Truth Magazine

By Ward Hogland 

1 want to tell you a true story about a liberal church which literally died on the vine. I suppose it shouldn’t bother me, but when I heard of men like Ira North, in the Gospel Advocate, refer to a conservative church in Florida which he claims almost died, I cannot contain myself. The liberal church I want to tell you about was called The Central Church of Christ, of Greenville, Texas. I should know because I lived there for seventeen years and was present on the day of its funeral. The way it all started was back in the early fifties. V.E. Howard was worshiping with the Walnut Street Church of that city. When the “Issues” came into full focus, he wanted the elders to send a contribution to the Boles Home in Quinlan, Texas. They refused, so in turn, he secured a key to the building and started meeting with his small group at a time other than the regular service time. The elders, not desiring to tolerate such foolishness, made it unlawful for him and his followers to enter the premises at any time other than the regular services. He, in turn, filed a law suit trying to take the building from the elders and the church. The judge ruled against V.E. and his group, thus leaving the building to the elders. It was told by some that the elders sued V.E. Howard such was not the case, he brought a suit against the elders and lost!

By the way, that trial was very interesting. The lawyer for the defense, (the elders), was a Baptist. After being drilled on the organization of the church by Herman Sargent and others, he knew more about the work of the church than most liberals. As a matter of fact, V.E. Howard had secured the services of a lawyer who was a member of a liberal congregation, but knew very little about the Bible. When the Baptist lawyer got V.E. Howard and Gayle Oler in the Witness chair, they almost wore out the seat of their trousers trying to tell him who owned Boles Home! Gayle Oler had testified, under oath, that the Firm Foundation was the largest paper in Texas. Since they had claimed that Walnut Street was out of step with the big churches in Texas, he held up an article written by Reuel Lemmons, saying that Boles Home, under a board, was unscriptural. This had great influence on the judge, since both Howard and Oler had claimed the elders were out of step with the big Texas churches.

After losing the case, Brother Howard and his group left and formed what was known as the Central Church of Christ. They built a large, fine, auditorium on Wesley Street. in Greenville. They seemed to be doing well for a short time and they began to die on the vine. Their membership dwindled smaller and smaller. Finally, about five years before I moved, they threw in the towel, sold the church building to a Holiness group and folded up! Today, that building on Wesley Street stands as a grotesque monomument to the fact that liberalism can die on the vine!

Brother Ira North, said he knew of an “Anti” church in Florida which had dwindled down to a small number. Well, Brother North, I have one better than that, I know of a liberal church that not only dwindled, it gave up the ghost and died! And by the way, they did not go out and start another church, they folded. I understand the few members who were left went to other places. Brother North implied that it was what he called the “Anti” doctrine that caused the church in Florida to become small. Brother North, what caused the liberal church in Greenville to die? Could it be there is a venom within the ranks of liberalism which will stunt and destroy their growth? Brother North said we need to come back to liberalism so we can grow numerically. Brother North, this one folded and died; how can this be?

Gentle friend, I have said all of this to teach a much needed lesson. Numbers have nothing to do with being scriptural. Jesus was very popular at one time during his ministery. He had large numbers following him. According to Brother North, in the Gospel Advocate article, this would make the Lord scriptural and right. However, a little later, many of his disciples went back and walked with him no more (Jno. 6:66). His numbers dwindled down and even his own apostles were apprehensive about following the Lord. If Brother North had been there, since he is so obsessed with Numbers, He would have said, “Now Lord, you seem to be dying on the vine, your numbers are small and that makes your doctrine false, so I will leave also.” How about that Ira? Is that the way it is? Remember your article in the Advocate implied that it is Growth and Numbers that make right.

Friends, large or small numbers have nothing to do with whether one is scriptural. One church in the Bible had a name (reputation) that it was a live wire church but the Lord said it was DEAD (See Rev. 3:1). Many factors other than being unscriptural could cause a declining membership.

I wanted Brother North to know about a liberal church which died to let him and his readers know his argument will not hold water. There is an old cleche in polemics which goes like this, “Any argument which proves too much, proves nothing.”

If what he says is true, then I couldn’t come home to the liberals because I know of one that died. Furthermore, I know of a Baptist church in Dallas where Dr. Criswell preaches, which is so large, it would make Brother North’s Madison Church look like a flea on an elephant’s back! That is, as numbers are concerned. Brother North, is Dr. Criswell’s church right because it has such a large growing membership? Please think it over the next time you are tempted to “brag” about numbers in the Advocate. The article I refer to appeared in the May 10, 1979 issue of the Gospel Advocate.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 37, p. 598
September 20, 1979

By Irvin Himmel

Following the slaying of his brother Abel, Cain was driven out and became a fugitive and a vagabond. Cain complained that his punishment was too severe and thought that every one who found him would try to slay him. “And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him” (Gen. 4:15).

Cain marked himelf with disgrace and shame when he murdered his brother. It appears that God set a mark or sign upon him to prevent his being slain in vengeance. What that mark was we do not know. It served as a token of God’s pity and mercy.

The great apostle Paul was also a marked man. He wrote in Gal. 6:17, “1 bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” This probably refers to the scars, bruises, wounds, and fleshly signs of persecutions and hardships which he suffered for serving the Lord. Many of the Jews gloried in circumcision, a fleshly token of nationality, but Paul gloried in that which branded him as a servant of Jesus Christ.

Paul also was marked as belonging to Christ by holy living, keeping his body in subjection, and by the image of Christ that shone in his words and deeds. In this sense, every child of God should be clearly branded.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 37, p. 597
September 20, 1979

By Mike Willis

One of the doctrines taught by denominationalists for years is this: “It makes no difference what you believe, just so long as you are sincere.” Or, again, “Let us not argue about religious matters, for it makes no difference anyway because each is entitled to his own belief.” In early restoration writings, gospel preachers answered this false doctrine frequently. It is surprising to me to see it resurface among brethren in this decade. Yet, it has done just that.

In the recent exchange between Billy Williams and Weldon Warnock which was carried in Truth Magazine, Billy Williams made the following rather significant statement:

To answer his questions: If one deliberately and wilfully disobeys God’s law or does presumptuous sin (presuming to change or act in defiance of God’s laws), he is surely condemned as long as he continues in that sin (Num. 15:22-30; Heb. 10:26ff). But if he, in ignorance, transgresses God’s law while earnestly desiring to serve Him faithfully, I do not find any passage that allows the to condemn him. He is not more a sinner than I am . . . .

Some have turned the Lord’s church into a business or social club to satisfy their own lusts; some seek to be entertained by their instruments of music and know nothing of worshiping God in song; others dethrone the Christ and say He died because He failed. These all stand self-condemned! But there are faithful brethren who honestly believe they can use institutions in the church, worship with instruments, or that Christ will return and reign over an earthly kingdom. Are they condemned because they do not understand these things as I do? I do not presume to do so judge them (“Answer to Warnock (2),” Truth Magazine, Vol. XXIII, No. 19, p. 6).

Brother Williams has in essence taught exactly what the denominationalists have been teaching for years, namely, that it makes no difference what you believe or practice so long as you are honest and sincere. This is the doctrine which I want us to consider in this article today.

Will It Work In Any Other Field Of Study?

I have always thought it strange that principles which are so obviously false with reference -to every other realm are somehow thought to have validity when we turn to religion. Does any scientist think that it matters not what two elements a person mixes and in what proportions he mixes them, just so long as he is honest and sincere he will come up with the exact chemical that he desires? Of course not! Do our astronauts think that it makes no difference what direction their rockets are fired that they will end up where they want them to go, just because the men are honest and sincere? Of course not! We recognize that honesty and sincerity are no guarantees of success in these areas. The pages of history could literally be filled with the names of men who were honest and sincere but mistaken. Many of them lost their lives tragically because they were wrong, although both honest and sincere.

Despite the fact that all will admit that honesty and sincerity are not adequate replacements for the truth in secular matters, some still cling to and teach the idea that it matters not what the truth may be in religion so long as one is honest and sincere. What saith the Scriptures?

Plain Statements In Scripture Reveal That This Is Wrong

There are a number of plain statements in God’s divine revelation which show beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that those who are honestly in error in religion are not thereby saved. Rather, there is an objective standard of truth revealed in God’s word which men are responsible for knowing and obeying. Honest and sincere sin is still sin – sin which will damn a soul in hell. That this is true, please examine the following passages of Scripture:

1. Lev. 5:17. “And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.” The Mosaical law declared that sins committed in ignorance separated a man from God and would cause him to lose his soul.

2. Ezek. 3:17-21. In this significant passage, the Lord appointed Ezekiel to be a watchman to Israel. His obligation was to warn Israel of the sins she was guilty of committing. Jehovah said, “When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.” Notice that the wicked man would die in his iniquity; ignorance did not excuse him. The twentieth verse of the same chapter applies the same principle to the righteous man who departs from his righteousness to the commission of wickedness as it applies to the one who had never been righteous.

3. Matt. 7:21-23. This familiar passage relates that calling on the name of the Lord while doing works of iniquity does not result in salvation, but damnation. There is no indication in these verses that those guilty of these sins were guilty of presumptuous and defiantly rebellious conduct; rather, these men were calling Jesus “Lord,” prophesying in His name, casting out devils in His name, and doing many wonderful works in His name. Yet, because they were guilty of sin, they lost their souls. Apparently these men were not saved just because they were honest and sincere.

4. Acts 17:29-30. Paul told the Athenians that God does not wink at ignorance but commands all men everywhere to repent. These very religious people in Athens who were ignorantly worshiping God were found to be in sin and in need of salvation. Ignorance was inexcusable even when proceeding from an honest and sincere heart.

5. Matt. 15:13-14. Jesus is recorded to have said, “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” Both the blind leader and the blind follower will be destroyed. Honesty and sincerity would not save a person in these circumstances.

All of these passages reveal that honesty and sincerity are no guarantee of salvation. Rather, the Lord expects obedience. This leads us to the following divine truth: when God gives a man a revelation, that man is responsible for learning and obeying, that revelation. In connection with this, consider 2 chess. 2:10-12. Paul wrote of the coming of the Wicked One

. . . whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Arid for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Notice that this passage plainly stated that those who believe a lie shall be damned! I do not know how the Lord could have stated the matter more plainly. These people (a) ceased to have the love of the truth, (b) received a strong delusion, (c) believed a lie, (d) had pleasure in unrighteousness, and (e) eventually will perish or be damned.

Learning From Divine Examples

Even as we can learn the truth of God through express revelation, we can also learn God’s divine will through the inspired examples recorded in the Bible. The following examples of conduct recorded in the Bible demonstrate that God will condemn those who, despite their honesty and sincerity, disobey the Lord. Consider them with me:

(1) The young prophet (1 Kgs. 13). After Jeroboam had led the rebellion against Rehoboam which resulted in the establishment of the kingdom of Israel and left only the tribes of Benjamin and Judah loyal to the Davidic dynasty he established an apostate system of worship in Bethel and Dan. He removed the worship from Jerusalem which was God’s holy hill, appointed priests from men of every tribe, erected images contrary to the Ten Commandments, and established unauthorized holy days. Because of these apostasies, God sent an unnamed young prophet to prophesy against this apostate worship. When He sent him, He instructed him, “Eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that thou camest.” The young prophet went to Bethel and spoke the message of the Lord. Then, he began his return journey to Jerusalem. An old prophet residing in Bethel heard of what had happened and quickly saddled his ass in order to catch up with the young prophet and talk with him. When he caught up with him, he invited the young prophet to eat with him. The young prophet related how God had forbidden him to eat in that place: Nevertheless, the older prophet related, “I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spoke unto me by the word of the Lord saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water.” Then, the historian adds, “But he lied unto him. ” The young prophet believed the lie and went home with the older prophet for dinner. While there, the word of the Lord did actually come on the older prophet; the older prophet spoke God’s condemnation for the younger prophet’s disobedience of God’s commandments, despite the fact that the disobedience was done in ignorance from an honest and sincere heart. Consequently, on his journey home, the young prophet was slain by a lion because he had disobeyed the Lord. This young man’s death is proof that an honest and sincere heart is not accepted by God in the place of obedience.

2. Saul of Tarsus. Who among us is not familiar with the conversion and life of Saul of Tarsus? Though Paul was guilty of blasphemy, and was an injurious and violent man (1 Tim. 1:13) during the time that he was persecuting Christians, he did it ignorantly in unbelief. Yet, during that time, he was considered the very chiefest of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). Despite the fact that he testified to have sincerity of his conscience (Acts 23:1; 24:16), Paul recognized that he would have gone to hell had he died in the condition of believing a lie.

We could add to these examples many other occasions when men believed a lie and disobeyed God, such as the belief of the Israelites under Joshua of the Gibeonites’ lie (Josh. 9:1-27) and the Jewish disbelief in the Christ (Rom. 10:1-3; 11:20). Despite the fact that these persons were honest and sincere, they were believing what was false, obeying what was false, and damned to suffer the consequences of their error.

Conclusion

Men and brethren, let no one deceive you! The doctrine that one can be saved while practicing sin so long as he has a good, honest, sincere heart is one of the biggest lies that the Devil ever invented. There be some who clothe themselves as ministers of light who go about this land circulating that lie. Do not believe it and preach it! You will delude others and cause both of you to be damned thereby. Rather, “Buy the truth and sell it not” (Prov. 23:23). Realize that the truth and it alone can make you free from sin (John 8:32). A lie, though sincerely believed, can never do for a man what the truth can!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 37, pp. 595-597
September 20, 1979

By Earl E. Robertson

In 1869, twenty years after the founding of the American Christian Missionary Society, Isaac Errett editor of the Christian Standard of Cincinnati wrote a report of the Society’s meeting which had to do with church cooperation. He wrote of some remarks a Dr. Richardson made in the meeting, saying, “His remarks on that sort of church independency which leads a dozen or two to assemble and style themselves `the church of Christ,’ and, while doing nothing beyond self-edification, glory in the thought that they are `the pillar and support of the truth,’ were exceedingly pointed and forcible. `What truth do they support?’ he asked. The world does not even know of their existence, and they live and die without one earnest forthputting of missionary enterprise to make the world better. He thus laid the basis of a strong appeal for co-operation” (Memoirs of Isaac Errett, Vol. 2, p. 44, Lamar).

May 18, 1946, Guy N. Woods said, “Now, get it, ladies and gentlemen: There never was a church on earth that could carry out this commission unaided. There is in the commission absolute authority for church cooperation. By cooperation, I mean the pooling of resources . . . . There never was a New Testament church on earth that had sufficient means by which to carry out this commission unaided” (Cooperation in the Field of Benevolence and Evangelism, pp. 10, 11).

These two men have said essentially the same thing. The Missionary Society did not become the utopia in converting the world as dreamed by men like Errett. In fact they have realized and acknowledged its failure in their “missionary enterprises.” Their efforts to pool the monies of all the churches into the treasury of the society to convert the world has not only proven a failure, but they split churches everywhere too. Churches do cooperate in evangelism as each congregation acts independently (organically of all others) in carrying out the great commission. The same commission is given to each congregation – take the gospel to every creature (Mark 16). Though the efforts of some may be meager in means they are nonetheless carrying out the commission given by Christ, Woods and Errett to the contrary, notwithstanding. Do these men not know that when the commission was given it was given to just a few men – the apostles. The people taught and baptized were to teach exactly what they had been taught. They have not done the wonders imagined in covering the earth with their human schemes.

Errett’s stated objection to “church independency” for world evangelism was a bold effort to get all these “independent churches” to pool their financial resources into one pot – the Missionary Society. At that time there were approximately sixteen thousand congregations. The efforts of others of Errett’s persuasion resulted in about fifteen thousand of these churches getting on the band wagon and riding into total apostasy. Yet, all this was the real thing the Lord wanted, aid’ through Fsuch “co-operation” they would soon convert every creature! Check the intervening years for their work and see if they did for the Lord all the things promised. The truth of the matter is by October 1968 there were only some six thousand congregations still identified with that movement they lost nine thousand congregations in one century! Furthermore, those remaining six thousand through a period of ten years of intensive effort which was climaxed in a dancing festive .in Kansas City, Missouri, transform themselves from a “loosely allied’ Federation of Churches into a representatively organized denomination.”

Man’s way did not work in the “pooling of resources” from 1869 to 1968. It was not scriptural then and it is not now scriptural for one church or a society of men to receive the financial resources of all the churches to do the work of evangelism – a work each congregation equally sustains to the great commission given by the Lord (Mark 16; Matt. 28), though Woods says the commission itself is “absolute authority” for churches to so pool their resources. It seems strange to allege the commission is “absolute authority” for a sponsoring church but deny the missionary society the same authority. No congregation has scriptural authority to assume an evangelistic work which it financially can not do, and then beg other churches all over the world to furnish it the necessary funds to accomplish this work. Jesus and His apostles never taught such and no church in the New Testament ever did such, so on what basis do churches today try it?

If one church can do nothing in carrying out the commission and there is “absolute authority” for the “pooling of resources” in it, then we would conclude the “pooling of resources” is a must to carrying out the commission. Woods’ statement argues this conclusion. Are the liberal churches now willing to surrender their power to this extend? I think many of them are conditioned with looseness to accept it.

We are glad to tell you though it really isn’t true.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 37, p. 594
September 20, 1979