Truth Magazine

By Wallace H. Little

In a 1977 discussion with several Filipino preachers on problems in teaching, I mentioned a series of lessons on “Methods of Teaching.” They thought it would be good for me to return and teach this, providing other preachers agreed. They did. To make the series more suitable, I revised the material, reducing the number of lessons from 13 to 9. Five hundred copies were printed for distribution for attendees. I choose 13 locations where the greatest number of preachers could be reached at minimum expense to them. Other members, including wives, were also welcome to attend. The series required 21 hours of classes over three days in each place. Additionally, I discussed some problems of significance to Filipino brethren. Also, some funds had been sent to me for distribution for specific benevolence cases, although not as massive as in previous years. Another purpose was to lend whatever influence I might have to settle a long-standing dispute among brethren. I planned to preach as I was invited to do so. The trip began on the Lord’s day, 16 March 1980 and ended on Saturday, 21 June 1980. Unlike previous trips, I planned this one with time for me to rest properly.

The results: I was privileged to see 26 baptized into Christ in the various places where I was privileged to preach. This was an unplanned, but certainly joyous additional consequence. 398 preachers, plus a number of others including more than a few preachers’ wives, attended the classes. I had intended sending each of my supporters a copy of the notes I used for the classes, but these are all gone. Toward the end, it was even necessary to ration them so each preacher could have a copy. However, I summarized the notes at the end of the report I sent to my supporters. The classes themselves, plus other teaching and preaching, gave me an average of 30 hours of teaching each week. I missed preaching one Lord’s day when I was ill and was unable to assemble with the saints. Finally, I have written an individual report on each supported man, to be sent to those who are supporting.

Success in helping brethren solve their problems is not yet completely measureable. It will take time to see how much fruit this will bear. I pray this was successful, for the preacher-envy there has been the plague on that work for 15 years. Distribution of benevolence and other financial matters are included in a report to my supporters which contains an audit of these things prepared by a professional in that field, that brethren might be assured proper stewardship has been exercised.

I planned an average expense of $30.00 per day, apart from transportation and miscellaneous costs. It turned out to be closer to $50.00, for several reasons. First, there was an inflation increase of more than 25% from the time I planned the trip until I arrived. Second, one week after I arrived, the government announced a 26% across the board increase on hotel cost and related charges. Third, a similar increase was allowed for restaurants.

I contracted pneumonia, and added to the other expenses, was a stay in the hospital, plus the medicine and doctor bills for it. More importantly, I lost four days of work, and that hurt badly.

Brethren supporting me over-subscribed, which turned out to be fortunate because of the increased costs. Even so, for the last month prior to my departure, I turned back a number of offers of additional financial help. Those funds remaining will be returned to my supporters on a basis proportionate to their financial assistance.

One congregation offered $1500.00 for trip expenses. When I informed these good brethren I already had sufficient, they asked me to use the funds to purchase and distribute Bibles there. This was done so each preacher received at least one Bible in his native dialect. There are 116 major and minor recorded dialects, greatly complicating the teaching problem. The need for dialect Bibles is to permit preachers to teach those whose English is inadequate to this. In this future, I hope more dialect Bibles can be purchased and distributed. The ultimate solution to the language problem is the government’s plan to make the Philippines a bi-lingual nation within a generaion. Tagalong and English will be the two languages. The short term solution is a 3-language interlinear translation based on the 1901. Competent men are presently at work on this. Before the end of 1980, 1 hope to have enough of a sample completed (perhaps the entire book of Matthew) to enable me to make an effective presentation to raise the funds to complete this work and get it into the hands of preachers there.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 34, p. 555
August 28, 1980

By Earl Robertson 

Jude tearfully warns the children of God concerning the character of false teachers who stealthily creep in among them. He informs them that they turn the grace of God into lasciviousness, and will even deny the Father and the Son. Men of this stripe have no intention of doing God’s will, are far removed in identifying with the character of holiness and are sunken to the bottom of slime that they have no compunction of conscience. As Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves over to fornication and strange flesh, these false teachers are also moral reprobates. Jude says, “Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities” (Jude 8). In spite of the examples of the cities of the Plain, these dreamers dream on!

Moses said the Lord was grieved in his heart at the wickedness and evil imaginations of men (Gen. 6:5, 6). These evil imaginations and thoughts were in the hearts of men! One of the seven things the Lord is said to hate is “an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations” (Prov. 6:18). Peter speaks of “cunningly devised fables” (2 Pet. 1:16) which, being of the wicked one, destroys all that is right. Over against such wickedness, Paul writes, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think of these things” (Phil. 4:8). What a contrast in God’s thoughts and man’s thoughts!

But Jude affirms these “filthy dreamers” dream on! Peter writes of the same, saying, “Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children” (2 Pet. 2:14). This vivid expression is descriptive of a man unable to look at a woman without lasciviousness in his heart, a clear violation of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:28! Such motivation prevented a cessation from sin. As in the gymnasium, they “exercised” or trained their hearts to practice sin! Yes, they dreamed of filth! This is exactly what continues to plague individuals and churches today. Think on the pure, the true and the right.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 34, p. 554
August 28, 1980

By Jimmy Tuten

The so-called “Crossroads philosophy” is indeed an ignominious display of the result of liberalism. It is the apex of all “no patternism,” “we do many things for which we have no authority” postulations. This appears contradictory perhaps to what has been said in previous installments on Crossroads. What we are faced with is an enigma that defies common sense in religion. It is the display of what the departure from objective truth (Jude 3; 2 Tim. 3:16-17) into subjective reasoning (Jer. 10:23; Prov. 14:12; Matt. 7:21-23; 2 Cor. 10:12) will do. The result is confusion and division (1 Tim. 6:3-5). You have the “mainline” or “old-guard” brethren who have split churches and alienated brethren with a display of lack of respect for authority, now criticizing and condemning the birth of something coming from the very seed they planted in days long gone. Much of their condemnation is couched in the very words of ultra-liberalism (the latter is but a step away from the institutional camp), i.e., the charge of “exclusiveness, over-aggressiveness, conformity,” etc. The ultras, on the other hand will not acknowledge their “mother,” for she (at the moment, but be patient, it is coming) is too exclusive for those of broader persuasion. The institutional group is indeed acting like a little boy running around the barn trying to close the door after the horse got out. “They are worse than that. They are trying to close one door, but leaving three others wide open” (John Welch). They are not happy at all over the fact that others have taken their arguments and gone too far, further than expected and desired. Brethren Harvey Floyd and T. Pierce Brown, armor-bearers against “cultism” in the church, had better clean around their door and close it! Their own definitions of “liberalism” turn on them, i.e., “that attitude which challenges and denies the absolute authority of the Word of God and causes men to set aside God’s will in favor of their own subjective speculations and desires in religion” (Rubel Shelly, Liberals Threat To The Faith, p. 4). After all of the trite cliches and explosive, prejudicial terminology have been removed from the scene, here is what we are faced with:

(1) Crossroads has a basic conviction or exclusiveness. The only difference between the exclusiveness of mainline churches of Christ and Crossroads is that Crossroads will tell you to your face that you will go to hell if you do not belong to the church. Brethren Floyd, Woods, etc. would draw a circle around the exclusiveness of Crossroads while at the same time enlarging it enough to encompass institutional brethren to the exclusion of all others. “You make a law where God has made no law,” or “you bind where God has not bound,” are charges hurled at us. They demonstrate the exclusiveness of liberals who charge us with exclusiveness. It is a two-edged sword. Those who cry for tolerance, broad-mindedness, amalgamation with sincere believers of all religious groups cannot see, nor accept the exclusiveness of the unique church of the New Testament. Jesus established only one church (Matt. 16:18). He revealed only one faith (Eph. 4:5). The church is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23). Christ is its Savior (Eph. 5:35). Only the saved are in the church (Acts 2:47; 1 Cor. 12:18). This exclusiveness is not some “arrogant notion.” Nor am I saying that one has to be 100% correct, theologically speaking, in order to be saved. I am saying that we have to be right about something and we cannot be wrong about everything, and expect to go to heaven.

(2) Crossroads does not allow freedom. This is sometimes referred to as “conformity.” When people talk about Crossroads’ infringement upon one’s freedom, they are talking about the same thing we are often charged with, i.e., demanding subjection to the law of Christ. By “freedom” people mean “not under law” and “freedom from restraint.” We are under the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21). That law requires obedience (Acts 3:22-23; Heb. 5:9). I am not aware of any differences of understanding between Crossroads and myself regarding subjection to Jesus Christ. Emphasis on this factor differs, but neither of us believes that in “religion” one “can do his own thing” and please God (Matt. 7:13-23). Given the current thought in denominational circles (everyone is going to heaven regardless of what we believe and do), if you publish the fact that freedom is the freedom to choose, that God holds us responsible for our decisions, you will be charged with “mind-control,” “legalism,” and now, cultism! Mix in a little yellow journalism with the Biblical thought of “one way to heaven” and you have a distorted picture of bigots and psychologically warped misfits. Freedom is not license!

(3) Crossroads is over-aggressive. Brethren ought to be ashamed of themselves for repeating unconfirmed stories of Crossroads chasing adulterous young ladies down the streets of Gainesville, waving Bibles and crying “repent, repent!” Can anyone define “undue evangelistic pressure”? Can we agree on what it is? When you repeat stories like the one above you present a picture of religious zombies with funnels crammed into the tops of peoples’ heads and Bible verses being poured in amid cries of protest! Several times I have been accused of being too hard and zealous. Epaphras, look out (Col. 4:13)! Jesus, you should not have allowed your zeal to eat you up (Jno. 2:17). The very idea of brethren pulling Eutychus away from a night’s rest (Acts 20:9). We all know that zeal without tolerance is fanaticism, but is it not also true that if people were more zealous and less jealous, this matter of evangelism would not be something we just talk about? A wise man truly said, “there is no zeal so intemperate and cruel as that which is backed by ignorance.”

Conclusion

Ever since the church came into being, people have charged us with denial of tolerance to any other group of religious people. Acts 28:22 speaks of a “sect everywhere against.” The fact that we would be falsely accused is one form of persecution the Lord told us of (Matt. 13:20-21). These charges against us make it difficult to talk to people. It discourages us. Instead of allowing excitement to dominate us with meaningless denials, let us cry out like Paul, “Sirs, why do ye these things?” (Acts 14:15). Then affirm exactly what we believe. Let us not be so prejudiced as to think for a moment that the press is not persecuting Crossroads for doing things that we would like to do. Guilty or not guilty, right or wrong, the fact that charges against us are made in public medias have devastating effect. I certainly concur with Faith and Facts, that the reason we are not being persecuted as Crossroads is being persecuted is “because we are not having as big an effect upon as many people” (October 1979, p. 278). It is possible for us to be treated just like Crossroads. I have tried to show this in dealing with the “Crossroads philosophy.” I do not condemn Crossroads with a blanket condemnation, nor have I tried to defend her. It is with love for all the brethren that I have written these things. If I have failed, God is my judge. “Make sure what would have the Lord’s approval” (Eph. 5:10, N.E.B.).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 34, pp. 553-554
August 28, 1980

By Greg Litmer

When you decide to look at the Roman Catholic priesthood, you quickly realize the vast quantity of material to be covered. What we intend to cover in this lesson is what the priesthood is, how one becomes a priest, and what are the special effects or powers that come with the priesthood.

The term that is used to describe the rite of ordination into the priesthood is “Holy Orders.” The Baltimore Catechism defines “Holy Orders” in the following manner: “Holy Orders is the sacrament through which men receive the power and grace to perform the sacred duties of bishops, priests, and other ministers of the Church. (a) The distinction between clergy and laity is of divine origin, for first, Christ chose the twelve apostles from among His disciples; and in a special way deputed and consecrated them for the exercise of spiritual ministrations; and second, the apostles, who could not mistake the will of Christ, administered the sacrament of Holy Orders by consecrating bishops and by ordaining priests and deacons.”

Furthermore, the Catholics teach the doctrine of apostolic succession. In other words, the priest are direct spiritual descendants of the apostles, possessors of certain of the peculiar powers that the apostles had, and that they are the sole possessors of these powers. What we are talking about then is a group of men, successors to the apostles, separate and apart from the rest of the people, who have certain special spiritual powers. These powers, coupled with the position these men hold in the church, elevate them above the rest of their fellow men. That is a capsule view of what the priesthood is. Let us look now at how a man becomes a priest.

The Baltimore Catechism says the following about how a man becomes a priest. For a man to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders worthily, it is necessary “first, that he be in the state of grace and be of excellent character; second, that he have the prescribed age and learning; third, that he have the intention of devoting his life to the sacred ministry; fourth, that he be called to Holy Orders by his bishop. (b) Those who are called by God to be priests ordinarily receive no special revelation to this effect. God expects all to use the gifts of reason and of grace in determining their state of life. (c) Without a special dispensation no one may be ordained a priest until he is twenty-four years of age. Ordinarily the prescribed learning consists of four years of high school, four years of college, and four years of theology completed in a seminary. (d) The sacred ministry of the priesthood can be exercised either as a diocesan priest under a bishop. or as a member of a religious community under a religious superior. Priests of religious orders make the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Diocesan priests bind themselves to chastity for life and make a solemn promise of obedience to their bishop.”

During the course of these years of study, the men preparing for the priesthood go through a number of stages of advancement. The two major ones prior to the priesthood are subdeacon and deacon. This is primarily what is involved as one makes his way toward ordination. With the lack of vocations that the Catholic Church has been experiencing lately, they have begun to waive some of the requirements. For instance, there is a seminary in Boston that I am aware of which is for what is called a late vocation. These are men who are a little bit older and have decided to become priests. In these cases, their learning consists of three years in the seminary. These too, however, must be recommended by the bishop in the diocese that they will be serving.

Having seen what the priesthood is and how one goes about becoming a priest, let us now look at the special effects or powers that come with the priesthood. The Baltimore Catechism says, “The effects of ordination to the priesthood are: first, an increase of sanctifying grace; second, sacramental grace, through which the priest has God’s constant help in his sacred ministry; third, a character, lasting forever, which is a special sharing in the priesthood of Christ and which gives the priest special supernatural powers.” It also states, “The chief supernatural powers of the priest are: to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and to forgive the sins in the sacrament of Penance.” These, then, are the special effects and supernatural powers that go with being a priest.

Our objective will be to examine these three points that we have seen and determine the validity of each. If the priesthood and clergy distinction is taught in the Bible, then we must accept it. If God has set forth in His Holy Word all of those different requirements for a man to become a special minister to Him, then we must accept them. If God did promise to give the special effect and supernatural powers to a select group of people, then we must accept that fact. However, if the Word of God does not teach these doctrines, then we must reject them immediately and follow only what the Bible says.

Let us begin by looking at the existence of the priesthood in the first place. Does this exclusive group of religious people have any right to exist according to God’s Word? Does the Bible truly teach the clergy and laity distinction?

In I Peter 2:9, Peter is writing to Christians, specifically those scattered about Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. He is writing to all of those Christians, young and old, men and women. In that particular verse he says, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Peter refers to the entire goup of Christians as “a royal priesthood.” Do you see a clergy distinction there?

In Rev. 1:6, John is writing to the seven churches which were in Asia. Once again these churches included young and old, men and women. In that verse he said, “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever. Amen.” In other words, all Christians are priests. Do you see a clergy distinction there?

The clergy distinction is an attempt to elevate certain men above their fellow man. It gives the man who is the priest a position of honor and reverence. Now, lest anyone would say that is not the priest’s fault, but rather it is the fault of those who give him that honor, look at some of the Catholic doctrine concerning the attitude people are supposed to possess concerning priests. In the Baltimore Catechism, the following statement is made. “Catholics should show reverence and honor to the priest because he is the representative of Christ Himself and the dispensor of His mysteries. (a) In showing reverence and honor to the priest one shows reverence and honor to Christ Himself, for the priest in a very true sense is “another Christ.” In this country it is the custom to honor priests by addressing them with the title `Father.’ The custom of tipping the hat to the priest is praiseworthy. The proper way to address a bishop and an archbishop is `Your Excellency:’ a cardinal, `Your Emminence:’ the Pope is addressed as `Your Holiness.”‘

This practice of elevating one man over another is so entirely contrary to the teaching of the scriptures. Jesus taught in Matt. 20:25-28 the following lesson: “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise dominion over them, and they that are great excercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

Look at the audacity inherent in those titles: “Father,” “Your Excellency,” “Your Emminence,” and “Your Holiness.” Brethren, that is in direct conflict with the teaching of the scriptures. Jesus said, “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye* called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” This “honor and reverence” which the Catholics teach should be given to a certain group of men is not found in the scriptures. As a matter of fact, it is sinful because it is- in direct violation of Biblical principles.

What about the rite of apostolic succession? Let us let Peter tell us what was necessary to be an apostle. In Acts 1:21, 22, he tells us the qualifications for this office, if we may call it that. There he says, “Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection” Will any priest claim to have been a witness of the resurrected Christ? Will any priest claim to have accompanied the other apostles while Jesus was physically among them? Certainly not. Therefore, no priest could possibly fulfill the requirements for apostleship.

I think one other point will be helpful in our understanding of the fallacy of apostolic succession. The Catholics claim that there is an unbroken line of Popes from Peter unto the present, but they know this is not true. The following dispatch came from Vatican City in January 18, 1947. It says, “Vatican City, as the result of years of investigation into the 1,900 year line of succesion of the popes of the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican’s new directory has dropped six popes from its old list. It placed two others in doubt as possible anti-popes and lists as a true pope one who had not been included until now.” In all, information on 74 different popes was changed. These changes included corrections in the dates of their reign as pope, as well as the assertion that one of them (Pope Dono 2, who was listed as pontiff for three months in the year 173) never really existed. The Catholics have invented this line of apostolic succession as far as the pope is concerned, and then have broken it. I wonder how many of the Catholic laity are aware of this?

What about the requirements for the. priesthood? We have already seen that the Bible teaches that we are all priests and that we are all to work to the best of our ability in the service of the Lord. That includes study and preparation (2 Tim. 2:15). But all of the rules and regulations such as age, being called by a bishop, and education simply are not found in the Bible. If they were, then certainly none of the early evangelists, with the possible exception of Paul, would have qualified purely on the basis of education alone. A lot more time spent studying the Bible instead of the years spent studying Catholic theology in some seminary would much better prepare a person to do the work of the Lord. These requirements are nothing more than Catholic dogma.

Let us look now at the supernatural powers given to a priest. The first was the ability to change wine into the blood of Christ and bread into His body. This is known as transubstantiation, and we talked about that in a previous lesson. In that lesson, we showed that that change does not take place and that Jesus never meant it to as He obviously used figurative language when He instituted His supper.

The next supernatural power is the ability to forgive sins. This practice of Roman Catholics is called “Auricular Confession.” It is part of the sacrament of Penance and it is called “Auricular” because the sins are whispered privately into the ear of a priest in a little booth called a confessional. This is beginning to change somewhat and the strictness of the little confessional is beginning to be laxed, somewhat, but the power to forgive sins still rests with the priest.

The Catholics use a few scriptures to make their case. First is James 5:16, “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” Catholics seem to think that this verse reads, “Confess your faults to the priests . . .” but it simply does not say that. The true import of that passage is that the sins to which James refers are to be mutually confessed by Christians one to another. There is no foundation in this passage for confession, privately, to a priest for forgiveness.

The next passage is Matt. 3:5, 6. There we read, “Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.” Confession to a priest is nowhere to be found there. The confession mentioned here was that of the Jews on the occasion of the preaching of John the Baptist. This confession was not made to John, but to God. The context would lead us to believe that this was a confession of sins in general, not in particular. It was the type of confession that the Old Testament frequently records the Jews making (Ezra 9:5-15; Dan. 9:3-20).

The passage that is most frequently used is John 20:22, 23. There we read, “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” The Catholic contention is that this passage gives ordained priests the power from God to forgive sins that are confessed to them. But this passage does not deal with confession of sins and a priest’s power and perogative to forgive them or not. It deals solely with the power that Christ gave His apostles to forgive and retain sins. This power has nothing to with private confession to a priest. The apostles were commissioned to preach the gospel of our Lord. When people heard, believed, and obeyed the gospel, they had their sins forgiven; when they rejected the gospel, their sins were retained. Only in this sense did the apostles possess the authority to forgive sins or to retain them.

If the apostles had the power to forgive sins, then Peter’s statement in Acts 8:22 would have been unnecessary. Peter said, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.” Peter could have given him absolution himself if he had posessed the power that Catholic priests claim to possess.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 34, pp. 550-552
August 28, 1980