Truth Magazine

By O. C. Birdwell, Jr.

The ASV renders 2 Peter 1:5-9 as follows: “Yea, and for this very cause adding on your part all diligence, in your faith supply virtue; and in your virtue knowledge; and in you knowledge self-control; and in your self-control patience; and in your patience godliness; and in you godliness brotherly kindness; and in your brotherly kindness love. For if these things are in you and abound they make you to be not idle nor unfruitful unto the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he that lacketh these things is blind, seeing only what is near, having forgotten the cleansing from his old sins.”

Our title is taken from the KJV where, in the above passage, instead of “in your faith supply” we find the words, “add to your faith . . . .” Following this charge, a list of seven items, commonly called “graces,” are given. Barnes correctly points out that we are not to endeavor particularly to add these things in the order in which they are listed. Nor is there any indication that virtue, though listed first, is more important than love, which is listed last. All are vital if we wish to make our calling and election sure (v. 10). The beginning point is faith. Peter is writing to those who “have obtained a like precious faith” (v. 1). This is the faith one has in God and Christ. It is the faith which enables one to become a Christian. To this faith the qualities given by Peter are to be added.

What is Virtue?

There is disagreement about the meaning of the word “virtue” as used in this passage. The author of the 1953 GA Annual Lesson Commentary says, “The word, virtue, here does not mean moral excellence, or chastity, but courage” (p. 72). Another writer presents an opposite view when he says, ‘”Virtue’ means excellence or moral purity. It refers to moral and ethical conduct (not manliness or strength as some have been misled by the English derivative ‘virtue’) as the Christian exercises his faith to live by the doctrine of Christ. This is how lust and corruption are overcome – by the establishment of proper habits and conduct” (J.W. Roberts, 1 & 2 Peter, p. 72).

W.E. Vine says that arete, translated virtue, “properly denotes whatever procures pre-eminent estimation for a person or thing; hence, intrinsic eminence, moral goodness, virtue. . .; (b) of any particular moral excellence, Phil. 4:8; 2 Pet. 1:5 (twice), where virtue is enjoined as an essential quality in the exercise of faith” (Expository Dictionary, Vol. IV, p. 189).

Thayer defines the word thusly: “A virtuous course of thought, feeling and action; virtue, moral goodness.” He also speaks of “Moral vigor” as he discusses virtue.

Young’s Analytical Concordance says the word means, “force, strength (of mind or body).” This work shows three words from which “virtue” or “virtuous” are translated. One is Hebrew, as used in Ruth 3:11; Prov. 12:4; 31:10; and 31:29. Another is the Greek dunamis which means power, and is translated “virtue” in Mk. 5:30; Lk. 6:19; and 8:46. The third is as found in the passage presently under consideration.

In a book called The Language of the King James Bible, Melvin Elliot defines the word, as used in 2 Peter 1:3, 5, as, “Moral rectitude, uprightness of character (considered as being a manifestation of manly vigor).”

This definition by Elliot seems to combine moral straightness with courage that is needed for one to be morally upright. Indeed in most societies, moral uprightness cannot be separated from courage, and would be a strong manifestation of a vigorous strength of character.

Our Present Need

We presently need Christians with the courage to be morally upright. The New Testament standard of moral conduct is clearly not the norm in the worldly society. It must, however, always be the standard for the child of God. One who fails to add virtue to his faith is blind, seeing only what is near, having forgotten the cleansing from his old sins (2 Pet. 1:9). Preachers, elders, and brethren, listen to me! Wake up to your responsibility to be examples in moral uprightness.

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 5, p. 73
February 4, 1982

By Earl E. Robertson

The church of the Lord is not an after-thought of divinity, as premillennialists contend; but the church is the fulfillment of God’s eternal purpose (Eph. 3:10, 11). The prophets of the Old Testament foretold its coming. Isaiah said the mountain of the Lord’s house would be established in the last days (Isa. 2:2). Paul tells us the house of God is the church (1 Tim. 3:15). So, the house of the Lord and the church of the Lord are one and the same. Daniel says, “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever” (Dan. 2:44). The Hebrew writer says we have received this kingdom (Heb. 12:28). This kingdom is the one into which all Christians have been translated (Col. 1:13). The kingdom of Christ and the church of Christ are one and the same. From the account of Luke 22:15-20, Jesus shows the Lord’s supper would be eaten “in the kingdom of God,” but not “until the kingdom of God shall come.” But Paul shows the Lord’s supper is in the Lord’s church (1 Cor. 11:18-30). We must, therefore, conclude that either the kingdom and church are one and the same, or the apostles and others were guilty of stealing the Lord’s supper from the kingdom and putting it into the Lord’s church! I would rather believe the church and the kingdom are the same.

“Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it” (Psa. 127:1). The Lord said, “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). The Lord built it and is the foundation of it (1 Cor. 3:10, 11); He is its only head (Eph. 1:22, 23; Col. 1:18, 24) and Savior (Eph. 5:23), having bought it with His own blood (Acts 20:28).

No person can enter this kingdom without being born again (John 3:3-5). This new birth is of “water and the Spirit.” The Spirit revealed the gospel through the preaching and writing of the apostles, and is the begetting agency in the new birth (1 Cor. 4:15). From the grave of baptism, the delivery is made to complete the figure here used by the Lord. A birth necessitates a begettal and a delivery. This is what Jesus demands in Mark 16:15, 16.

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 5, p. 72
February 4, 1982

By Keith Sharp

On an almost daily basis the Northside Church of Christ in Conway, Arkansas, where I preach, receives advertisements from various individuals, churches and organizations appealing for money. Except for requests for support from faithful evangelists, this material quickly reaches “file 13.” But an advertisement recently came to the church that caused me to do a “double-take.”

I was startled to find that the Church of Christ now has its own, full-fledged, undisguised missionary society just like the Christian Church. The appeal was from the World Christian Broadcasting Corporation, which came into being in Abilene, Texas in 1976. “This non-profit organization is under the leadership of a Board of Directors.” “The President is Chief Executive officer” of the corporation. He is Dr. Robert E. Scott of Abilene, Texas. The chief objective of this organization is “to provide facilities and services by which the message of Christ can be shared with people in all parts of the world.” This corporation is appealing for individual Christians to send money and for churches to take a special collection “for a one time contribution” (enclosed article by Reuel Lemmons from Firm Foundation, October 13, 1981). Also enclosed was a form addressed to the “Northside Church of Christ” which included the following alternatives on its checklist: “Here’s our special gift to help WCBC” and “We plan a special contribution (date).”

The conclusion is inescapable. Brethren, this is a missionary society, pure and simple, precisely parallel to the American Christian Missionary Society formed in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1849, which served as the original and primary wedge between the Church of Christ and the Christian Church.

The monetary appeal of WCBC, though of enormous importance, should not be surprising. This corporation in Abilene is nothing more than the legitimate offspring of the Herald of Truth, also located in Abilene, which has divided churches of Christ for a generation.

For years proponents of the Herald of Truth have denied the obvious parallels between that sponsoring church arrangement and the missionary society. Although they have blinded themselves to the parallels, they have always used the same defenses that were used for the missionary society by Christian Church preachers.

Now a new generation has arisen. Thirty years of apostasy has borne fruit. The false arguments in support of the Herald of Truth have been accepted by those who have not been told what is wrong with the missionary society. The results? Now, a generation later, the Church of Christ does indeed have its own missionary society.

In defense of the missionary society, brethren argued the need for the preaching of the gospel to the lost (which none deny and which faithful churches do proportionately more of than institutional churches, that it was merely an “expedient” means for churches to cooperate and that something needed to be done on a larger scale than one congregation could accomplish (cf. Earl I. West, The Search for the Ancient Order, Vol. I, ch. 9). The same defenses have consistently been used for Herald of Truth. Not surprisingly, these are precisely the arguments used by Reuel Lemmons in his futile attempt to uphold WCBC. He did not bother to cite even so much as one Bible verse to prove the organization to be scriptural.

And why shouldn’t institutional churches of Christ have a missionary society? For a generation they have had such sponsoring church organizations as Herald of Truth and World Radio, which were nothing but missionary societies under elderships. For over a generation they have supported human organizations under boards of directors to relieve the needy. Recently they have begun sending support to colleges under boards of directors to do the work of edification. Why shouldn’t they also put their evangelistic society under a board of directors rather than an eldership? Either way it is a corruption of the organization of the church, a violation of the autonomy of local churches, centralization of churches and a vain attempt to organize the universal church on this earth.

Just as missionary society advocates of the nineteenth century feebly tried to avoid the stigma of destruction of local church autonomy by claiming they could not dictate to the churches, even so WCBC vainly attempts to dodge the stigma of being a missionary society by claiming, “Remember, we’re not seeking funds from the church treasury.” Such an hypocritical, shallow, transparent disguise! In the same letter they request: “Use the enclosed Reply Form and envelope to tell us if your congregation will help.” Reuel Lemmons explains they are looking for a “special collection” from the churches on “a one time” basis.

If the church, under the oversight of its elders, takes a special contribution from its members, and the elders write a check for that sum to do a work for the congregation, is that not the church at work? Pray tell how does that differ from taking it out of the treasury? Does this mean churches will never hear from them again for more money? If you believe that, let me talk to you about buying the Brooklyn Bridge.

The list of brethren endorsing WCBC is impressive. It includes such well known preachers as Jimmy Allen of Harding University, Batsell Barrett Baxter of David Lipscomb College and Herald of Truth and Jimmie Lovell of Action Magazine, who can be counted on to endorse practically any new apostasy among the brethren.

More significantly, the list includes Ira North, editor of Gospel Advocate, and Reuel Lemmons, editor of Firm Foundation. Beginning in 1855 under Tolbert Fanning and William Lipscomb and later under David Lipscomb and his editor heirs, the Gospel Advocate adamantly and stridently opposed the American Christian Missionary Society. From 1885 under Austin McGary and on, the Firm Foundation did the same. Will these brethren yet deny they have changed?

Noticeably absent from the roll of supporters was Guy N. Woods, editor of Gospel Advocate. Brother Woods, could we hear from you? Do you approve this new Church of Christ missionary society? If so, what will you say about the one started in 1849? If not, how will you defend church support of the orphanages and Herald of Truth? Will you stay with Ira North and the Gospel Advocate, which uphold WCBC?

For a generation brethren in institutional churches who know their practices are wrong have been claiming, “If they bring in such-and-such, I’ll leave.” Dear brethren, how much farther must they go? They have church recreation, church socials, church support of human organizations, universal benevolence, centralization of churches and now a missionary society. What difference does it make whether or not these churches bring in the organ? They are already apostate. One more bullet will not make a man who has been shot to death any more dead.

Brethren, leave those dead churches now, or simply admit you are as spiritually dead as they are.

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty (2 Cor. 6:17, 18).

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 5, pp. 71-72
February 4, 1982

By Jimmy Tuten

1n another periodical an attempt is made by a contributor to align me with brother Yater Tant’s soft-pedaling and tip-toeing on the Crossroads matter. I have been charged with giving “glowing reports” about Crossroadism and lending support to insidious error gone to seed in liberalism. So that there will be no misunderstanding as to where I stand, regardless of how the material came across to you in Truth Magazine (Vol. 24, Aug. 14, 21, 28 and October 9), grant me the. liberty of making the following statements:

(1) Tant and Tuten are poles apart on Crossroads. There are some things we do agree on (I guess we still do) regarding this cultic philosophy, i.e., total commitment of each child of God, etc. But the Crossroads “Methodology” and extreme liberalism (or, liberalism, period), I do not endorse. For some time brother Tant and I were in direct communication on this matter and I thought at that time (a couple of years ago) that brother Tant, like myself, was simply being cautious in the matter in view of its explosiveness and our lack of sufficient evidence to draw proper conclusions. I was, perhaps, neglectful in not following my initial article with a later article to document the cultic tendencies of Crossroads which became increasingly obvious to me. I confronted brother Tant at the Florida College Lectures two years ago and asked him point blank, “Will you tell us what, if anything, you disapprove of about Crossroads?” I am still waiting! I endorse unequivocally. Ron Halbrook’s attempt to draw Tant out of this (Guardian of Truth, Vol. 25, No. 49). His failure (i.e., Tant’s) to speak out is the thing that prompted me to increase my investigation and make further assessments. Where I stand, and have stood all along, but now with more resolve, is stated below. But first:

(2) Whatever I wrote and said in Truth Magazine was not intended to be a glowing report or endorsement of Crossroads. I said then and I say now (Truth Magazine, Oct. 9, 1980), “any attempt on our part to be fair in our criticisms and denunciations of the ‘Crossroads Philosophy’ is not to be understood as an endorsement of, her” (emphasis mine, jt). While it is true that some misunderstood my position, i.e., an attempt at clarification in the midst of grandiose explosiveness that makes it difficult during the heat to make proper assessment, most saw what my goal was and so stated (letters in my file verify this). Too, another brother who lived in Gainesville during the entire development wrote on the matter (Truth Magazine, Vol. 24, No. 49-50) and reechoed my sentiments. Neither one of us endorse the Crossroads philosophy.

(3) My position on Crossroads is this: I do not view her a cult in the vernacular of “Jim Jones Cultism,” but she is cultic. The increased volume of information about Crossroads that has continued to cross my desk since I wrote those first articles causes me to flatly and undeniably say, Now, Crossroads is cultic! She is more than that, she is liberalism gone to seed! If you ask me point blank, “Brother Tuten, is Crossroads a cult, or is she not?” I would have to respond in this either or proposition with a “yes, she is a cult.”

An Appeal

If this statement and clarification is not clear enough, tell me how I could say more clearly, “I am opposed to Crossroadism.” Please allow me the same liberties in expression as you want for yourself. I like to make my own butter though I milk a lot of cows! I am not a “bandwagon” man. I’m too busy looking at the direction they are taking and keep missing them. I had rather walk “with my God” anyway. Any charge that Tant and Tuten are taking the same position on Crossroads is way off base! I have told you where I stand, if you did not understand before. Let’s work together and get brother Tant to tell us exactly where he now stands. If he has been keeping up with what has been happening on this matter, surely he can make proper assessment by now. Brother Tant, you have meant so much to me in the past. I shall never forget that it was you as editor of the Gospel Guardian who first encouraged me to write. Your writing has guided me in the formative years after my “new birth” and helped me see the light of day of institutionalism. Will you now join me in exposing and condemning the errors of Crossroadism? If not, why not? I am tired of the battle too, but the bugle continues to sound! “Soldiers of Christ arise . . .!” Amen.

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 5, p. 70
February 4, 1982