he. Here was a man who prayed to God always; not just when he needed something, but in times of prosperity as well as poverty, in joy as well as sorrow. But, here was a man who was not a Christian. How do we know? The rest of chapter 10, as well as 11:14 shows that Cornelius and those who heard God’s word were baptized into Christ to be saved.

Not only will many good religious people be in hell unless they obey Christ as did Cornelius, but zealous workers in false religions will also be lost, as seen in Matt. 7:2123. In the day of judgement, these false religious workers will cry out to the Lord, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderous works?” The Lord shall then answer, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. ” This answer coincides with Christ’s statement in verse 21, “Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”

But, religious speculation is not limited just to these realms. Repeatedly we have the statement made that it makes no difference what you believe, just so you are sincere; or, that it makes no difference what church you are a member of, as we are all trying to get to heaven and somehow we will all get there too. These two statements are the equivalent to saying that error is as good as truth, and that one who obeys error in religion has just as much hope of going to heaven as one who obeys the truth of God’s word. If this thinking be right, then Jesus came to teach the will of God in vain. People could have believed error, obeyed it, and been saved by it without the sacrifice on Jesus’ part to establish the truth of God.

Man is a free moral agent. He has the ability to believe the truth or to believe a lie. He has the ability to obey that truth or lie. God has made him thusly. The very fact he has the power to discern between good and evil, right and wrong, truth and error, is indicative of the fact he has the power to go either to heaven or hell in the end.

The powers of intelligence are given us that we may differentiate between error and truth. If it made no difference what you believed as long as you were honest, then there would be no need to exercise your mind at all upon religious subjects. If error can save as well as truth, if it makes no difference which church you are a member of, then the powers of discernment are useless appendages we might as well get rid of.

It has never been the right of man to establish a religion, nor to alter that established by God. It is not his prerogative to start a denomination. Yet, the whole world is full of religious groups who exist solely because some human religious leader began them. These have begun because men began speculating on the word of God.

God is the author of ONE religion–the religion of Jesus Christ. If one chooses to reject this religion and follow a false religion, although he has the liberty to do so, he will be lost. On the other hand, if one takes the religion of Christ and perverts it and twists its nature as to change the truths of God into a set of religious lies, and so divide the followers of Jesus into narrow sectarian camps–denominations, each hostile toward the other and each dependent for its very existence on some fundamental error, this perversion is no better than a heathen religion.

It cannot be denied that there are wide differences in the various denominations. Since all men are free moral agents, it follows that each of them has the power to follow whatever sect or party he may choose. Some mistake this ability on man’s part for acceptability on God’s part. The fact we can choose error in religion instead of the truth does not mean that that course will please Jehovah.

Error can never be as good as truth, and a doctrine, which did not come from God is not equal to that which did. In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the garden of Eden. He told them that in the day they partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they would surely die. What God told Adam was truth. Soon there came another preacher into the garden, saying that God knew in the day they ate of the tree they wouldn’t die, but would become as God. Adam and Eve were people of a free moral agency. They could either listen to God or Satan–truth or error. They had the power of deciding which of the two they would hear. The decision was made, and they listened to false doctrine rather than the word of God. Error was not as good as truth. The doctrine of the devil –and that is what all false doctrines are– resulted in their banishment from the garden. As. they stood outside the garden with the gate closed to any chance of return, facing a world of labor for their bread, what would have been their answer? Is error as good as truth? Does it make any difference whose voice one hears?

Generations later, God sent Noah, a preacher of righteousness, into the world to preach of a mighty flood coming upon the earth. Many of them laughed at him, saying, “Noah, it has not rained since the foundation of the world. Why should we become alarmed now?” He pleaded with them to believe God was about to destroy the world by water. Perhaps they thought it made no difference what they believed, that God’s mercy was sufficient to save them all, and that error was just as good as truth.

The majority of humanity disbelieved in the one way. When the floods came, those who believed only the word of God, as preached by Noah, entered the ark and were saved. Those who listened to the voice of another, following the erroneous teaching of those who withstood Noah, perished. Again, error was not as good as truth. The doctrines of men could not save them when the Lord came to fulfill his promise. Some might have claimed Noah was in the minority, and that he believed that only he and his little bunch were going to be saved. They might have called him narrow. And yet, when the time came and truth was vindicated, the opportunity for salvation had passed those who accepted anything other than the word of God.

Still another example is the children of Israel in Egyptian bondage. Moses had been sent by the Lord to persuade Pharoah to let them go. The last of the persuasion consisted of ten plagues loosed upon Egypt, closing with the death of the first-born of every family as the death angel passed over Egypt. But, the messengers of God preached the truth of God to the Israelites, saying that each man should kill a lamb and sprinkle the blood upon his doorpost. Most of the children of Israel obeyed. If there was a man in the land who thought this a narrow view, or thought that something else would do just as well as the truth of God, he died without mercy.

The truth the messengers of God taught provided the only means for men through the centuries. Those who have harkened unto the truth of God have rejoiced in the salvation they received as a result, while those who refused it or altered it bore the punishment as a result. But these readily evident principles of the Old Testament are also taught in the New Testament. Jesus promised, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8.32). He also prayed, “Father, sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth” (John 17: 17).

Paul knew people would be like they have always been. Being free moral agents, they have the power today to harken to a false teaching as well as to the truth. As Adam turned away his ear from the truth and listened to false doctrine, costing him his home in the garden; Paul also said people would arise unwilling to endure sound doctrine, but having itching ears, would beep unto themselves teachers after their own lusts, and be turned aside from the truth to fables (2 Tim. 3).

The religious world today is hopelessly divided into sectarian camps, each teaching its own peculiar doctrine. Each group has listened to some other teaching than that of the Lord, thus forming the distinctive doctrines of that group. If they refused to listen to separate leaders, there would not be separate groups–if they all had been content to hear the truth of God, they would have been one in faith and practice still today. The very fact they are divided, each teaching doctrines that conflict with the other, is evidence they have harkened to a voice other than God’s, just as did Adam.

The Bible teaches all the truth that needs to be taught in the religious realm, being the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25). There is not a single doctrine, embodying eternal truth, that God’s word does not set before us. None of the truth of God Almighty, which pertains to our salvation is left out of that book, regardless of who may contend otherwise–Canon or preacher. (See 2 Tim. 3:1617, 2 Pet. 1.3).

On the other hand, there are many differing religious practices existing today. Authority for all these cannot be found in the Bible. God’s word does not teach, for instance, the use of instrumental music in worship, the baptism of babies, sprinkling for baptism, etc. These are merely indicative of a multitude of practices, which have sprung up since apostolic times. These practices exist because they have become part of the tradition of different religious groups. For most of them, there is no divine authority claimed; they have become the established practice of congregations content to follow the speculations of various religious leaders rather than divine counsel.

If God’s word furnishes us unto every good work (2 Tim. 3.16-17) and constitutes the sum of religious truth (2 Pet. 1:3), then it naturally follows these things not found in the word of God and yet existing in denominationalism have sprung from some other source of authority that the truth of the Almighty. Again we need to emphasize that even though we are free moral agents and have the power to follow these traditions rather than the word of God if we wish, it is a fatal practice. Error has never been as good as truth, nor can the doctrines of man compare with the gospel of Christ. It was Jesus, our Lord, who said, “In vain do you worship me, teaching for your doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9). He told the pharisees, “Ye set at naught the law of God by your traditions” (15:3). Many religious services are filled with pageantry and show, governed by human creeds and confessions, wearing human names, and engaging in rituals that are purely human in their origin. And, even some in the body of Christ today are moving fast down the same paths.

The church of Christ today is divided in many ways, and unable to agree on certain subjects, as some of our most educated men, Bible scholars, differ and some teaching one thing while others teach another. It is becoming confusing to people who have been members of the church most of their lives. How can we convert the world to Christianity when we refuse to agree on many things. We should have the same church that was established on the day of Penticost. Each congregation should be teaching the same thing; there should be no difference. Paul, on his missionary journeys, did not teach one church one thing and another church something completely different. We have the same seed Paul sowed, and we should reap the same benefits. Each congregation should be alike in their teachings, practices, and organization.

It follows that if we are thoroughly furnished in all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17), there should be no division among us. The scriptures hold the answer to all our problems. Men should rid themselves of egotism and get over the idea that “I just can’t be wrong,” and recognize there is a possibility that “I may be wrong.” If only men would get over the idea “I am going to change you to my way of thinking or I just won’t march in this parade! “

If men would sit down to study the scriptures with love in their hearts toward their brethren in Christ, and really wanting to know the truth about the matter, they could come up with the true answers about many of the things causing division in the church today.

Error in the church will condemn us to a life of eternal punishment. Paul said he obtained mercy because of ignorance (1 Tim.1: 13), but we have no excuse for ignorance today. We have the written word of God, and a diligent study of it by faithful men wanting to know the truth would do away with the division among the children of God.

Teaching error is a serious thing. Many of the things we condemn denominationalism for today can be found somewhere in one of our own congregations. We can see a turning trend in the church today, slowly turning toward worldly things. Modernism is slowly creeping into the church in many places. What is the answer? A serious study of God’s word and a desire to know the truth. Elders, deacons, preachers and faithful members need to speak out against these liberal trends, error and division. If it isn’t stopped soon, we will be just another worldly organization following the doctrines of men, or the body of Christ rent asunder. Many will become what Paul warned Timothy against: lovers of self, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof, ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 3:1-7). Let us exhort one an-, other in a greater effort to seek the truth, to find it and then make a sincere application of it in our lives and worship.

It has been the plea of the churches of Christ through the years that all things that, have human rather than divine authority for their existence be laid aside. This applies to denominational names and practices that has divided the religious world into its sectarianism. But, let us take from our worship also those practices that did not spring from divine truth. Let us subject our entire religious structure to the acid test of God’s eternal truth. That which has truth in it, let us retain. That which is error let us cast out, for error is not as good as truth, nor can the doctrine of man be compared with the gospel of Christ.

It DOES make a difference what we believe. It DOES make a difference what we practice. Truth, and truth alone, can save our souls; but error can, and will, condemn us all if we follow it.

Truth Magazine, VI: 1 pp. 8-12
October 1961