Truth Magazine

By Brooks Cochran

Due to recent events in the Middle East much interest is being directed toward that area of the world. “Across much of Asia and Africa, religious tensions are sweeping the world of Islam into deepening turbulence and political instability.”(1) Directly or indirectly some 900 million Moslems are involved.

However, the main attention of this country is directed toward Iran. “Americans have trouble comprehending an important fact about Iran’s revolution: The Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers believe absolutely that the Moslem faith is infallible and that their branch of Islam is superior to all others. Most Iranians belong to the Shiite sect of Islam, which split from the orthodox Sunni Moslems centuries ago in a dispute over who was to assume the power of the Prophet Mohammed. They are taught that the supreme Shiite religious leader – in this case Khomeini – has a God-given right to pass judgment on all political decisions.”(2)

Since the Islamic religion is receiving much attention in the world press it would be good for us to engage in a study of its origin and doctrines. Attention will also be given to compare certain teachings of Mohammed with that of the Bible.

General Background

“Islam” is the formal name of the religion that Mohammed established in 622 A.D. The basic meaning of the word is “submission to God.” A member of this faith is called a “Moslem.” The central belief of Islam is: “There is no God but God (Allah), and Mohammed is his prophet (apostle).”(3) The Koran is the “holy book of Islam.” The word “Koran” means “recital.” It is a collection of the teaching of Mohammed.(4)

There are four chief obligations which a Moslem must meet. He must: (a) pray at certain fixed times of the day facing Mecca, the Holy City of Islam; (b) if possible, make a pilgrimage to Mecca once in his lifetime; (c) give alms to the poor; and (d) fast from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ramadan the ninth month of the Moslem year. This month is considered sacred because Moslems believe that it was during this month that Mohammed had his vision of the archangel Gabriel.(5)

Islam has no religious images because Mohammed would not allow his followers to make representations of human and/or animal forms. The worship to Allah is without any elaborate ceremonies and there is no formal priesthood in the Islamic religion. There are, however, men called “mullahs” who are learned in the Islamic faith and law.

Religious Background

The tribes of Arabia, at the time of Mohammed’s birth (ca. 570 A.D.), were idol worshipers. They worshiped sacred stones and trees. The city of Mecca was their chief center of worship. At Mecca was located the sacred building called the “Kaaba.”

The Kaaba, according to tradition, was supposed to have been built by angels in the shape of a tent and let down to earth from heaven. It was here that Adam is said to have worshiped after his expulsion from paradise. Seth, it is said, substituted a structure of clay and stone in place of the tent. After the flood, Abraham and Ishamel reconstructed it. To this day Arabs believe that the footprints of Abraham and Ishamel can still be seen near the Kaaba. The present structure was entirely rebuilt in 1627. In November 1979 this structure was taken over by radical Moslems which in turn caused much unrest in many Moslem countries.

“Though Polytheism was the prevailing religion of Arabia, still there were in the land many followers of other beliefs.”(6) Many of the Jews, following the destruction of Jerusalem, were scattered throughout Arabia. Christians were also to be found. They, for the most part, “belonged to the various heretical sects which were expelled” from the Roman Church “during the violent doctrinal controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries.”(7) (Note: In the use of the term “Christians” I do not mean to imply that these were New Testament Christians. By this time, Roman Catholicism had just about reached its maturity. Thus, I use the term to refer to those that did believe in God and Christ as opposed to those that did not.) From the Jews, the Arabs were made acquainted with the “doctrine of the one sole God. From the numerous Christian converts dwelling among them they” learned some of the doctrines of Christianity.(8)

At the time of the birth of Mohammed “there was much religious unrest in Arabia. There were here many seekers after God, men who, dissatisfied with the old idolatry, were ready to embrace a higher faith.”(9) “Arabia had at” this time, “all the elements for a wild, warlike, eclectic religion like the one which” Mohammed established.(10)

The Life of Mohammed

Mohammed was born in Mecca about 570 A.D. He was born into the Hashim family which was a member of the Kuraish tribe. It was this tribe that was the hereditary guardians of the Kaaba. His father, Abdallah, died before he was born. His mother, Amina, died when he was six. Upon her death, an uncle by the name of Abu Talib took him in and raised him.

During the early part of his life, he traveled with his uncle and others that were associated with the caravan business. It was while on these journeys as a camel driver and trader that he came in contact with various Jews and Christians. These contacts were the primary source of Mohammed’s information concerning the beliefs of Judaism and Christianity.

When he was twenty-five years of age, he married a rich widow, Chadijah, who was fifteen years his senior. She had previously hired him to carry on the mercantile business of her dead husband. Her father was opposed to this marriage; but she made and kept him drunk until the marriage ceremony was complete. There were six children (two sons and four daughters) born to Mohammed and Chadijah. All died except one daughter named Fatima. After Chadijah’s death Mohammed married a number of women. Some say that he had as many as twelve wives at one time.

At the age of forty, Mohammed claimed to have received a revelation from the angel Gabriel. Gabriel, he states, ordered him to preach to the Arabs so that they might be brought to religious purity. These so-called “revelations” came to him gradually over the rest of his life. He became convinced that God was revealing the truth to him, having singled him out to be his messenger.

At first, he preached only to members of his family. Then he went to the people of Mecca. A few Meccans accepted his message; but the vast majority rejected him and his teaching. In fact, the opposition was so strong, that fearing for his life, he took his followers and went to the town of Medina. This flight to Medina became known as the “Hegira” (“flight”). Since, in the mind of Moslems, this was such an important event in the life of Mohammed, it was used as the starting point for the Moslem calendar; i.e. the year 622 A.D. became the year I.

The years spent in Medina were years of conquest and expansion for Mohammed. Medina was the location of a large Jewish colony. To those Jews who refused to accept him and his teaching it was either death, slavery or pay tribute to Allah. The choice was theirs. Philip Schaff states that “on one occasion he ordered and watched in person and massacre of 600 Jews in one day, while their wives and children were sold into slavery.”(11)

In about 630, Mohammed was able to return to Mecca and take the city with little or no force. Upon entering the city he went to the Kaaba and destroyed all the idols contained therein with the exception of a black stone which Moslems today still revere. He then dedicated the Kaaba to Allah.

Mohammed died in 632 A.D. At the time of his death almost all Arabia had accepted his teaching. In less than twenty years after his death, his religion had spread to Syria, Egypt, Lybia and most of the old Persian Empire. By the beginning of the 8th century it had spread along the shore of North Africa to the Atlantic. Between 711 and 1492 Islamic forces had control of Spain.

Mohammed “regarded his revelation as the confirmation of Hebrew and Christian scriptures, as a religion designed for all men, the perfection of both Judaism and Christianity, the final revelation and synthesis of God’s truth.”(12) “Initially,” he “assumed that Jews and Christians would recognize his preaching as the last and most perfect revelation of God’s will. For Allah, Mohammed believed was the same deity who had spoken to Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and all the other Hebrew prophets. Since Allah could not contradict himself, differences between Mohammed’s own revelation and the tenets of the older religions were explained simply as the result of human error or corruption of the authentic divine message.”(13) “By a combination of wise policies, toleration and force he converted many of the Bedouin tribes to his new religion.”(14)

The Islamic Standard of Authority

While Moslems believe that Allah revealed his will to Mohammed, and he in turn revealed it to man, they distinguish this revelation as being in two parts. One part consists of the sayings spoken by Gabriel directly to Mohammed. The other contains the sayings of Mohammed which give the sense of inspired instruction. These revelations are contained in two of the sources the Moslems go to for their authority; the Koran and the Sunna. In addition, to these two, Moslems also look to the Ulema.

The Koran is a collection of Mohammed’s teachings. These sayings and teachings were collected about a year after his death by his father-in-law, Abu-Bakr, and his immediate successor, Zoyd. The sayings had been written down on leather, parchment, bones, palm leaves, stones and boards. At the time of this collection the sayings and teachings were arranged without any chronological order or continuity of subject matter. Some years later the Koran went through a revision. Moslems believe the Koran to have been written from all eternity on tablets in heaven. From time to time, the contents of these tablets were revealed to Mohammed. He would then recite to his followers the revelation he received.

The Sunna consists of a great body of traditions of Mohammed’s sayings which are not part of the Koran; i.e. his actions, practices and decisions which have been handed down by his immediate companions. The first collection of these sayings was made some 100-200 years after the death of Mohammed. These traditions are regarded by the orthodox Moslems as being almost as sacred and authoritative as the Koran.

The Ulema was a body of pious men who met together to work out problems on which the Koran and Sunna could offer no direct guidance. In confronting a problem, they first went to the lore of Islam which contained reports about Mohammed’s uninspired words and deeds. This information was usually obtained from close companions of Mohammed. If this failed to provide a satisfactory solution to the problem, the Ulema considered the conduct of men closely associated with Mohammed; i. e., how would his close friends act in this situation. When these traditions failed to give a convincing answer, the Ulema turned to the use of analogy to decide upon a course of action; i.e. study a parallel or similar situation and see what was done in that case. If this failed, they fell back upon majority feeling, arguing that Allah would not allow the entire community to err, however faulty individual judgments might be. By using this system, these men of Islam rapidly built up an elaborate system of law, which they believed expressed the will of Allah.

The Sunni-Shiite Split

Moslems, following the death of Mohammed, disagreed over his successor. Eventually, Abu Bekr, his oldest companion and father-in-law, was chosen as “Caliph” (the representative of Mohammed). The next two Caliphs were also chosen from outside Mohammed’s family to the dismay of many Moslems. When the third Caliph was murdered (656 A.D.), those who favored choosing only a member of Mohammed’s family had formed themselves around Mohammed’s son-in-law, Ali. This group became known as the Shiites (sectarians). Those that opposed the Shiites and favored the election of any eligible person to the Caliphate were known as Sunnites. (traditionalists).

Ali was chosen Caliph, and as a result civil war broke out. Ali was murdered in 661. “His opponent Muawiya, of the Umayyad family, leader of Sunnites, had already proclaimed himself Caliph in Damascus. Thus began the Umayyad caliphate (660-750), which was on the whole a period of good government, brisk trade, and cultural advance under Byzantine influence. Shiite opposition to the Umayyads, however, remained strong. The Shiites felt it their duty to curse the first three caliphs, who ruled before their hero, Ali, and who were deeply revered by the Sunnites. The Shiites were far more intolerant of the unbeliever, conspired in secret against the government,and were given to self-pity and to wild outbursts of grief for Ali’s son Husein, who was killed in 680. Southern Iraq was then the center of Shiite strength.”(15)

“The Shiites believed in a continuing revelation expressed by new prophets who claimed to be descendants of Fatima, the daughter of Mohammed.”(16) The Ayatollah Khomeini is one of several Ayatollahs that belong to this sect. This is why “the Ayatollah views the world in black and white. One is either for him or against him. There is no middle ground. Believing that he is divinely inspired, Khomeini is certain he knows God’s will and sees no reason to negotiate or compromise. When things do not go as he expects, he blames a satanic plot.”(17)Most “of the Islamic world is Sunni Moslem and is embarrassed by Khomeini’s excesses in the name of Allah . . . Arab nations feel threatened by Iran’s Shiite fanaticism.”(18) 

Endnotes:

1. U.S. News and World Reports, 12/10/79, p. 27.

2. U.S. News and World Reports, 11/26/79, p. 33.

3. The Koran.

4. Mazour, Anatole and John M. Peoples, A World History: Men and Nations, p. 251.

5. Ibid., p. 253.

6. Myers, Philip Van Ness, Medieval and Modern History, p. 47.

7. Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Vol. IV, p. 159.

8. Myers, p. 47.

9. Ibid.

10. Schaff, p. 159.

11. Schaff, p. 165-166.

12. Brinton, Crane, John B. Christopher and Robert Lee Wolff, Civilization in the West, p. 202.

13. McNeill, William H., A World History, p. 205.

14. Mazour and Peoples, Men and Nations, p. 251.

15. Brinton, Christopher and Wolff, Civilization in the West, p. 204.

16. Cantor, Norman F., Medieval History: The Life and Death of a Civilization, p. 154.

17. U.S. News and World Report, 12/3/79, p. 26.

18. U.S. News and World Report, 11/26/79, p. 33.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 6, pp. 104-106
February 7, 1980

By Morris W. R. Bailey

A previous series of articles in this publication was given to a discussion of the important question, “What Is Truth?” That was the question asked by Pilate, the Roman governor, when Jesus was on trial before him. While we cannot know for certain the motive behind Pilate’s question, we do know that to them that seek to know and do God’s will it is one of the most serious and thought provoking questions to challenge the attention of man. Eternal issues are involved. Knowledge of the truth can free us from bond service to sin (John 8:32). Belief of the truth saves us from the condemnation of sin (2 Thess. 2:13). Obedience to the truth purifies our souls from the guilt of sin (1 Peter 1:22). These facts suggest to our minds the necessity for:

A Proper Attitude Toward The Truth

Two passages of scripture come to my mind. One is from the Old Testament and says, “Buy the truth, and sell it not; Yea, wisdom, and instruction and understanding” (Prov. 23:23). The other is from the New Testament and says, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine: but having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:3, 4).

Here we have two attitudes toward the truth, standing out in vivid contrast. One as it should be, but often is not; the other as it should not be, but too often is. The one seeks for the truth with the determination to acquire it, regardless of the cost. And having found the truth wilt not sell it regardless of the price that is offered. The other, though in possession of the truth, regards it as such little value that he turns from it to the fables of men.

Attitude Defined

The word, attitude is defined as “the bearing assumed by a person, or persons, indicative of feeling or opinion” (Webster), “a state of mind, behavior or conduct regarding some matter, as indicating opinion or purpose” (Funk & Wagnall). Some of the synonyms given are, “Condition of mind”; “state of feeling”; “mental state”; “frame of mind” (Webster’s New World Thesaurus).

We may thus summarize the above by saying that an attitude is a state of mind or feeling. It is the way that we feel, whether it be toward a person or persons, toward law and order, toward moral values, or toward a system of doctrine. An attitude can thus be favorable, being overtly expressed in friendliness and kindness toward others, strict compliance with law and order, or enthusiastic reception of a proposition or system of teaching. An attitude can be indifferent, exhibiting an “I couldn’t care less” state of mind. It can also be intensely hostile, indicating bitter hatred of some person, a complete disregard for law and order, or a scornful rejection of a proposition or system of teaching.

The foregoing observations lead us to the conclusion that our attitudes determine the pattern of our conduct. The wise man, Solomon, said, “Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23). Attitudes are formed in the heart and are actually a condition of the heart. So it thus follows that the issues that make up the warp and woof of our life are but the expression of attitudes conceived in the heart.

This leads to the further conclusion that if proper attitudes are essential to our well-being and happiness in the things of this life, how much more necessary it is that we have a proper attitude toward the truth which has to do with the welfare of our soul. It is a sad commentary on the human race, however, that men have not always had that proper attitude toward the truth. In this article and some others to follow, I shall point out some unfavorable attitudes, sometimes of indifference and other times of hostility that culminated in rejection of the truth and sometimes violent opposition to and persecution of gospel preachers.

Indifference To The Truth

In the second epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul wrote of some who “received not the love of the truth that they might be saved” (2 Thess. 2:10). Concerning such he said, “that they all might be judged who believed not the truth . . .” (vs. 12). One verse is the explanation of the other. They did not believe the truth because they did not love the truth. It should be observed here that Paul did not say that they hated the truth. One can be merely indifferent to a person, or to a system of doctrine without hating him or it. But the intellectual nature of man is such that he must love, or at least be sympathetic toward a system of teaching before he will believe it. So all that was necessary to their rejection of the truth was that they did not have a love for the truth. It was simply a matter of indifference with them.

Such an attitude, even though not hostile, is nonetheless deadly so far as the salvation of such persons is concerned. In fact, I would be more hopeful of converting some one who opposed the truth, if he did it out of strong religious conviction, than I would be of converting some one who is indifferent, even though he never opposed the truth.

The difference between strong religious conviction, even though in error, and a calloused indifference to the truth is exemplified in the experience of two New Testament characters.

One was Saul of Tarsus, the one time bitter enemy of Christ and the church. His early life was devoted to persecuting the church, even to the point of participating in the death of saints (Acts 26:10). But all this he did because he was a man of conviction. He had been reared a devout Jew, and educated at the feet of Gamaliel, the great teacher of the law, and had advanced in the Jewish religion beyond many of his own people. (Gal. 1:14). He regarded the Christian religion as a heresy that must be destroyed, and to which end he was passionately dedicated. So, although mistaken, he was a man of conviction who loved what he thought was the truth. When he learned the truth he accepted it, and at a terrible cost became a fearless preacher of the faith he had once sought to destroy.

Compare Paul’s experience with that of Felix, the Roman governor. So far as we know, Felix never actively opposed the truth. He was lenient with Paul, his prisoner (Acts 24:23) But when the truth was presented to him in Paul’s sermon on righteousness, self-control and judgment to come, and which caused him to tremble, his only response was a nonchalant “go thy way for this time; and when I have a convenient season, I will call thee unto me” (Acts 24:25). He never obeyed the gospel because he was indifferent to the truth.

Indifference Prevalent Today

Things have not changed since the days of Paul. There are multitudes today who, while not actively opposing the truth, reject it, or, what amounts to the same thing, fail to accept it because of indifference – a lack of love for the truth. This becomes more and more prevalent as time goes on, and the seeds of modernism planted by some of the colleges, universities, denominations, and yes; even by some who were one time faithful brethren, bear fruit.

Indifference to the truth spawns a prolific offspring of other evils. It lulls one into a false sense of security. If such a one is inclined to listen to any kind of preaching, he will probably listen to every kind of preaching and will be “carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14). Like those of whom Paul wrote, he will be “ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7).

It is those who are indifferent to the truth who tell us that is does not make any difference what one believes, as long as he is sincere. They make sincerity the standard of authority rather than truth. That is a philosophy that just does not work anywhere else. People have perished in blizzards because they thought that they were walking in the right direction, when in fact they were just walking in a circle as people that are lost usually do. Men have lost money because they sincerely believed that they were making a sound investment in some promising business enterprise, but which proved to be -al6ilure when the well did not produce oil, or the mine did not produce gold. Why then should anyone think that sincerity of belief is sufficient to make that which is believed true?

It is certain that Paul did not subscribe to the idea that it does not make any difference what one believes. For when writing of them that received not the love of the truth, he said, “And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie: that they might all be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thess. 2:11, 12). I do not understand Paul to teach that God will arbitrarily cause men to believe a lie. But since He has made man a free moral agent, if one has so little regard for the truth that he will knowingly accept a substitute, God will not stand in his way.. He will allow him to continue in his self-delusion.

Indifference Among Christians

The attitude of indifference to the truth is not confined to the irreligious world, nor to those who have espoused denominational error. All too often, it is found in the church of the lord. Sometimes we find church members who are woefully ignorant of some Bile subjects because they do not love the truth enough to study what the Bible teaches about those subjects. Just as ignorance of God’s word was the cause of Israel’s apostasy (Hosea 4:6), so also, ignorance caused by indifference to the truth can be, and yes, has been the cause of departures that lead to the ultimate apostasy of some congregations.

Indifference to the truth is the door through which worldliness creeps into the church. Sometimes preachers neglect to preach against certain sins because of the fear of offending some members. And sometimes sins that call for disciplinary action are allowed to continue unreproved because elders and other leaders are afraid of the possibility of disturbing the church and possible division.

Indifference to the truth is the door through which false teaching and human innovations find their way into the church. They creep in because members do not have enough love for the truth to keep them out. And they are allowed to grow because members are too indifferent to the truth to get them out after they are in.

Because of a lack of love for the truth, brethren sometimes object to. the discussion of controversial issues, fearing that some one will become disturbed. The result is that good men are often barred from pulpits where they were once welcome, because of the truth that they preach. Sometimes they have been accused of causing division, when all that they did was to preach some truth that was. sorely needed, but not welcomed. Such brethren are obviously more interested in a semblance of unity than in the truth.

Make no mistake about it. Since its beginning, the church has been embroiled in controversy and it always will be as long as men have the power to choose between truth and error. Division is not wrong if it is the result of contending for the truth (Gal. 2:3-5). Any semblance of unity that is maintained by compromising the truth cannot be pleasing to God. Those who love not the truth will be judged (2 Thess. 2:10-12).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 6, pp. 102-103
February 3, 1980

By Mike Willis

Since Truth Magazine began in 1956, its owners, editors and staff have changed more than once. The paper merged in March 1970 with the Cogdill Foundation, a corporation which had previously been known as the Gospel Guardian Foundation which had published Gospel Guardian and other gospel literature for years. Every effort or movement must in ,time die or be passed to people of like mind. This is true of New Testament Christianity, local churches and businesses. It is as true for spiritual endeavors as for financial institutions. As the change of hands occurs, each new generation must ask again, “Who are we?” “What are we doing?” For the good both of ourselves and of all honest inquirers, we shall reaffirm the nature of Truth Magazine and the Cogdill Foundation.

The Cogdill Foundation: A Business Enterprise

The Cogdill Foundation is a private business enterprise which is operated in compliance with the Federal Government’s requirements regarding non-profit organizations. This simply means that none of the acquired profits from the sale of our goods can ever inure to the benefit of any private person. Its funds must be used for religious, charitable, educational and eleemosynary purposes.

As a business enterprise, Cogdill Foundation is authorized in exactly the same way as any other business endeavor is authorized. I can find positive divine authority but cannot find specific authority for Cogdill Foundation, any more than I can find specific authority for General Motors, Inc. Yet, both businesses are authorized under the general authority for a man to earn a living for his family and to work good for mankind. Here are some passages which authorize business involvements: Luke 5:10 authorizes a collectivity for business purposes inasmuch as James, John and Simon Peter were in a business partnership. Ephesians 4:28, 1 Timothy 5:8, and 2 Thessalonians 3:10 give responsibility to man to work in a business which can be described as “that which is good” for the purpose of providing his living. Cogdill Foundation is a business enterprise. It is one of many possible means for individual Christians to engage in jobs which are in keeping with Scriptural mandates and principles. (Publishing religious literature can certainly be described as “that which is good” toward both brethren and all mankind [Eph. 4:28].) Hence, the positive divine authority which I give for Cogdill Foundation’s existence is that which is given for any other legitimate business enterprise.

The fact that the profits from our business cannot inure to the benefit of our board members does not alter the fact that this is a business. This special status is granted to businesses of this nature by the Federal Government to give them special tax privileges. We have compiled and are complying with these regulations and, therefore, enjoy these special tax privileges.

What Is Our Work?

Our articles of incorporation specifically detail that our work as a non-profit corporation shall be to publish literature designed to disseminate the teachings of the New Testament. In keeping with this, Cogdill Foundation is involved in publishing the subscription journal Truth Magazine, two series of class literature (Walking With God and Truth In Life), many books, numerous tracts, and a Bible correspondence course. All of these items are marketed and available through our bookstore, Truth Magazine Bookstore (Box 88, Fairmount, IN 46928).

The only persons receiving funds from Cogdill Foundation are those who are working for Cogdill Foundation in regard to operating its bookstore, editing the subscription journal Truth Magazine, and overseeing the publication of other products. Many churches through the years have published teaching bulletins which are free to local members, prospects, and other interested people. Occasionally some brother has published a periodical which is free for the asking. This arrangement generally becomes a joint effort or collective work as he solicits help from other brethren in writing articles, donating equipment, giving low or no-interest loans, doing secretarial work, submitting names to receive the paper, and helping to get it in the mail. Cogdill Foundation with Truth Magazine represents the publishing work of individuals rather than churches, but falls into another category. We are a business arrangement which gives away nothing free (except for advertizing, promotion, or some other exceptional reason, as other businesses do at times). We publish and sell books, publish and sell tracts, publish and sell workbooks, publish and sell a teaching journal.

Cogdill Foundation is not giving away money to gospel preachers or anyone else, though we purchase goods and services for our business so that we can continue publishing and selling. There are no men supported from the funds of Cogdill Foundation as gospel preachers providing free classes with free workbooks, free sermons, free radio programs, free tracts, free books, free outlines, and the like, any reports to the contrary notwithstanding. Our work is not now and never has been that of an individually supported missionary fund, arrangement, or society.

Individuals purchase our goods, sometimes for resale, sometimes for their own use to give away. Churches purchase our goods for their own uses in free distribution. We are glad to provide the service of publishing and selling to any who wish to purchase, but Cogdill Foundation is not in business as a receiving agency to disperse free religious literature throughout the world. To my knowledge, we have never sought to be a general receiving agency for the purpose of distributing religious literature to the general public or Christians in particular. Hence, any reports regarding Cogdill Foundation being an individually supported missionary society are the figment of someone’s overheated imagination! When people send in their orders for our products, they may be assured that a bill will accompany the goods to be sent. In fact, like any other business which depends largely on cash flow from customers, we would be happy to receive the payment with the order! We are trying to provide our goods at the lowest possible prices so that we may render our customers a genuine service while keeping the Cogdill Foundation financially sound.

Cogdill Foundation Does Receive Contributions

Throughout its history, Cogdill Foundation has received contributions from those who have been generous enough to cooperate with us in our work. The contributions for various purposes and projects have come in many forms (outright donations, low-interest loans, equipment, labor, promotional help, and the like). Truth Magazine has never produced enough income to cover its expenses of publishing and marketing; consequently, some brethren have made contributions to cover our losses. To give our readers an example of the kind of contributions which have been made to Cogdill Foundation, the following information is cited: when Cogdill Foundation undertook the work of publishing Truth In Life and purchased the copyright to Walking With God (formerly known as Journeys Through The Bible), funds were solicited to enable us to publish these two genres of literature. Tax deductible contributions were made to Cogdill Foundation to enable us to publish this material for market among the brethren.

We have other publishing projects in mind at the present which can only be accomplished through charitable brethren who believe in what we are trying to do, helping us to make them available for market to the reading public. Hence, we have no plans of changing our method of operation because of the objections of one or two in perennially critical circles.

Some are of the opinion that brethren cannot make donations to Cogdill Foundation. That is fine with me; I have no objection to them holding this opinion. I shall continue to consider them as faithful brethren. Certainly I do not teach now and have never taught in the past that a Christian must make a contribution to Cogdill Foundation to have fellowship with God or with me as one of his children. If someone’s conscience forbids him to make a contribution to an organization such as Cogdill Foundation, I have no problem in fellowshipping him.

I do have problems, however, with the man who teaches that anyone who makes a donation to Cogdill Foundation is separated from God and from all of God’s children because he has committed a sin. When and if brethren start teaching such a doctrine, I shall be compelled to raise my voice in protest because such would constitute an addition to the conditions of salvation in exactly the same manner as early Jews tried to teach circumcision as a condition for salvation (Acts 15: 1-2; cf. 1 Tim. 4: 1-3).

Cogdill Foundation Has Given Away Some Of Its Products

Cogdill Foundation has, on occasion, given away some of its products. With every issue of Truth Magazine which is mailed out, several sample copies of the paper are given away for promotion. There have been times when we have given away copies of tracts to indigent or poor brethren in the Philippines. I also have given away subscriptions to Truth Magazine to several brethren who had no ability to pay for their subscription. What other business of any kind operated by saint or sinner has not done the same thing on an occasional basis? This is called by brethren “the milk of human kindness” when done by other businesses, but is called a sin when done by a religious publishing business!

Have we sinned in doing this? Some would answer in the affirmative. If this is the case, then no business can ever give away anything or else it would be guilty of the same sin which some would charge Cogdill Foundation with committing. The truth of the matter is that Cogdill Foundation, as a legitimate business enterprise, has exactly the same rights as any other legitimate business enterprise. If brethren can see that a grocery business has the right to give away a basket of groceries, they can surely see that Cogdill Foundation has the same right, if it so desires to do so, to give away some of its products. We even have the same right as other businesses to give away to anyone merchandise which is old, soiled, or for some other reason unmarketable, rather than to burn it, if such an occasion arises.

Whatever rules are laid upon Cogdill Foundation must be rules which are applicable to any other business enterprise. If some brethren are going to take the position that Cogdill Foundation cannot receive donations and cannot give away any of its products, then they are going to be compelled to apply the same rules to every other legitimate business enterprise in the world. The local hardware store can never receive a dime contribution from anyone and can never give away any of its products, if this is the case. Florida College can never receive a dime from anyone and can never give any scholarships, if this is the case. Certainly, Cogdill Foundation’s business organization is not unique! Whatever rules are imposed on it must be the same rules which are imposed on any other legitimate business enterprise.

Conclusion

If this article does not answer whatever questions which you might have regarding Cogdill Foundation, write to me personally and I shall attempt to answer your questions. Be patient with me in replying; it might take some time to get my correspondence answered. However, I think that this article should forever lay to rest the idea that Cogdill Foundation is an individually-supported missionary society. But in recent years, a concerted effort has been made to create suspicion in the minds of brethren regarding Truth Magazine and the Cogdill Foundation. Several years ago, brother William Wallace repeatedly made the charge through the pages of Gospel Guardian` that Truth Magazine and Cogdill Foundation were seeking to gain exclusive control of the brotherhood. More recently, brother Gene Frost has generated doubt toward Cogdill Foundation by charging that it is a privately supported missionary society. A few other critics have referred to Truth Magazine as the Gospel Advocate of conservative brethren or otherwise have implied that we are seeking “political” power and partisan influence among the churches. We can never please everyone and brethren may disagree with our judgment at times, but the affirmative discussion provided in this article shows how utterly unfounded are the wild accusations sometimes shouted at us in shrill voices, sometimes whispered in the hushed tones of juicy gossip.

We will never stop the manufacture of suspicion in some circles, but it will be well for us to periodically clarify who we are and what we are doing, both for our own good and the sake of brethren who have honest questions. Though suspicion-peddling from some quarters may not stop, we are only too happy to answer sincere questions and to receive the suggestions of brethren who speak out of a genuine desire to help us improve our work.

Furthermore, when there are objections to what we teach as to doctrinal soundness, Truth Magazine has been unwavering from its beginning in the provision for open debate. Cogdill Foundation with Truth Magazine is just one of many possible arrangements for individual Christians – not churches – to be “ready unto every good work” (Tit. 3:1). While we are glad to clarify what and who we are, we are also happy to wish well and bid God speed to all faithful brethren doing similar work in their own way, so long as it too complies with the Scriptures!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 6, pp. 99-101
February 7, 1980

By Leonard S. Tyler

Prayer is much neglected, I believe, because it is much misunderstood. There are many aspects of prayer one cannot understand just as in all of God’s dealing with man. Notwithstanding, prayer is a part of the life of a Christian.

There are many false concepts of prayer. Some feel that since miracles have ceased no good can come from prayer. They forget that God operates through natural laws both spiritual and physical. This is God’s way of performing His own will as He designed it. Who can deny it? Prayer must be in accord with the will of God and faith is essential for effective prayer (Jas. 1:6; Matt. 21:22).

An expression from Brother E.A. Elam is as fresh and timely now as when it was first read in 1928:

The men and women named in the Old Testament as the most reverential, having the profoundest respect for the word of God, having made the greatest advancement in spirituality and the knowledge of the truth, and the most suited to serve God’s purpose in advancing his cause were the most prayerful – Moses and Samuel, for instance (Jer. 15:1); also Noah, Job, and Daniel (Ezek. 14:14).

So it is in the New Testament, and so it is now. The ones most advanced in real piety, in grace and godliness, and in the knowledge of the truth, are the most sincerely prayerful.

Paul, the most self-sacrificing and heroic and the one who accomplished the most in planting and building up churches, was also the most diligent in following his own inspired admonition: “Pray without ceasing.” Without incessant prayer he could not have exercised so great self-control, have so advanced as he did in personal holiness, “bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5), and could not have reached the grand consummation described in II Timothy 4:6-8 . . . .

One of the first things said of Paul after he ceased to persecute Jesus was, “For, behold, he prayeth;” and his last recorded utterance is a prayer for Timothy: “The Lord be with thy spirit. Grace be with you.”

It is most instructive, and therefore helpful, to study all the recorded prayers, not only of Paul, but of all godly men and women of the Bible.

Not one of these many prayers, offered under different circumstances and at different times, was a collection of set phases and formal words, but an expression of the full desire of the soul and directly to the point.

Prayers addressed to God are not filled with empty, useless words, but are pointed and usually short.

Every one who prays would like to think the prayers will be answered; hence, one wants to know how to offer prayers acceptable to God. So there can be nothing so instructive as to study the prayers which have pleased God and have been answered (Elam’s Notes on Bible School Lessons 1928, pp. 316-17).

Some hold that any request which was made in the first century was for.. a miraculous manifestation of God in its fulfilment. this is not the way it was. When Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:24)3 He was not asking that without faith and obedience these would be saved. It must have been then, that He prayed -that they might come to believe, obey and be saved. When Paul prayed for Israel that they might be saved, he surely did not pray that God would save them contrary to His will nor miraculously. He, it seems to me, was praying that Israel might come to understand, believe, obey and be saved. Yet both the Lord and Paul prayed for sinners. So all prayers were not for miraculous fulfilment.

Christians are taught to pray. Paul wrote, “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17). Jesus taught men always to pray, and not to faint (Luke 18:1). Some will counter, “If these texts are for us, how are we going to pray without ceasing or always?” The answer is clear -just as the first century Christian did. We should thank God for the privilege of prayer and pray.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 6, pp. 98
February 7, 1980