Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

One of the latest releases from the Guardian of Truth Foundation is the book entitled The Cogdell- Turner Discussion. The book is a printed debate between Gaston D. Cogdell, preacher for the Clifton Church of Christ in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Robert F. Turner. The book might be generally described as a discussion of the issues which have divided brethren in the last twenty-five years. It differs somewhat from a debate in that no formal propositions were signed.

The book is divided into four sections: (1) The Church of Christ, Universal and Local; (2) Independent and Autonomous Congregations; (3) Cooperation In The Church; (4) The Work of the Church. Each participant in the discussion wrote an affirmative position paper and two rebuttals. The format is difficult to follow. I hope that this does not indicate the direction which some brethren are going to take toward “discussions.” Some who have become too refined for debates are wanting discussions. The “improved” format, from my point of view, leaves more to be desired than the old format of debates. At least in the debates, one could relate the second speech to the first and so on through the debate; in this format, the articles are sometimes separated by two or more intervening articles, making the course of the discussion more difficult to follow. I am not aware of who was responsible for the arrangement of the discussion, but I would like to voice my opinion about it in hopes that this arrangement will not become the norm.

The Universal Church

The opening subject was the concept of the universal church and the local church. Brother Turner affirmed that the units in the universal church are saints. He stated that there is no such thing as a work given to the universal church as an organized entity and there are no officers in the universal church.

In a somewhat surprising affirmation, brother Cogdell openly affirmed that the universal church is composed of all of the local churches. He wrote,

In other words, the individual congregations were constituent parts of the church of God (p. 15).

The various states of the Union comprise the United States and all of the states are equal components of the United States, each one autonomous and absolutely independent of all the other states, just as the various congregations of the church comprise one great congregation, and they are all under one-federal head – Jesus Christ (p. 18).

If the Scriptures teach anything at all, they teach that the local congregation is a part and manifestation of the one true universal and eternal church . . . . According to the Scriptures, the local congregation is a unit of the one true and universal Church (p. 25).

These quotations demonstrate that brother Cogdell holds and defends the very concept of the universal church which Alexander Campbell held in promoting and defending the American Christian Missionary Society. Campbell wrote,

. . . In achieving this, it will require the cooperation of the brotherhood not only of one congregation, but sometimes of more than’one congregation; nay, of all the congregations in a given district. In other words it will require, on some occasions, all the talents, all the means possessed by all the disciples in a given district, to wage a successful war against infidelity, atheism, sensuality, and all that leads men captive to destruction. That it is the duty of churches to co-operate in every thing beyond the individual achievements of a particular congregation, we shall now attempt to illustrate and sustain.

A church can do what an individual disciple cannot, and so can a district of churches do what a single congregation cannot. But although reason and the nature of things make this apparent, it must pass for nothing as respects the conscience, if we cannot show that in the apostolic churches such co-operation existed, that it was a pan of the means adopted by the authority of the Lord for the furtherance of the gospel C’The Co-operation of Churches, No. 1, ” Millennial Harbinger [May 183 11. pp. 237-238).

Brother Cogdell’s concept of the church universal, like that of Alexander Campbell, is that the universal Church is composed of all of the local congregations.

Churches With A Common Treasury

A second point of this discussion which was of interest was the position that several congregations could have a common treasury. Brother Cogdell affirmed that the church at Jerusalem was composed of many congregations. Then he affirmed that these small congregations had one common treasury. He wrote,

The model church in Jerusalem was made up of perhaps 10,000 people (5,OW men alone, Acts 4:4). Since every New Testament church of which we have any record met in someone’s home rather than in a church building (Acts 2:46; Rom. 16:5.14,15; 1 Cor. 16:19; Phile. 2; Col. 4:15), and since, under any circumstances, there was no building in Jerusalem that would even begin to accommodate more than a fraction of the number of people who belonged to the Jerusalem church, it is reasonable to assume that there were many congregations in Jerusalem. These many conSregations had a common treasury (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37). Furthermore, they worked together as one body, as is fully shown by Acts chapters 2,3,4 and by the council at Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15:5-29 (p. 37).

The implications of these statements are far reaching. All of the local congregations could have a common treasury and work through one congregation. I fail to see how brother Cogdell could oppose the organizational ar_ rangements of the Christian Science and Catholic Churches in respect to the fact that both groups have all of the local congregations functioning through one local church.

Any Form Of Church Cooperation

In the articles relating to cooperation in the church, brother Gaston Cogdell wrote,

The Lord desires and demands that His people work with each other in every way possible. Because He has not said how we are to work together, just as He has not said how we are to preach and teach the word, or how we are to sing His praises, we know that any way we do it is pleasing to Him, just as long as we do it, and do not violate any of His other commandments in so doing (pp. 58-59).

Here brother Cogdell affirms that there is no pattern of church co-operation. If there is no pattern of church cooperation, there can be no violation of a pattern; where there is no law, there can be no transgression (Rom. 4:15). Hence, any form of church co-operation which does not violate some moral principle would be scriptural.

If there is no pattern of church co-operation, the form of church co-operation practiced in the American Chnistian Missionary Society would be scriptural. Furthermore, the Baptist association of churches would also be scriptural, as would also be the form of church co-operation used by every denomination in the world.

Where Does The Bible Say Not To?

The Christian Church used the argument, “Where does the Bible say not to?” with reference to instrumental music in worship and church supported missionary societies. Brother Cogdell used the same argument in his defense of sponsoring church forms of church organization. He wrote.

And this is exactly what Satan has done, so that many congregations of the Lord’s church not only will not cooperate with each other, but actually regard such cooperation as a sin, and disfellowship all those congregations which do cooperate with each other in various joint endeavors.

On what scriptural basis do the non-congregational-cooperation brethren propound this strange doctrine?. Since Brother Turner represents that position, I will ask him the following question: (1) Please cite just one passage of scripture which directly or indirectly forbids congregations of the Lord’s church from working together on joint endeavors of a benevolent or evangelistic nature? (p. 59).

Brother Cogdell’s request for a specific prohibition reminds us of the Christian Church argument regarding instrumental music.

Conclusion

I would like to commend brother Robert Turner for a commendable job in defending the truth in this discussion. Furthermore, I would like to recommend this book to our brethren. The statements which brother Cogdell made win surely be of historical importance in marking the departure in the thinking of our liberal brethren. His open admissions regarding some of the concepts which we have charged liberal brethren with holding demonstrate the widening chasm which separates us from one another. The differences in our concepts regarding the universal church, church cooperation and the work of the church make fellowship with one another impossible.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 20, pp. 610, 612
October 20, 1983

By Irvin Himmel

Every parent should be deeply interested in the physical, moral and spiritual welfare of his or her offspring. Children are a wonderful blessing from God. Their upbringing presents a great, challenge to both father and mother. Parental responsibility demands. wisdom, patience, courage, sympathy, love, and a lot of other attributes.

Some parents, perhaps unwittingly, do their children grave injustices. The following are a few of the ways in which mothers and fathers wrong their sons and daughters:

(1) Babying

Some parents would like to see their children stay in that precious stage of being cute little babies. Occasionally a remark like this is heard by a mother who holds a lovely child in her arms: “Isn’t it awful that they have to grow up?” But is it really awful? Growth is natural. Only retarded children fail to grow up. I have always been thankful that my children are not retarded, and I have rejoiced to see them grow and mature.

Parents are foolish not to accept growth as a normal part of life. Treating a growing youth as if a little baby does much harm. The immaturity shown by some youngsters in their late teens and early twenties reflects the results of parents’ treating them like babies instead of maturing young men and women. Life is not all fun and games. Young people need to learn from their parents that they are expected to think and act more maturely with each passing year.

(2) Pampering

In this age of great material prosperity many parents give their children virtually everything they desire – if it can be bought with money. Teenagers drive costly cars, own expensive stereo outfits, have the latest electronic gadgets for entertainment, spend lavishly on recreation, and expect the “old man” to furnish all of this plus food, clothing, and a room.

The indulgent manner in which young people are reared contributes to irresponsible behavior, lack of appreciation for blessings, and inability to cope with hardships. Mother and daddy, you do your child no favor by endless pampering. Learn the difference between loving care and overindulgence.

(3) Neglecting Discipline

Many children have the freedom to do just about what they please. There is precious little restraint. Although they are not capable of making certain decisions, their parents leave them without direction and guidance. These parents who are permissive toward their offspring are not doing them a favor. Good parents say “no” to whatever is not in the best interests of their children.

Fathers and mothers need to train their children to accept responsibilities. Girls to be taught to sew and cook. Boys should be taught to work. I know that in some cases it is less bother for a parent to do a job than to stay after Johnny or Mary, reminding and perhaps threatening punishment, but if Johnny and Mary are allowed to be lazy, in later years they will suffer the consequences. Parents do their children a serious wrong when they do not teach them (by whatever means necessary) to work around the house.

(4) Ignoring Needs

We bristle with righteous indignation when we read a newspaper account of parents who have failed to provide food, clothing, and medical care for their children. Child abuse takes on a variety of forms. A parent may provide aft the temporal necessities and still ignore the personal attention that should be given to the problems which a child encounters. Some children are starved for affection from their own parents!

A father who is gone from home except for occasional weekend visits could be losing his son or daughter without realizing it. I feel strongly that some preachers have become so wrapped up in preaching, traveling and teaching, dealing with marriage problems and controversies in the church, that they have failed to take the time to help their own children. It is sad that some parents have so little time for their sons and daughters.

Then there are parents who are keenly aware of all the needs which their offspring have except the most important – their spiritual training. Even among Christians, there are parents who pay no attention to whether or not their children attend Bible classes, study their lessons, and behave properly during church services. Every father needs to give personal attention to the spiritual life of his children.

(5) Setting Bad Examples

It should be obvious to parents that they do an injustice when they fail to teach their children by wholesome example. A child learns quickly that his mother and father do not really mean what they say – when they are seen doing the opposite.

Parents, let us take a good look at ourselves. We may be just too easy-going. Do we look the other way when we ought to show firmness in dealing with our children? Do our youngsters feel close to mom and pop, or somewhat estranged due to our lack of interest in them? Our children need our help. Let’s provide it!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 20, pp. 609, 624
October 20, 1983

By Larry Ray Hafley

I ‘There is much mystery about the n4ture of Jesus’ body after the resurrection. It was a tangible body: the disciples saw Jesus (Mark 16:14; John 20:18; 1 Cor. 9: 1, etc.), and he talked with them (Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24:17, 25ff., etc.). The women who met with him on the path clasped His feet (Matt. 28:9), and apparently Mary Magdalene, too, clung to Him. He invited Thomas to handle His body (John 20.27). There is no evidence that Thomas did so, but it is most unlikely that Jesus would have invited Him to if it had not been possible. He ate in the presence of the disciples (Luke 24:42, 43). All of this indicates that his was a real body; he was no ghost” (Ray Summers, The Life Beyond, pp. 45, 46).

“Why are ye troubled? And why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (Lk. 24:38,39). Yes, Jesus was in His physical body, “the body of his flesh.” Assuredly, he was no ghost. However, there is much speculation about other aspects of His body because of His appearance to the disciples in a secured room (Jn. 20:19), and His vanishing “out of their sight” (Lk. 24:31). But why the amazement? Certainly, the man who could walk on the water and traverse a stormy sea (Mk. 6:48), and who could restore a severed ear (Lk. 22:51), could also miraculously appear and disappear. There is no need to suppose that Jesus’ body was different after His resurrection. It was the same flesh that’was killed that was raised (Acts 2:31,32). He is not now in His physical body (Heb. 5:7; Phil. 3:21; 1 Jn. 3:2), but He was between His resurrection and ascension (2 Tim. 2: 8).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 19, p. 598
October 6, 1983

By Frank Jamerson

In previous articles we have studied the life that is essential for unity and the facts of unity. The fourth chapter of Ephesians continues with a discussion of the “gifts” that Christ gave that we may attain “the unity of the faith” (read Eph. 4:7-16). The context is not dealing with the duration of the gifts, but with the purpose of them. the gifts were to produce a “full grown man” in contrast to children who are “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” This process continues as newborn babes are brought to maturity through these gifts which Christ gave.

When Christ came to the earth, died, arose and ascended to the right hand of God, He “led captivity (sin, which held man) captive” and “gave gifts unto men.” The gifts are listed in verse 11. “And he gave some to be apostles; and some prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.” Each of these gifts had and has an important part in the unity that Christ enjoins.

The word “apostle” means “one sent forth.” It is used of Christ, who was sent to the earth (Heb. 3: 1). It is also used of those who were sent by a church (see 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). In Ephesians 4, the word refers to those who were chosen and sent by Christ. There was only one successor to an apostle. Matthias took Judas’ place, but he met the qualifications of accompanying Jesus from His baptism to His ascension and being an eye-witness of the resurrection (Acts 1:21-26). Paul was called “out of due season” to be an apostle (1 Cor. 15:8,9).

The work of apostles was to reveal and confirm the gospel. Mark said that Jesus commissioned the apostles to “go . . . into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mk. 16:15). “And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen” (v.20). They laid the foundation of the church, which is Christ (1 Cor. 3:11).

In a slightly different figure of speech, Paul said, “being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:20). It seems in this verse that the apostles and prophets are viewed as part of the foundation with Jesus being the “chief corner stone.”

Some religious people contend that we must have apostles on earth in order to have the New Testament church. If that were true, we would have to have Jesus on earth, too! The fact is that Jesus rules today through His word which was revealed and confirmed by the apostles and prophets. The foundation has been laid, and it is sufficient!

The “prophets” were men who spoke by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:20, 21). The prophets of our text were engaged in the same kind of work as the apostles. They did not have power to lay hands on people and bestow miraculous gifts, as the apostles did (Acts 8:18), but they were miraculously guided in their teaching. Prophets were not simply preachers. They were inspired preachers. Prophecy ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-10), but preaching did not. There are no “prophets” today for the same reason that there are no apostles on earth today. (Reading the words of a prophet would no more make you a prophet than reading the words of ani apostle would make you an apostle!)

Christ gave “evangelists, ” which means “messengers of good.” Evangelists of the first century may have had miraculous powers to confirm their message, as did Philip (Acts 8:13), but that is not an essential part of their work. The work of an evangelist is to “preach the work; be urgent in season and out of season… suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry” (2 Tim. 4:2-5). They are also called “ministers” (1 Tim. 4:6) and “preachers” (1 Tim. 2:7). They were not called “pastors.” There is a difference between an evangelist and a pastor, just as there is between an evangelist and an apostle!

Christ also gave “pastors.” The word poitnen is only translated “pastor” once in the standard English versions. (From the denominational use of it, one would think that it is on every page of the New Testament!) It is translated “shepherd” seventeen times and “rule” four times. The verb form of the word is translated to “feed” or “tend.” Paul told elders to “feed the church of the Lord” (Acts 20:17, 28). Peter exhorted elders to “feed” (KJV), “tend” (ASV), or “shepherd” (NASV) “the flock of God which is among you . . .” (I Pet. 5:2). The qualifications of elders, or pastors, are given in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

God intended that elders be appointed in every church (Acts 14:23). They are watchmen of souls and must give account of their stewardship (Heb. 13:17). They are not “lords,” but they do “rule” and must show kindness and consideration for others in the decisions that they make (1 Tim. 3:5; 5:17). When qualified men are appointed as elders and the flock “knows and esteems them highly” (1 Thess. 5:12,13), unity is apt to exist!

The word “teachers” in the text may refer to the “pastors” who are to be “apt to teach.” (Some argue this because of the grammatical construction of the verse.) It is true that elders are to be teachers, but other passages clearly show that others, in addition to elders, should also be teachers.. “For when by reason of time ye ought to be teachers . . .” (Heb. 5:12). “And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). The word “men” in this passage is from anthropos which means “a human being, male or female.” Women are restricted in their teaching (I Tim. 2:12), but this does not negate their responsibility to “teach. “

These are the “gifts” that Christ gave to bring us unto “the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 19, p. 597
October 6, 1983