Truth Magazine

By Jeffery Kingry

In our country’s last war, now forgotten and denied like a bad dream, I had the occasion to endure a year amidst the suffering and carnage. “Home” was taken from-me by the impersonal and cruel hand of bureaucracy. During that time, I was able often to recover from the sight of the ruins and the heaviness of heart that came by nightfall by sending my imagination off on a journey. I would recall the peaceful town of Columbus, Mississippi with the brethren standing outside the church building talking about hunting or the harvest. Smiles and handshakes and a quiet, “Good evening, brother Jeff” would greet me as I approached. In the eye of my mind it would be so.

But, after about six months I had a curious experience. On R & R in Hawaii, I met almost the very experience I had so long imagined. But the longed-for peace would not come to my heart. I felt ostracized and the idyllic scene was tormenting rather than tranquilizing.

Within five days, I was back amidst the horror and the people whose faces bore the ruines of our shared anguish. Strangely, I felt more at home. These understood what I was going through, because they were suffering it themselves. There was a kinship that could not be shared with those who did not know. The brethren “back home” did not understand. To them I was a somewhat disquieting apparition from another, far removed world. There is nothing more comforting than to have people who understand us. Just a glance, a knowing nod means so much from one who has shared the same pain. When ? person is hard pressed by dread and terror, then home and fulfillment and the people who are fortunate and have everything these suddenly become alien.

The Isolation of Living

It is in our isolation and hopelessness that God really touches the lives of his saints through His Son Jesus. In our presentation of the Gospel to the world and to those who have need in the church, we sometimes make the wrong approach. What is the good of all the usual religious froth we see in the materialistic cultism so many preach? What do these pious sentimentalities actually accomplish:

To some, Christianity is merely a pattern of teaching, or the organization and function of the church, some great Bible doctrines, or the social amenities and prestige to be found in being well thought of by the brethren. All these things are necessary, but actually constitute only a part. It is form that is adjunct to the substance of the gospel. Beside the form, the personality and character as a personal standard for the Christian stands but as a shadow, a far-removed pious figure that does not really touch our life.

What is love that no longer emanates from immediate contact with Him who “is” love, but lives in us only as a kind of memory, a mere distinct echo? In some men’s speech they reduce this shadow to a grotesque caricature: “Have joy in your heart! Wake to face each new day with sunshine in your soul!” It is pathetic to see the yearning that these expressions betray, but at the same time it is quite foolish to put them in the form of an imperative. How can I possibly go about getting sun into my heart? Obviously there can be sunshine in my soul only if the sun shines upon me, and then the brightness of my heart is a reflection of it. But how can I “produce” the sun?

Such imperatives reflect the sad longing of people who have lost the real thing and sorely feel the deep need that must be filled. Knowing that something is gone they try to effect a “synthetic” sun which can fill the void; “I love Jesus” bumper stickers, One Way signs, religious trinkets, symbolism, distinctive clothing, peculiar systems, fame, popularity, publishing endless books, and many other things represent this effort to create something from within that will fill the void they feel. Leaders of the materialistic religion offer nothing to those in need, and produce only disillusionment in those who listen to them.

The Wounded

What good then is all the religious talk which is directed everywhere but to the need of man? What difference does it make to speak to me of the identity of the church as a doctrinal matter, the history of the Bible, or various doctrines which do not touch my life or living in any way. What use are these things to me if I am repining in loneliness, my conscience is tormenting me, if anxiety is strangling me? What good is a omniscient, omnipotent, eternal King to me, a poor wretch, a heap of misery, for whom nobody cares, for whom life has become an existence of pain, someone stared at in public but never seen?

The “loving Father above the starry skies” is up there in some monumental headquarters while I sit somewhere on this trash heap, living in a walk-up or a mansion, working at a stupid job that gives me the miseries or at an executive’s desk which is armored with two anterooms. Most go their way, read their papers or turn on the T.V. and vegetate, for what does a “message” mean that is not good news to me in any way?

But, if someone says “There is someone who knows you, someone who grieves for you when you go your own way, and it cost Him cruelly to be the star to whom you can look, the spring from which you can drink and never thirst, the staff upon which you can lean and never fall,” then that is something I can listen to and be touched by.

Jesus is not the pastel colored picture man’s sentimentality has turned him into. Neither is he the intellectual exercise to be found in college courses on Biblical literature and hermeneutics. It was not the warm, cute creche of Christmas card scenes that Jesus was born into. Mary brought forth her manchild in pain with the smell of the barnyard sharp in the air. The child was shoved off into a stable by man’s indifference. His parents were forced to flee, and went out upon the road as refugees to a strange land to escape the bloody hands of a despotic politician who murdered little babies to get to Him. Then came the lifelong hostility of men; the child always remained, even after he grew up, a fugitive. His heart trembled under the impact of all the temptations and fears that shake us too. And finally, his life ended as it began. He was shoved out of the world by greedy, selfish, mean men. He died on a cross in shame and humiliation. His friends deserted Him and denied having ever known Him. It was not a “grand old cross” – it was a cruel gallows, the symbol of our sin and its cost. The Man who loved without measure, suffered without measure as He saw men rushing headlong into senseless destruction – they had no use for Him.

Mine Iniquities Are Over My Head

Man needs God’s words of comfort and hope. It is not in man to deal with the hurt and failure of life by himself (Psa. 38:2-22). But, the Gospel calls us to a different kind of life, for when Christ suffered for us, he left us a pattern, and we must follow in His footsteps. He did no wrong, nor was there ever any treachery upon His lips. Yet, when He was insulted He offered no insult in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, rather He left His cause in the hands of the righteous Judge. He carried the burden of our sins with Him to the cross, that we might be able to cease to live for sin, and instead live for righteousness. It was by His wounds that our wounds are healed.

God’s message is alive and full of power. It cuts through the hardest armor unlike any honed steel in this universe, striking through to the dividing line of even soul and spirit, to the innermost intimacies of a man’s being. The Word handled rightly is capable of exposing the very thoughts and motives of a man’s heart. No being created can escape God’s view, but lies bare and helpless before the eyes of Him to whom we must explain all that we have done.

We do not have one that takes our side who is incapable of being touched by how we feel, because He has shared the flesh and the experience with us. Every pain that is common to man, He has endured, yet never with sin.

We can therefore be bold, coming with courage to God’s throne that we might receive mercy for our failures. All this because He died for us. One who would give His very life for me will not deny me anything I need which was of lesser worth. We can find His strength to help us when we need it. He knows and understands, and is no stranger to our suffering. He loves me and He gave Himself for me. That is “good news” – The Gospel indeed!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 29, pp. 474-475
July 26, 1979

By Johnny Stringer

In describing the extreme wickedness of the world of his day, Paul said that they were “without natural affection” (Rom. 1:31). According to William Barclay, the term which Paul used had reference to family love. The thinking of people had become so perverted that the natural affection which should have existed within families was absent. Here is Barclays description of the horrible situation which existed at that time:

It was quite true that this was an age in which family love was dying. Never was the life of the child so precarious as at this time. Children were considered a misfortune. When a child was born, the child was taken and laid at the father’s feet. If the father lifted up the child that meant that he acknowledged it. If he turned away and left it the child was literally thrown out. There was never a night when there were not thirty or forty abandoned children left in the Roman forum. Every night in life children were literally thrown away. Even Seneca, great soul as he was, could write: “We kill a mad dog; we slaughter a fierce ox; we plunge the knife into sickly cattle lest they taint the herd; children who are born weakly and deformed we drown.” The natural bonds of human affection had been destroyed (The Letter to the Romans, pp. 32-33).

Of course, in our civilized society we are shocked by such practices. We are repulsed by the very thought of throwing away or drowning little children. Being a refined and enlightened people, we have the good taste to kill ours before they are born – while they are still out of sight! We are not heathen! Really, though, is not the practice of abortion indicative of an absence of natural affection? When one knows that within her body she is carrying a tiny human being, her own son or daughter, how can she possibly conspire to have that child killed and the little body thrown away?

In Spite of Knowledge

There is indeed a comparison between those of Paul’s day who were without natural affection, and those of our day who kill their offspring through abortion. This comparison can be further seen by Paul’s affirmation that the people who practiced the abominations enumerated in Romans 1 really knew better. In verse 32 he said that they knew those who committed such things were worthy of punishment. It is true that the Gentile world did not have a written revelation such as the Jews did, but it is a fact that all men have some concept of right and wrong, even apart from a written revelation. For example, even in societies which have had no access to a written revelation, when people see a big, strong, muscular man beating up on a frail, elderly lady who has done him no harm, they will say that his action is wrong. One does not have to have a written revelation to know that. I believe that God has naturally endowed man with the capacity to recognize some things to be immoral. See also Rom. 2:14-15.

The problem was that those described in Romans 1 suppressed this knowledge. They refused to face up to it and permit it to influence their lives. Therefore, their consciences became insensitive and their thinking grew more and more perverted. This is possibly what Paul meant in verse 18 when he described men as holding the truth in unrighteousness. The word “hold” can carry different ideas. This is true of both the Greek word and its English translation. It can mean to hold in the sense of possessing or clinging to. Taken in this sense, to hold the truth would be to possess it, or to lovingly cling to it and adhere to it. However, the word can mean to hold down, suppress, hinder, restrain. I am inclined to believe that this is Paul’s meaning here. The New American Standard Bible says, “suppress the truth.” I believe Paul’s meaning to be that they suppressed the truth which, deep down within them, they knew, not permitting it to have its good effect. Harrison gives a quotation from Lenski which could very well convey the correct interpretation: “Whenever the truth starts to exert itself and makes them feel uneasy in their moral nature, they hold-if down, suppress it. Some drown its voice by rushing into their immoralities; others strangle the disturbing voice by argument and by denial” (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. X, p. 23).

What about those who practice abortion today? Deep down within their souls, do they have the consciousness that it really is not right? Do they-simply suppress that inner voice, shutting it out and refusing to listen to it? I believe they do. This is indicated by the difficulty many of them have in making up their minds to have the abortion. It is further indicated by the fact that later in life, perhaps years after the abortion, many of them have very severe psychological and emotional problems as a result of guilt feelings which come to the surface. They were able to stifle the voice of their consciences at the time of their abortions, but their consciences were not completely dead, and later produce very deep feelings of guilt.

It is always good to have guilt feelings after we sin. Without guilt feelings we would have no desire for God’s forgiveness. If you have such guilt feelings, whether it be due to an abortion or for some other reason, do not despair. You have hope in the gospel. Through compliance with the terms of pardon set forth in that glorious message, you can be forgiven; and knowing that your Creator no longer holds you guilty should bring you great comfort. If you have had ,an abortion, remember that if God forgave thousands of people who helped crucify His own Son (Acts 2:23, 36-41), He will surely forgive you for what you did to your child – if you meet His conditions as they did (Acts 2:38).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 29, p. 473
July 26, 1979

By Bruce James

The inspired writers showed the work of Jesus, as well as His character, by employing metaphors. They used different objects of nature to show forth His beauty and glory, such as the earth, the sea and the sky. His stability and strength is seen in the rock, His fruitfulness in the vine, His purity in the filly, the satisfaction He offers in the fountain of living water, and the true light as the light of the world.

The Old Testament prophet Malachi refers to Him as “the Sun of righteousness.” There are many ways in which we can figuratively see Jesus as the Sun. There are many ways in which we can figuratively see Jesus as the Sun. There are a lot of stars, seas, trees and flowers but there is only one sun. On the earth it has no peers. Celestially speaking, there are many angels, seraphim and cherubim, but there is only one Son of God, one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ.

When we remember that the sun is the center of the solar system, we are also reminded that Christ is the Most High. When we think of the widespread influence the sun has in the world and how in shines on valleys, mountains, deserts, vineyards, the rich and the poor, we are compelled to meditate on God’s great Gift to the world – the Saviour of all men or all who would obey His voice. North, South, East or West, Jesus has no earthly distinctions, and all men, whether rich or poor can enjoy His brightness.

Jesus is the fountain of light. As the “Sun of righteousness,” He removes all darkness to whosoever will accept the light of knowledge, happiness; holiness, and heaven. Jesus, the Sun, is the source of beauty and vegetation. Flowers and plants would be nothing without the sun and we are a pool of gloom without the Son. All the fruits of righteousness are produced by Him. Jesus said, “Without me, ye can do nothing.”

We can also see Jesus as the Sun in regard to the types and shadows of the Old Testament. When we read of such things in the Old Testament as the tabernacle, the Holy Place and the Most Holy place we are made to wonder as to their meaning. But Jesus, the Sun of Righteousness, has removed the shadows of things to come by His first coming to the earth. We can know what these types and figures look forward to now because Jesus has shed light upon them.

Regarding the subjects of conversion and salvation, Jesus, the Sun, brought life and immortality into light. But it must be remembered what Malachi said: “But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings” (Mal. 4:2). This is the kind of fear that is holy in that it produces a regard for Jesus’ authority and laws. It is associated with love and obedience. Without this fear, we will reject Christ and despise His way of life for us. Has Jesus, the Sun arisen upon you? There is no saving light but that which He gives.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 29, p. 472
July 26, 1979

By Dan Rogers III

Having to publically admit that one has been wrong is not the most pleasant task in the world. This is one reason why many who need to, never do. However, the child of God, upon recognizing that he has been wrong, must so admit it and seek to correct it. Thus, my reason for this retraction. The March 1, 1979 issue of Truth Magazine, (pp. 10-11), carried an article by me entitled, “I Guess That Makes Me A Swine!” In this article, I directed a personal attack upon Brother Arnold Hardin of Dallas, Texas, calling him a false teacher and conducting myself in a very unbrotherly manner toward him. Having come to realize that this article should never have been written, much less published, I now set forth this public statement of retraction concerning the article, and especially, Brother Hardin. In the article, I expressed an erroneous concept of what a false teacher is, using the term in a way which is entirely different from the way the inspired writers used it. In writing about false teachers and in calling Brother Hardin one, I was using the term to refer to anyone that I believed to be teaching something which was incorrect, regardless of his motives. I now understand that when the inspired writers spoke of false teachers or set about to describe them, they referred to individuals who took pleasure in teaching false doctrine, wilfully and knowingly leading people astray from the truth. Thus, I now recognize that although I sometimes might find myself in disagreement with what Brother Hardin teaches, I was in error to call him a false teacher, and I hereby retract that charge! Also, I now realize that I acted in a very unbrotherly way toward Brother Hardin, I am ashamed of it. First, this is evident from the very fact that I “wrote him up.” Secondly, this is to be seen from the fact that I did not even extend to him the common courtesy of letting him know of what I was doing by sending him a copy of the article when I sent it in for publication in Truth Magazine. For that matter, thirdly, I now realize that rather than “jumping on the band wagon” -and “writing him up” in some factional journal, I should have written to him, seeking to resolve any differences in our understanding of what God’s word teaches. Finally, as I now read back through the article, I see clearly just how much of a factional and unbrotherly attitude I expressed toward Brother Hardin in the language that I used, such as in calling what he teaches “garbage” or “swill.” I have apologized to Brother Hardin, asking for his forgiveness in this matter, and have received it. I have repented of my sin in this matter, asking for and receiving, God’s forgiveness. Nothing now stands between us in our relationship in Jesus as brethren. We accept one another as brethren, but not for the purpose of entering into “disputes over opinions.”

Editor’s Reply

The above retraction by Brother Dan Rogers, III comes to me bringing expected sadness. Brother Rogers now destroys the faith which he once preached. I need to make some comment to defend this statement inasmuch as it will throw some light on Brother Rogers’ retraction.

Biographical Sketch

Dan obeyed the gospel in 1966 while living in Corsicana, Texas. Shortly afterwards, he determined to preach the gospel. Therefore, he attended Abilene Christian College until 1970 and then attended White’s Ferry Road School of preaching in West Monroe, Louisiana from 1973-1975. Hence, Brother Rogers’ doctrinal background was that of liberalism.

However, Dan began to send articles for publication in Truth Magazine. Several were published until I received a letter from him dated March 22, 1978 in which he requested that I not-publish any more of the articles which he had sent to me in Truth Magazine because “I believe you to be pushing opinions and seeking to bind where God has not bound.” I did not know in what respects he was charging me with binding opinions so I wrote him three separate letters (March 28, June 7, and July 3) asking him where I was guilty of binding my opinions. Finally, on September 26, 1978, Dan explained his conduct as follows:

. . .It wasn’t until 1976 that I really became aware of the issues concerning cooperation and institutionalism. At that time I began to get all the material I .could from both sides of the issue. The purpose for this was to give me the “ammunition” to refute the “conservative” viewpoint. However, after reading various tracts and debates, I began to question some of the practices of my brethren. I entered into some deep study in this area, and slowly came to some conclusions that I really did not want to accept. It was at about this time that I wrote to you, requesting that you not publish any more of my articles and making the charges against you. As I look back upon it now, I realize that I was lashing out at you because I knew deep down that I had been in error concerning cooperation and institutionalism, but did not want to accept the fact. I guess I had decided to shut my ears to the truth. But, I’m thankful to say that I could not. Thus, I am writing to withdraw the charges I made against you, to ask for your forgiveness, and to explain what it was all about. Naturally, upon receiving this letter, I rejoiced. Shortly thereafter, Dan began to send me other material for publication. The titles of these articles reflect the point of view which Dan held at this moment in time; here are some of the titles: “Why Institutional Brethren Are Not Growing,” “The Application of A Principle” (an examination of 2 Cor. 9:13 by using Thomas Warren’s rule for determining when an example is binding), “Galatians 6:10-Individual or Congregational Responsibility?”, “Liberalism Gone To Seed,” and “Have Churches of Christ Softened?” (an expression of concern because members of the body of Christ no longer considered it sinful to use mechanical instruments of music in worship). As these articles’ titles reflect, Brother Rogers lamented the spread of institutionalism and liberalism; he believed, at this point in time, that those teaching these doctrines were false teachers. In “Billy Graham-A Gospel Preacher?”, Brother Rogers wrote an excellent article, which I had every intention of publishing, exposing the fallacy of Leroy Garrett’s statement that Billy Graham was a gospel preacher. In another article entitled “Southern Baptists, Scriptural Authority,” Dan further exposed the Baptists as a false religious group. However, I was not anxious to publish Brother Rogers’ material until I had a better idea that he was stable. Hence, I contacted Brother Paul Earnhart and requested him to visit Dan and talk to him. The report which Paul returned to me was that he was stable and that he understood the issues between us. Sometime after this, Dan sent his article exposing Arnold Hardin which I published in the March 1, 1979 issue of the paper. You can imagine my own surprise that Dan would want to retract this article so soon after it was published.

Change In Beliefs Again

The reason why Dan wants to retract this article, however, is obvious to me. He has changed his thinking again; hence, he wants to retract this article in which he exposed Arnold Hardin as the false teacher which he is. To demonstrate that Dan has changed his thinking again, notice the following evidences: 1. This article. In this retraction, Brother Rogers apologizes for calling Arnold Hardin a false teacher (although he is not hesitant to charge the writers and editor of Truth Magazine as being factional). He stated that he was wrong in calling a man who taught false doctrine a false teacher inasmuch as one’s motives have to be wrong to be a false teacher. Then, he stated that he was wrong in “writing him up” in “some factional journal” (he means, by this, Truth Magazine). Then, he concluded by stating. that “nothing stands between us (Dan Rogers, I11 and Arnold Hardin) in our relationship in Jesus as brethren. We accept one another as brethren, but not for the purpose of entering into ‘disputes over opinions.’ ” Hence, Arnold is teaching about imputed righteousness, a distinction between gospel and doctrine, and the numerous other false doctrines which he continually propagates in his bulletin do not interfere with Dan’s relationship with him; indeed, he can extend the right hand of fellowship to Arnold Hardin. 2. Private correspondence. I am also going to quote from some private correspondence to demonstrate a change in doctrinal belief in Dan. In a letter to Ron Halbrook (May 17, 1979), he made the following statements:

. . . This was when you began pushing, and continue to push, matters of opinion as matters of faith, to the point of dividing the body of Christ, and then perpetuating this division, all the while arrogantly sitting back and condemning to hell those brethren who do not agree with you . . . However, to get back to my main point here, in charging you with the sin of factionalism and the party spirit, I especially have in mind your opinions concerning how the church is to do its work in the realms of evangelism and benevolence as those things involve “cooperation” and what you call “institutionalism.” Too, I have in mind the attitude that you and those of the party manifest toward brethren that disagree with you, including such brethren as (Buff) Scott, (Arnold) Hardin, (Carl) Ketcherside, (Leroy) Garrett, (Edward) Fudge, (Bruce) Edwards, and seemingly Rogers, too. Is this specific enough? Later, he added, . . . Yes, I have seriously looked at the situation of the so-called “liberalism of the last 25 years.” And yes, for a time I was very heavily swayed by the party’s “fine sounding arguments” and “smooth talk” (Col. 2:4 and Rom. 16:18). However, continued study of God’s word convinced me that the party was wrong, both in its attitudes and in its pushing of opinions too the dividing of the body of Christ! Now you may call this a capitulation to the Devil, but brother, call it what you may, I have decided to walk in accordance with the Scriptures. If you choose to walk in accordance with the party, that is your privilege. These quotations show conclusively a definite change in Dan’s thinking. Whereas he formerly had believed that the apostasies of liberalism separated those brethren engaged in them from God, he has now reached the conviction that opposition to church support of human institutions, the sponsoring church arrangement, and church sponsored recreation is the binding of one’s own human opinions. 3. “Let Us Accept One Another.” Dan sent mean article with this title which I refused to publish because it teaches the grace-unity doctrines. In this article, he wrote, . . . Instead of fighting against Satan and the forces of sin – instead of fighting against “the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Eph. 6:12) – we fight each other. Rather than being concerned about taking the gospel to the lost, like the Pharisees who traveled over land and sea to make one proselyte (Matt. 23:15), we spend much of our time and effort in trying to convert someone from an opposing faction. Indeed, we seem to rejoice more over a brother who is proselyted from an opposing faction to our particular faction, then over ninety-nine lost sinners who move in obedience to Christ (Heb. 5:9). Brethren, it is past time that we stopped fighting each other, and started fighting our common enemy, Satan. We need to forget about proselyting brethren out of one faction and into another, and start thinking about converting the lost to Christ. It is time that we forgot our factional parties and started thinking about God’s house, the family of believers (Eph. 2: l9; Gal. 6:10). It is time we broadened our circle of fellowship from just our own particular faction, whatever it may be, to include all that are in the circle of God’s Fatherhood. Notice that Dan sees no difference in those baptized believers who use instrumental music in worship, support missionary societies from the church treasury, support benevolent and educational institutions from the church treasury, pervert the organization of the church through the sponsoring church arrangement, involve the church in recreational activities, and otherwise distort the divine revelation and those who do not do these things. To him, both groups are factions and should not be eying to “proselyte” members from one faction to another.

One should also notice that Brother Rogers does not consider and of those in opposing factions to be lost (of course, unless they be guilty of factionalism). A man can use instruments of music in worship and still go to heaven, according to Brother Rogers (otherwise, the man would be lost and one to whom we should take the gospel in order that he might be saved). A man can support human institutions from the church treasury (whether they be missionary societies, benevolent societies, or educational societies) and still go to heaven, according to Brother Rogers. A man can work with churches which habitually involve themselves in recreational activities and still go to heaven when he dies, according to Brother Rogers. Hence, he sees no need of our being concerned about taking any of the message of Jesus Christ to these saved people. The only reason that we would take any message regarding these subjects to these people is in order to lead them from one faction to another. However, Brother Rogers, my reason for taking a message to these people is because they are lost and doomed to hell; they are in no better relationship with God than the unbeliever. Hence, I am just as intent upon taking God’s word to one as I am the other. Knowing that this is my belief, and the belief of a number of other brethren, you should at least be charitable toward us and quit implying that we are factional and have only factional motives when we are engaged in the work in which we believe. The differences in our doctrinal belief certainly make this action a different one to each of us. If I believed as you now do, I would admit that for me to persuade a person to leave one group and join another would be pure factionalism. However, from my doctrinal position, for me to persuade someone to depart from his human inventions in order to be restored to the fellowship of his Lord is certainly not factionalism. However, there is nothing wrong with Dan trying to “proselyte” members to this new “grace-unity” faction and, from Dan’s point of view, he is bent on persuading us to join his new faction. These brethren are bent on dividing the church over a new method of establishing unity – a unity which demands no repentance of those guilty of sin. Rather, these brethren propose that every individual be tolerated regardless of what he believes. Just how far Brother Rogers is willing to make application of his accepted premises has not been revealed. He was unwilling to respond to certain questions which I posed to him prior to this review; hence, I cannot definitely state whether he is willing to accept the “brother-in-prospect” and other in his broadened fellowship. It is somewhat paradoxical to me, however, to hear these brethren arrogantly speak of how they have risen above factionalism as they join the grace-unity faction. Of all of God’s children, they alone have escaped the vicious sin of factionalism. Those of us who believe that sins must be repented of and confessed before forgiveness can be granted by God and fellowship restored among His children are all guilty of factionalism! The arrogance of these brethren is repulsive.

Conclusion

I think that Brother Rogers has a moral obligation to face the issues and tell us plainly where he finds biblical authority for his new positions. So, I ask Dan these questions:

• 1. Where is Bible authority for labeling as “opinions” apostasies the Scriptures?
• 2. Do you believe that the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ is imputed to the believer? If so, give us scripture which proves it.
• 3. Is grace automatically extended to the believer to cover his sins of ignorance and weaknesses of the flesh? Or, is grace given to the believer conditionally? If conditionally, what are the conditions which must be met by the believer to have his sins forgiven.
• 4. Is there a distinction between “gospel” and -“doctrine”? If yes, please cite Scripture citations to demonstrate what that difference is. Furthermore, do you believe that the church must all believe alike in reference to matters of “gospel” but have the liberty of disagreeing in areas pertaining to “doctrine”? Please also tell me what is “gospel” and what is “doctrine” if you believe there is a difference between them. It would also be enlightening for you to give us the criterion for determining which part of God’s revelation belongs in which class.
• 5. How do you determine that you can extend the right hand of fellowship to those who are guilty of sin and refuse to repent of it?
• 6. Are things which are revealed through New Testament examples and necessary inferences able to be made matters of fellowship?
• 7. Is the silence of the Scriptures binding?

Most of these questions were sent to Dan in a letter dated May 14, 1979. However, Dan refused to answer these questions until this retraction was printed. Can you imagine Dan being unwilling to tell whether or not he believed that Jesus was risen from the dead until a retraction was printed? Can you imagine Dan being unwilling to tell you whether or not sprinkling fit the pattern of Bible baptism prior to the printing of a retraction? Wonder why he was unwilling to answer these and similar questions prior to the printing of a retraction? I think that I know the answer to these questions.

Dan has departed from the doctrine of Christ which he once preached (2 Jn. 9-11). He is preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:8-9). He is extending the right hand of fellowship to men who refuse to walk in the paths of righteousness (2 Jn. 9-11; Gal. 2:9), thereby expressing his approval of their conduct. I pray that Dan will repent of his sin and confess it to the Lord. Until he determines to do so, however, men must be informed that he is a false teacher and beware of him.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 29, 470-472 July 26, 1979