Truth Magazine

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

By Mike Willis

In concluding our study of salvation by grace through faith, let us concentrate on the last verse of Eph. 2:1-10. It states,

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. There are several points regarding this verse which we need to press. Continue with us in studying this material.

We Are His Workmanship

Salvation is God’s work, not man’s Work. The word polema means “that which has been made; a work” (Thayer, p. 527). We are not a new creature in Christ because of anything which we have personally done; we are a new creature in Christ because of God’s work. We need to keep this in mind in order to have a proper concept of salvation by grace.

Man is made a new creature in Christ when he believes the gospel, repents of his sins, confesses his faith before men, and is buried with Christ in baptism. However, faith, repentance, confession and baptism are not able in and of themselves to produce new life. The new life comes through the work of God in Christ Jesus. Hence, we need to be reminded that our new life comes through the work of God. Paul wrote elsewhere, “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:11-12).

What happens in baptism is the work of God. This is the circumcision not made with hands. When we are baptized, we manifest faith in the operation of God; He removes from us that body of sin of the flesh and makes us a new creature in Christ. Hence, without a doubt, we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus. We are new creatures, not because of anything which we have done (so far as the grounds of our -conversion is concerned, although we receive this gift conditionally) but because of the work which God has done in us. Hence, we are His workmanship!

Created Unto Good Works

The phrase “created in Christ Jesus unto good works” shows the purpose of God’s work in us. The epi is used to express purpose (see Thayer, p. 233). We are created in Christ Jesus for the purpose of doing good works. Let us illustrate what has been done for us.

Suppose that a farmer purchased a combine for $40,000. His purpose for buying that combine would be to harvest his crops. Hence, he purchased the combine to harvest his crops. However, on the day to begin harvesting his crops, he went out, started the engine on his combine, and proceeded down the first row. About mid-way down that row, he noticed that there was nothing in the hopper; yet, the first row was half-destroyed simply by driving his combine over the crop. What do you suppose his reaction would be?

Similarly, what do you suppose the reaction of Jesus Christ is when those whom He purchased with His precious blood (1 Cor. 6:20) for the purpose of doing good works do not perform good works? If you can imagine the farmer’s disappointment when his $40,000 machine fails to do the work which it was created or designed to do, you can understand the Savior’s disappointment when those who were created unto good works fail to do those good works!

The Scriptures repeatedly teach that the Christian is to be active in doing good works. The parable of the separation of the sheep and goats shows that judgment will be based on whether or not we have been active in good works (Matt. 25:31-46). Here are several passages which emphasize the necessity of Christians being involved in the doing of good works:

And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them (Rev. 14:13).

Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord (1 Cor. 15:58).

. . . who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works (Tit. 2:14).

Put them in mind . . . to be ready to every good work (Tit. 3:1).

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world (Jas. 1:27).

These passages, and several others which could be added, show that God’s people are to be people active in the work of the Lord. Jesus said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). Christians are created unto good works and should be active in doing them.

Which God Hath Before Ordained

The pronoun “which” refers to the “good works” which Christians are to be active in doing. Paul’s statement is that God has prepared beforehand the kinds of works which Christians are to be doing. Consider the following comments about this phrase by the different commentators:

Long in advance of doing a single good work God himself prepared and made ready the good works in which he wanted us to walk. Even this God did and not we. All the ways of holiness and righteousness are God’s design and preparation. We need not puzzle about and search for what may please God, he has long ago mapped out the entire course (R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, p. 427).

They (good works — mw) are the goal to which God’s new creation of us looked; they are also in God’s eternal plan. Before He created us in Christ by our conversion He had destined these good works and made them ready for us in His purpose and decree (S.D. Salmond, “The Epistle to the Ephesians,” Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. III, p. 290).

God prearranged a sphere of moral action for us to walk in. Not only are works the necessary outcome of faith, but the character and direction of the works are made ready by God (Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. III, p. 377).

The phrase is obviously teaching that the works which God wants Christians to do, both collectively and individually, are God-given. He predetermined what He wanted us busy doing.

The difference between revealed religion and humanly,; devised religion becomes obvious by a comparison of the works in which both religions are involved. Those who area walking in revealed religion are busy doing only those works which are divinely authorized in the pages of God’s word. Those who are walking in humanly devised religions are involved in all kinds of works of their own making and choosing. Hence, we see these churches involved in building hospitals, sponsoring boy scout groups, supporting secular education, sponsoring recreation for children and hundreds of other works not authorized in the Scriptures. They say, “What is wrong with this?” The thing that is wrong with it is that God has not ordained that we should walk in them. They are not found authorized in God’s word and that is all that is wrong with them!

The people who lay aside the salvation which is by grace through faith to walk in the works of their own choosing have departed from God. They are in apostasy and fallen away from the revealed religion of God. The salvation which is of grace and through faith demands that the new creatures in Christ walk in the works foreordained of God. Hence, both collectively and individually, we should be busy doing the works of God which are revealed in His word.

Conclusion

Christians are God’s workmanship; He created us in Christ Jesus. We are saved through His operation, not through any works of our own. We have been created in Christ Jesus to do good works; hence, we need to be busy working for the Lord. The works which we are to be busy doing are foreordained of God; hence, we need to be busy doing the works of God.

In summary fashion, let us enumerate the points which we have learned from our examination of Eph. 2:1-10; (1) All men need salvation because all of us are sinners; (2) God manifested His grace toward man in sending His Son Jesus Christ in order that we might be saved. (3) Salvation by grace is conditional salvation. God has offered salvation to all men but men must respond to His offer in order to receive it. (4) Salvation by grace is through faith. Faith comes through the testimony of God’s word. It is used in this part as the sum total of all that man must do to receive God’s gift. (5) Those who are saved by grace through faith are expected to be busy working the works which God foreordained that we should walk in.

A more serious and gratifying subject for study cannot be imagined than the study of salvation by grace through faith. what study is more important to man than the study which pertains to his eternal salvation? I hope that the reading of this material on Eph. 2:1-10 has been half as gratifying to you as the study and writing of it has been to me.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 29, pp. 467-469
July 26, 1979

By Earl Robertson

Paul wrote, “If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work. Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart” (2 Tim. 2:21, 22). These verses are very revealing, are they not! There are many so-called Christians who, having made this claim for years and years, are yet unuseful. In the kingdom of God, they have accomplished nothing and wonder why. Some seem to never learn that God cannot use a person who will not “purge himself” of sins and “follow after” various virtues.

This purging is not forced, but rather is done by one’s self. Each person must assume this sense of self-duty. It is not a push-button operation! Paul is talking to people who have become Christians. There is another sense in which the Lord purges one (2 Pet. 1:9). When one becomes a Christian, he “puts off the old man” and then “puts on the new.” People form habits which destroy influence and the right to victory in Christ and, when informed of such and admonished, refuse to so purge themselves. The load of sin renders void one’s ability to influentially serve the Lord.

Though one is commanded to purge oneself, this is not all the Lord wants. The Lord wants his people to do righteousness. The above text demands that one follow: (1) righteousness, (2) faith, (3) charity, (4) peace, and (5) have a pure heart. The Bible teaches that the man who “fears God and works righteousness” is accepted with the Lord (Acts 10:34, 35). The commands of the Lord are righteousness (Psa. 119:172). Without faith, one cannot please God (Heb. 11:6). In fact, the one who serves the Lord must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him! We walk by faith, says Paul (2 Cor. 5:7). Furthermore, faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17). And without love we are nothing (1 Cor. 13:1-3). The Christian is to add love to his faith (2 Pet. 1:7; 1 Pet. 4:8). We are to follow after peace and even the things that “make for peace” (Rom. 14:19). Some who wear the name of Christ often sacrifice the will of Christ and act according to human wisdom thinking this will produce peace! Not true. Do these things and you will be useful.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 29, p. 469
July 26, 1979

By Larry Ray Hafley

Or so says Brother Guy N. Woods in the Gospel Advocate. Referring to the evils and errors of a church in Florida, Brother Woods commented and lamented the fact that an ultra-liberal church was breeding trouble elsewhere. He said, “If she is the mother she must answer for her children.” In this, he is correct. The same thing could and should be said about the Gospel Advocate in general and Brother Woods in particular. Of course, the statement must be revised for Brother Woods, “If he is the Father he must answer for his children.”

Surely, Brother Woods can see the trends of apostasy among his brethren. Does he not feel any personal responsibility for the state of the churches that have followed him and the Gospel Advocate? Twenty-five years ago, the issues were “the orphan home” and “Herald of Truth.” At least, that is what Woods and the Advocate would have had us to believe. The real issues involved the very nature and structure of the church and scriptural authority. If Brother Woods could not see that then (and he was told then), perhaps he can see it now.

This article is not an attempt to smear Brother Woods with contempt. It is more nearly an appeal to him and others to look at the fruit of their own devices. They are having to eat that fruit and choke back what they cannot swallow. It is a losing battle. The end is not yet.

Brother Woods stands now as a toothless, clawless bear against the encroachments of institutionalism. He “only” wanted “the orphan home” and “Herald of Truth,” but he has been forced to accept colleges in the budget, “Church of Christ hospitals,” and other socio-religious institutions “built and maintained” by churches of Christ. Brother Woods must answer for his children. He would like to deny some of them, but the resemblance is too remarkable.

W.L. Totty, Too

W.L. Totty is now an aged man in poor health. He has been one of the leading debaters for institutionalism among churches of Christ. His plight is pitiable. Now, he is spending his later years attempting to clean up the mess his children are making. Brother Totty is also fighting a losing battle. He, with Brother Woods, “only” wanted “the orphan home” and “Herald of Truth.” However, he is too busy trying to hold back the apostasy he has helped to sire to be of much use in defense of benevolent societies and colleges. After seeing and hearing his behavior when he moderated for Brother Woods in Woods’ debate with Carrol Sutton in 1962, I never thought I would be able to say it, but I feel sorry for poor, old Brother Totty.

Here are some excerpts from a fine article written by Brother Totty this Spring. Read it and weep.

Even though I am never surprised these days at what I see endorsed by some congregations which claim to be churches of Christ, I nevertheless feel a deep sadness each time something comes across my desk to remind me of the departure from the word of God. And though I am unable now to fight with much physical vigor with the sword of the Spirit, I still feel the need to sound out warnings to the brotherhood and, yes, even to this congregation about eminent departures from the faith.

When we open the door and allow one innovation to come in, it paves the way for any and all.

Yes, Brother Totty, it does; and you did; and it has. For, you see, Brother Woods was right when he said “If she is the mother she must answer for her children.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 29, p. 466
July 26, 1979