Truth Magazine

By Ronny Milliner

Being baptized into Christ gives us the privilege of being remember that God holds us accountable for how we use the children of God (Gal. 3:26-27). This relationship also them or do not use them. “Moreover it is required in means that I have a relation to all others who are the children of God. Paul suggests some of the responsibilities that we have to our brethren in Romans 12:3-16.

Objective Thinking

Paul first advises us, “For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith” (12:3).

Pride has been the fall of many a man (Prov. 16:18). There is no room for pride in the kingdom of servants (Mt. 20:2-28). “Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (I Pet. 5:5b).

Talent-User

We are all children in the same family. But the apostle uses another figure to describe us. We are all members of the same body.

“For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness”(12:4-8).

How wonderful it is for our bodies to be able to function as they do! Each member of the body has its duty to fulfill, and when each is working properly the physical body is indeed a t But the same should be true of the spiritual body. It is composed of different members with different talents or abilities. Maybe I can’t lead singing, but I can act in some other role. Maybe you can’t publicly teach, but do have a gift of showing mercy. Should we be, jealous of each other’s talents? Certainly not! Instead, let each use his own talents to the best of his ability and then watch as the body grows and functions.

Having been entrusted with certain talents or gifts we must stewards that one be found faithful” (1 Cor. 4:2). Let us not forget the lessons from the parable of the talents (Mt. 25:14-30).

Honest Love

“Let love be without hypocrisy” is Paul’s next admonition (12:9a). How disappointing is a pretended love. True love will be “from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from a sincere faith” (1 Tim. 1:5). Jesus is the example of true love. “My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth” (1 Jn. 3:18).

Evil-Hater

A Christian is to be both a lover and a hater. We must, “Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good” (12:9b). David was an evil hater, and he learned what to hate from a meditation on the word of God (Psa. 119:104). Jesus is an evil-hater (Rev. 2:6,15). While hating evil, we must “super glue” ourselves to what is good. Of course, this action will involve us in determining what is good and what is evil. For this reason Paul wrote, “Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thess. 5:21-22).

Regarding Others

“Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another” (12:10). Brotherly love is the Christian’s badge of discipleship (Jn. 13:35). Love manifests itself in kindness. It will also manifest itself in “giving preference to one another.” We should “esteem others better than” ourselves, and look out not just for our interests, “but also for the interests of others” (Phil. 2:3-4).

Compelling Worker

In our activities we-should not be “lagging in diligence,” but “fervent in spirit, serving the Lord” (Rom. 12:11). God will not accept half-hearted, ho-hum, service. He demands, like Bobby Knight, 110%. We can be sluggish, slothful, and backward. Or, we can be full of haste, earnestness, and zeal. How do you serve the Lord? “It is good to be zealous in a good thing always” (Gal. 4:18a).

Happy In Hope

Paul says we should be “rejoicing in hope” (12:12a). He stated the reason why we can rejoice in hope in chapter five and verse two. We have hope because of God’s gracious plan to redeem us from our sins. We have met the conditions to receive this blessing as well as all the spiritual blessings in Jesus. And that “hope does not disappoint” (Rom. 5: 1).

Resister Of Tribulation

“Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3:12). Knowing this fact, we must be “patient in tribulation” (12:12b). We will be tried. The early Christians “endured a great struggle with sufferings,” “were made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations,” and “accepted the plundering of” their goods (Heb. 10:32-34). And yet these ones were told, “Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise” (Heb. 10:35-36).

Intent On Prayer

Another responsibility the Christian has is to be “continuing steadfastly in prayer” (12:12c). Colossians 4:2 also exhorts, “Continue earnestly in prayer, being vigilant in it with thanksgiving.” Certainly we should pray for “all the saints” (Eph. 6:18). Such a continuous intercession surely shows our interest in our family members.

Sharing With The Needy

“Distributing to the needs of the saints” is also a duty we have toward other Christians (12:13a). One is impressed with the benevolent spirit of the early church in caring for its needy (Acts 2:44-45; 4:34-35). The word “distributing” contains the idea of fellowship or sharing. If a brother has some particular need, then I also have that need — we share it together.

Trained In Hospitality

The child of God must be “given to hospitality” (12:13b). Such does not mean that we just have our friends into our homes, but it literally means “love of strangers.” I must practice this hospitality “without grumbling” (1 Pet. 4:9). One who opens his home to his fellow-brethren will often find himself blessed (cf. Heb. 13:2).

Injury-Forgiving

There will be times when a Christian is abused in some fashion, and it may be from one who is supposed to be a child of God. In that case, we are to “bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse” (12:14). We are to pray for, love, and do good to those who are our enemies (Lk. 6:27-3 1). The apostle Paul is an example of such character as he wrote, “being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure it; being defamed, we entreat” (1 Cor. 4:12-13).

Aware of Another’s Feelings

Romans 12:15 reads, “Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.” There is no room in God’s family for jealously over the success of others. And, there is no room in God’s family for a spirit of coldness or being unconcerned over the sorrow of others. Since we are one body, “if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it” (1 Cor. 12:26).

Non-Divisive

One can almost say that Jesus’ dying request was for the oneness of His followers (Jn. 17:20-21). Therefore, we should “be of the same mind toward one another” (12:16a). While this unity certainly would include doctrinal unity, it also involves being “perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). It includes “having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind” (Phil. 2:2).

Submissive

Finally, Paul writes, “Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion” (12:16b). When it comes to God’s family, we are all one. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Conceit is ruled out (Prov. 3:7).

Conclusion

As we look over this list of duties, let us strive to put each of these traits in our fives as well as helping to develop them in the lives of others. Let these be “all in the family.”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 11, pp. 330-331
June 6, 1985

By Ernest A. Finley

“They went out from us but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us” (1 Jn. 2:19).

Four years ago, approximately, brother Darwin Chandler conducted a gospel meeting for the Texas City church of Christ for which I was the regular evangelist. (I have known brother Chandler many years and will hereafter refer to him as Darwin.) It was a good meeting. His lessons were true to the word of God. Our association was pleasant. But in the few years since that time, a radical, change has taken place in Darwin and those who have followed him, and that not for the better.

Darwin’s preaching, writing, and conversation began to ring more and more with the words, “Pharisaism” and “legalism.” His teaching on “fellowship” and “justification” became increasingly committed to error. The problem became so intense that it became necessary for him to be released as evangelist for the House Street church in Alvin, Texas. Darwin had deluded himself into thinking that when he left the work at House Street that the whole church, with the exception of the elders, would follow him. But only a few followed him. That was in October of 1983. He made an abortive attempt to begin a church in Friendswood, but because of a division in sentiment related to church-socials and facilities for such in the church building which they had planned to build, the group was fragmented and the effort came to naught.

Next, we see Darwin and his immediate family identified with the Johnson Street church of Christ (institutional) in Alvin. Soon thereafter, he was selected to be one of their regular preachers.

On March 25, 1984, Darwin delivered a sermon at Johnson Street explaining the reason for his presence there, entitled, “How Did I Get Here?”

In the course of his presentation, he goes back to 1982 and a return trip from a meeting in Odessa in which he had led singing. He states that on the way home he “. . . prayed all day long.” Among other things that he told the Lord in his prayer was “. . . I cannot go back to that Phariseeistic, that legalistic type religion the Bible says will damn my soul.”

Special Wisdom Through The Indwelling Spirit

He further said, “Father, I believe you have given the Holy Spirit to dwell in your people for the sake of helping them

to understand the Scriptures, through whom you give them wisdom if they ask, and I don’t know how you do it, I don’t care. All I want is this wisdom. Will you help me through the Holy Spirit?”

No Distinction Between The Church And The Individual

After pointing out that “. . . the church is nothing more or less than the sum total of all those who have been immersed into Christ,” he speaks of what he alleges to be “the false distinction we have made for years between collective work and individual work; or individual work and local work…. The Bible doesn’t make any such distinction as that.”

Orphan Homes Legitimate

On the basis of the above observations, he adds, “And so, that makes orphan homes supported by the church legitimate because they can be supported by individual Christians.”

Fellowship Mesh

“Also, there is the legitimacy of cooperative efforts. And that makes fellowship meals together legitimate. . . . I’ll ten you something else, if we want to do it as a part of a worship service (emphasis mind, EAF), we can do it. ” He adds, “. . , read 1 Corinthians 11 and realize that what they were doing was having a worship service and either in close proximity to it or as a part of it, they were eating a fellowship meal . . . .”

No Pattern For Church Finances

Darwin adds, “The simple fact is, God did not tell us what to do with the money we collected in the church treasury. You don’t think that’s right? Well, consider the fact that in the first place in the New Testament you cannot read of a church treasury as such. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong. But try to read that if you like. Go on a hunting trip through the New Testament. It’s scriptural, good, logical.” He goes further, “. . . God doesn’t much care about how we get the money (emphasis mine, EAF). He just wanted us to get enough to do His will. Get it how you want to, get it where you want to, and accomplish His Will with it. And along with the fact that God did not tell us what to do with the money (emphasis mine, EAF) we collect, we can use it as our spiritual leaders direct.”

No Restrictions On Method

Going on, Darwin says, “Not only that, but God did not restrict the method of doing our work, so we have an option. If we want to do it all by ourselves, we can do that. If we want to cooperate with another church, we can do that because God hasn’t said how.” He says, “They’ve found a pattern somewhere. Yes, I preached the pattern. Before God I couldn’t tell you what it is now. ” He adds, “. . . they took those opinions and made them matters of faith and divided the body of Christ.” Darwin said much more than we are able to reproduce in this article. But this gives reasonably good coverage to what he taught or where he stood a year ago.

You might think, “Well, it looks like our brother Darwin Chandler is gone to ‘liberalism,’ judging by what he says.” But the end is not yet in sight on the basis of what we have pointed out to you in this article to this point.

It took the Johnson Street church (institutional) about six or eight months to recognize Darwin’s commitment to error. But before they could give him a release, he “saw the hand-writing on the wall” and resigned. After his resignation at Johnson Street, they “marked” him as a false teacher, “totally apostate from truth.”

Reports came to us of Darwin’s worshipping with various churches in the area: The Alvin Gleaner Church Pentecostal (where we “witnessed”), then Quail Valley in Houston, of recent fame for its non-identification as the church of Christ any longer, and then Darwin’s latest association was extensively publicized by mail-out and newspaper advertisement, informing the people of Alvin and surrounding area, that Darwin was to speak at the Living Stones Church (strongly charismatic) and tell the latest story of “the new change” in his life. The advertisement informed us that “Darwin” had “found the fountain of Christian youth … the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.”

The sermon by Darwin, dealt with in the balance of this article, was delivered March 24, 1985 at the Living Stones church, almost one year to the day since his sermon at the Johnson Street church telling folks, “How Did I Get Here?”

The substance of Darwin’s sermon at Living Stones was “Why I had to leave the church of Christ.”

One of the first things that became abundantly clear was that Darwin had become totally dissatisfied with the simplicity of the Lord’s prescribed worship. He began to discuss the services of the church of Christ. In his assessment they were “dry and dead.” No longer could he be lifted up by the psalms, hymns and spiritual songs of the saints. No longer could the humble prayers of the righteous draw him nearer to God. He observed, “There’s got to be more.” He evaluated his spiritual condition of the past 30 years, my soul (was) just as bone dry and dead as the day I came to Jesus.”

The Church Of Christ The Farthest Way

Charging the church of Christ, with whom he had fellowship for 32 years, with believing that “. . . we are the only ones who know how to worship scripturally. . . ” he adds, “Praise God, I think we were the worst ones about it, the ones furthest away from the truth of anybody I have come in contact.”

The Church Of Christ Is A Sect

Speaking further of “Why I changed,” he adds, “I didn’t have a choice.” He cites Galatians 5:20, alluding to the term ,’sects ‘or ‘!factions.” Then, “I preached for nearly twenty years against sectarianism and never knew what it was. I’m devastated to think that I was a member of a sectarian body those twenty years.” He gave the definition of a “sect” as, “Formation of a body of religious people around a specialized doctrine.” He then charged that the church of Christ bases its teaching on four or five cardinal doctrines. “But you gather those four or five things and put those together in a focalized doctrinal system and build a movement around them and you’ve got a sect. The church of Christ is a sect.” But this is not the first time the church of Christ has been called a “sect.” Paul says “the Way” was called a sect in his day (Acts 24:14). It was not so then. It is not so now! One observation in passing, you do not suppose the Pentecostals of which the Living Stones church seems to be a part, have focalized on one area of doctrine primarily, do you? Could the Living Stones church be a part of a sect? Quoting further from his sermons: “Why did I have to leave? Because I was a sectarian. The Bible says you can’t be a sectarian and go to heaven.”

Mechanical Instruments, Dancing And Shouting

Darwin alludes to “. . . all that wild, strange stuff that went on a while ago, jumping up and down, hand-clapping . . .” which preceded his sermons, insisting that while he was a member of the church of Christ there were things of that nature authorized in the Bible which he could not observe. He then goes back under the Old Covenant to justify practices that he has of late espoused. Among other things, Psalms 41:1 is cited to authorize the clapping of the hands and shouting. Psalms 98:4 is utilized to show that we are to “shout joyfully.” Psalms 149:3 is presented to justify dancing in worship: “praise his name with dancing.” Psalms 150 is introduced to support the use of various mechanical instruments in worship, as well as dancing. As he speaks of “dancing,” he exults, “I love it!” He admits to having had some difficulty in getting his feet to cooperate in getting his dancing going. He says that he privately prayed to God to “pull the nails out of my shoes,” so he could loosen up and dance. He says that he had to “put the Lord on hold” while he and his wife laughed at this particular petition. Then he adds, “the nails are out, praise God.” So he is dancing in worship now. Choir robes are authorized, he tells us, referring to 2 Chronicles 5:12-14-they wore “fine linen.” He says, “I’m gonna tell you something. If you ever want to be a part of a worship service where God comes down and fills the house with glory, you’re gonna have to do it the way He wants it done. He wanted it done with a hundred and twenty trumpets, cymbals, and whatever that thing is tambourines. . . .” These are words coming from one who decries legalism.

Darwin, discussing mechanical instruments, refers to 2 Chronicles 29:25 to answer the “straw man” that says that “David invented them but God never approved.” He then observes that “the commandment was from the Lord through His prophet.” Adding, You’d better wait a long time before you cast another stone at something that God invented.” In effect, he says we “make fun” of a commandment of the Lord, warning, “You take your life into your own hands, folks.”

New Testament Authority Claimed

Then he turns to the New Testament in a vain attempt to justify mechanical instruments in worship. Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16, and James 5:13 are introduced. He tells his audience that Vine, Arndt and Gingrich, and Thayer or any Greek scholar all tell us that the Greek word psalmos means “to sing to the accompaniment of a musical instrument. ” He then refers to the expression “making melody’ I and affirmed that psallo, the root word from which the expression was translated means, “to play on a musical: instrument. ” His observation, “That’s what the word means, and if I intend to obey it, I’ve got to do it.” I ask you, “Is that ‘legalism’ or not?” (Note: Both Thayer and Vine make a distinction between the earlier use of the word psallo and the New Testament use or meaning of it. Thayer: “in the New Testament to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song, etc.” Vine: [defining “melody,” discussing psallo] says, “denotes, in the N.T., to sing a hymn, sing praise; in Eph. 5:19, make melody.”)

Solos And Methodist Fellowship

He seeks to defend solos in worship by appealing to 1 Corinthians 14:26 where gifts of the Spirit were exercised in the revelation of a “psalm.” He then asks, “Is it all right for me to sing a solo as I did just a while ago, and as this brother (emphasis mine, EAF) did from the Methodist (emphasis mine, EAF) church?”

Error On Justification

Darwin says, after reading Several passages from Galatians which show that the basis of our justification is not “law” but “grace through faith,” I denied that principle. I denied the most basic, fundamental truth that the whole .New Testament teaches, that salvation is by grace through faith. I denied it all my life.” He falsely asserts that he was fired at House Street for preaching the truth on this issue. “. . . they fired me for preaching the book of Galatians and for daring to make one or two applications-I hardly even got into the matter of making applications, it was just the principle they couldn’t stand. I I Strangely, Darwin then quotes Galatians 5: 1; asserting that he does not intend to be “subject to a yoke of slavery,” no doubt referring to his concept of “legalism.” This statement came from a man who, only moments before, was floundering around back under the Mosaic Covenant, trying to justify his present practices of dancing and singing with mechanical instruments. He is entangled in a “yoke of slavery.”

Baptism Of The Holy Spirit

Again, he says, “Paul said in 2 Corinthians, ‘Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.’ That’s why there is no liberty where I’ve been. because they effectively deny the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Every single one of those churches do they shut the Holy Spirit out, they don’t want Him in Again, “I lived for twenty years in a charnal house” (note: a “charnal house” is a house for the storing of dead bodies, EAF).

Quoting John the Baptist regarding the coming of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as recorded in Mark 1:8, Darwin says that this was a promise for the general populace who came to be baptized of John, “Jesus is going to come and baptize every one of you (emphasis mine, EAF) in the Holy Spirit.”

Referring to Acts 2, Darwin suggests, on the basis of verse 17, a part of Joel’s prophecy, that since the Spirit was to be for “all mankind,” that means it was for “everybody!” He refers to the statement, “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” and adds, “‘prophecy’-inspired preaching-that’s where you get women preachers” (emphasis mine, EAF). Then, after quoting Acts 2:38, where the gift of the Holy Spirit is promised, Darwin says, “And in that context he’s talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit.” Almost casually, he adds, “And, yes, I speak in tongues.” He fails, to perceive that they have long since passed (1 Cor. 13:8-12).

His invitation at the end of his sermon was the traditionally denominational appeal to raise your hand and trust in the Lord. Among other things that he said were these words, “If you want Jesus more than anything, would you just raise your hand right there where you are sitting?” The last words that I could hear on my tape of his sermon were, “Raise your hand.” How different from the words of Peter on Pentecost (Acts 2:36,38). How different from the words of Ananias to Saul of Tarsus (Acts 22:16).

Conclusion

In summary, how far has Darwin Chandler drifted? What are some of the evidences of his defection? What are his views?

(1) He defends a church-sponsored “fellowship-meal,” even included in the worship.

(2) That God grants wisdom through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which makes an understanding of the Word possible.

(3) That church support of human institutions and the “sponsoring church” method of cooperation are scriptural.

(4) That there is no biblical distinction between local congregations and individual action.

(5) That you cannot find a church treasury in the New Testament, but it does not matter how the money is raised and there are no scriptural limits on its expenditure.

(6) That the church of Christ is a sect.

(7) In regard to worship, he charges the church of Christ with being the furthest from the truth of any group he knows.

(8) He defends mechanical instruments of music, dancing, clapping, shouting, etc., in worship, going back under the Law.

(9) He is ready for fellowship with anybody in -any religious system who professes to believe that Jesus is Lord, including those who practice sprinkling.

(10) He “rings” of the new unity movement concept: “Unity in diversity.”

(11) He is convinced that the name that you wear does not matter.

(12) He advocates choirs, solos, robes and the use of women preachers.

(13) He claims to have received the Holy Spirit baptism and the power to speak in tongues. He believes in present day miracles.

(14) He asserts that identification of the one body is not dependent upon baptism for the remission of sins as a criterion.

(15) He extends the common denominational invitation to raise your hand and trust in the Lord.

It saddens our hearts that another has gone out from us. It grieves us also that a few are following him. We pray that

his efforts to lead others away from the faith may be further frustrated.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 11, pp. 326-327, 342-343
June 6, 1985

By Mike Willis

Edward O’Neal Bragwell Added To Staff

We are happy to announce the addition of brother Ed Bragwell, Sr. to the writing staff of Guardian of Truth. Brother Bragwell will make a fine addition to our staff of writers; our readers will appreciate what he has to say.

Brother, Bragwell.was born 28 May 1936 in Franklin County, Alabama (near Russellville). In September 1955, he married his wife, Patsy. To this union, five children have been born. Their oldest son, Eddie O Bragwell, Jr. (28 years old), preaches in Anniston, Alabama. Eddie’s twin sister, Vicki is married to Doug Russell. The Bragwell’s second son, Martin Loyd (26), preaches at Martinez, Georgia. Their other two children are Carla Dawn (22) and Jonathan Tyler (11). Their four older children are Christians; the two married children are married to faithful Christians. They have four grandchildren.

Brother Bragwell has preached full-time at Pontotoc, MS; Mt. Hope, Trinity, and Hanceville, AL; Charlotte, TN; and Fultondale, AL. He has been in Fultondale since August 1970. Brother Bragwell has written in various subscription journals circulated among brethren and has published several church bulletins through the years. His work in The Reflector demonstrates his writing ability, his loyalty to the truth of God’s word, and his wisdom. Though we have not had close personal contact, I have learned to respect brother Bragwell through his writings. He is held in high esteem in Alabama. Consequently, we are happy to have him working with us in Guardian of Truth.

Diestelkamp-Patton Exchange On Forgiveness

Elsewhere in this issue (pages 16 and 17) is the first exchange between brethren Marshall Patton and Leslie Diestelkamp on the subject of forgiveness. During the latter part of last December, brother Leslie Diestelkamp, sent me two articles disagreeing with some things which I had written over a period of time on forgiveness. I had encouraged brother Diestelkamp to write an affirmative proposition which he could defend on the subject; in response, he wrote the two affirmative articles to be published in this exchange without a proposition.

After reading this exchange and some other correspondence which I was receiving, I became convinced that too much of the issue was becoming centered on Mike Willis. I asked myself, “Who besides me cares whether or not I have always been consistent? Who cares how many brethren agree or disagree with me?” The issue must always be, “What does the Bible teach?”

Consequently, I sought a means of removing Mike Willis from the center of the issue in order that the teachings of the Bible might be the center of the focus of our attention. I decided that if I could persuade someone else to reply to these articles, asking him to ignore whatever personal references to me were in the article and respond only to the doctrinal teachings, brethren would be better served by the exchange. Consequently, those comments related to what Mike Willis believes will not be replied to in the interest of a less clouded study of the Bible issue.

The two participants in this discussion, Leslie Diestelkamp and Marshall Patton, are two of the most respected brethren among us. There is an issue of significance about which brethren are disagreed, as both writers recognize and admit. In the interest of adding to our knowledge of truth in a calm study of the word of God, these brethren have written. May each of us read the exchange with an understanding of our responsibilities before God.

Finley Article Regarding Darwin Chandler

Elsewhere in this issue (pg. 6) is an article by Ernest Finley. Brother Finley has taken the time to document the apostasy of brother Darwin Chandler from the Lord. Brother Chandler left the church to work with our liberal brethren about a year ago; more recently, he left the liberal brethren to work with the Charismatic movement. Brother Finley relates the apostasy of brother Chandler as kindly as one can.

I appreciate his work. Writing such an article causes some to compare the author to a watchdog or “guardian of the truth.” There are many thankless jobs which one must do and this is one of them. I, for one, would like to commend and thank brother Finley for his work on this article. An article such as this serves several purposes: (1) it reminds each of us that he can fall from grace (1 Cor. 10:12); (2) it demonstrates that the desire to challenge the “old paths” is dangerous and ultimately leads to the acceptance of denominationalism; (3) it serves to warn others of the error in order that they might “take heed.” Brother Chandler has already led several others into his denominational errors; we should do all that we can to prevent further damage to the kingdom of God.

Brother Finley relied heavily on two taped sermons by brother Chandler. One was preached in the liberal church, explaining why he left “anti-ism”; the other was preached in a Charismatic church explaining why he left the church of Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 11, pp. 322, 341
June 6, 1985

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: What do you believe about abortion? Is it murder? What about abortion for medical reasons?

Reply: The number of legal abortions in the United States each year is estimated to be between one and two million. Colorado became the first state to liberalize its abortion laws according to American Law Institute guidelines (in 1967). Very few were aware of the moral landslide that was initiated by this action. Since 1973, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide, at least 10 million unborn babies have been legally killed. By way of contrast, about 500,000 American soldiers were killed in the Civil War and about 400,000 in World War II (statistics from article by David Pratte in Gospel Anchor, July 1984, p. 15). To the thinking person, these figures are staggering and shocking.

There is no doubt about abortion on demand being sinful. If abortion on demand is right, then euthanasia can be justified. We are here considering the willful killing of the unborn infant for the purpose of population control. If the life of the unborn baby can be willfully terminated under this circumstance, then it would logically follow that the willful killing of the aged and those physically and mentally handicapped would be justified. Abortion and euthanasia are parallel in this respect. Both are nothing short of murder. President Reagan made a speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in which he made the statement, “How can we survive as a free nation when some decide that others are not fit to live and should be done away with . . . ? Medical science doctors confirm that when the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain — pain that is long and agonizing.” He was challenged on this; but a group of twenty-six prominent physicians have written the President, supporting his contention. They stated that, “Observations of the fetal electrocardiogram and the increase in fetal movements in saline abortions indicate that the fetus experiences discomfort as it dies” (quoted in Stand, January 1985, No. 1).

There is much controversy as to when life actually begins, but it is my sincere conviction that it begins at conception. This is not simply the opinion of a preacher, as there are medical men who share the same conviction. Dr. Bernard Nathanson was once a strong supporter of abortion and head of New York’s first and most active clinic. Before me is a significant statement quoted from him. Now opposing what he once believed, he wrote: “To vehemently deny that life begins when conception begins is absurd . . . . I had to face the fact that in abortion, a human life of a special order is being taken” (in an article by Ernest A. Finley, The Discerner, Dec., 198 1). Dr. Heather Morris, Canadian obstetrician and gynecologist, speaking in Ontario Canada, stated: “Abortion is a situation in which life is killed. Human life starts at conception. A complete, unique human being is the result” (quoted by Clarence R. Johnson, The Preceptor, Vol. 22, P. 219). Dr. W.W. McWhirter of Rochester, Michigan, stated in the American Medical Association News. “I believe there is no question, either scientifically, or philosophically, about when life begins. A human life begins at the moment of conception, i.e., when the ovum is fertilized. There is no question but that to destroy the product of conception at any time thereafter is to take human life . . . … Also, in the St. Louis Globe Democrat (April 18, 1969), 94 physicians published a signed statement affirming the same thing as quoted (in an article by Larry R. Devore, Truth Magazine, Vol. 15, p. 808). So, my conviction that life begins at conception is not without scientific testimony. The sanctity of human life must be regarded, both before and after birth.

The Scriptures nowhere, authorize abortion on demand. Some argue that the fetus in the mother’s womb is not yet a child, and in an effort to prove their contention, they refer to Exodus 21:22-24. The incident recorded in this passage is that of two men who are fighting, and in their struggle, a pregnant woman is accidentally hurt and her fruit (the unborn) departs. This a simple case of miscarriage. The aborted fetus does not lend any support to the advocates of “legalized” abortion on demand. For what it is worth to this study, the Hebrew word yeled is also translated “child, son, youth” (Theological Wordbook of the O.T., Vol. 1, p. 378). This same word (yeled) which refers to the unborn child also describes the child after birth (see Gen. 21:8; Ex. 2:3,10). Neither can it be argued that the case referred to in Exodus 21:22-24 proves that, according to the law, the abortion of the fetus was not as serious as the death of a person already born. It should be noted, however, that the harm was done to the mother. The mother was hurt to the extent that it resulted in her having a miscarriage. We can see no justification for abortion on demand from this Scripture, nor any other.

That there is life before birth is evident from Luke 1:36-44. Verse 36 is to be particularly noted where it is written, “and this is the sixth month with her. . . .” Then in verse 41, it is recorded that “the babe leaped in my womb.” These two verses indicate that there is human life in the unborn infant. The word “babe” is translated frt)m the Greek word brephos. This word identifies both the unborn child and the baby, infant (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 146). (See also Lk. 2:12,16; 18:15; Acts 7:19; 2 Tim. 3:15; 1 Pet. 2:2.) We see in Acts 7:19 that infants were put to death by the command of Pharaoh, “that they should cast out their babes (Gr. brephos), to the end that they might not live.” To cast out infants, unborn or born for the same reason as did Pharaoh (that their lives would not be preserved to populate the earth) is murder.

As to abortion for medical reasons, I am not competent to decide; therefore, I would not attempt to offer solutions in such cases. Circumstances in these matters vary. Rather, I have dealt with the moral issue of abortion on demand. To abort a fetus that another human life will not populate the earth, or for the convenience of the mother, or because of the poverty of the parents, or to cover up fornication, etc., is murder. The Bible states, “But for the fearful and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers (my emphasis, HH.), and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part shall be in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death” (Rev. 21:8).

“Legalizing” abortion does not, in and of itself, justify it in the sight of God. The law of the land is not always the law of God. Human life is precious in the sight of the Lord, whether it is an infant unborn or born.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 11, pp. 325, 333
June 6, 1985