Truth Magazine

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

By Johnie Edwards

Recently we had a discussion with some Jehovah’s Witnesses. The discussion centered around the Lord’s Supper. The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach:

(1) The Lord’s Supper should be eaten only once a year. The Witnesses draw this false conclusion from the fact that the Passover was eaten once a year. They argue that Jesus was eating the Passover when he instituted the Lord’s Supper, therefore it should only be partaken of once a year.

Answer: It needs to be understood that the Lord’s Supper is not the Passover of the Old Testament. Just because a thing was done once a year under the Law of Moses, we are not to conclude that it is to be done that way in the New Testament. The Jews went once a year to Jerusalem to keep the day of Pentecost (Deu. 16:16). Must we do that every year now?

(2) That Acts 20: 7 was just a common meal. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in their New World Translation renders Acts 20:7, “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered to have a meal.”

Answer: This rendering of Acts 20:7 is not a translation but rather an interpretation. The Greek does not say “meal.” It says to “break bread” and I do not intend to let the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society interpret the truth for me. Do you? The context of Acts 20:7 shows it was not just a common meal.

(A) If it was just a common meal why did Paul remain in Troas for seven days? “And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days” (Acts 20:6).

(B) If those in Acts 20:7 were just eating a common meal why is it specified that they ate it on the first day of the week? Did they eat common meals on other days of the week? “And upon the first day of the week . . .” (Acts 20:7). It is not a common meal but rather is an apostolic example of when the church ate the Lord’s Supper.

(C) If Acts 20:7 is a common meal why did they `gather together’ for it? “. . . when we were gathered together to break bread” (Acts 20:7). Read 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. The church at Corinth was told not to come together in the assembly to eat common meals. “What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? . . . .” (1 Cor. 11:22) “And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation . . .” (1 Cor. 11:34). Also the phrase “were gathered” (Acts 20:7) implies that someone with authority had ordered them to meet together.

(D) If Acts 20:7 is a common meal why is it separate from Paul’s eating or breaking bread in Acts 20:11 ? “When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed” (Acts 20:11). The passages in Acts 20:7, 11 are parallel to those in Acts 2:42, 46. Breaking of bread in Acts 2:42 refers to the Lord’s Supper while verse 46 refers to a common meal. The context shows this to be so.

(E) Jehovah’s Witnesses say that Acts 2:42 refers to the “taking of meals. “If this is so, why is it mentioned as part of and along with acts of worship?

Perhaps one reason Jehovah’s Witnesses want to get the Lord’s Supper out of the Bible is because the Lord said the Lord’s Supper would be inthe kingdom (Matt. 26:29; Lk. 22:29-30). Those in Corinth were communing with Christ (1 Cor. 10:16), then they had to be in the Kingdom. But Jehovah’s Witnesses tell us that the Kingdom was not in existence then? One fasle doctrine leads to another.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 28, pp. 461-462
July 19, 1979

By Ron Halbrook

The trickle of appeals for church donations to colleges is becoming a flood. Yet, many staunch (?) opponents of the practice freely mix and mingle among the advocates. Guy N. Woods is now holding meetings in which the audience is allowed to hand in written questions (as at the Camden Avenue Church of Christ, Parkersburg, W.V., 15-18 October, 1978). An ad says, “His scholarship and many lectures on Bible themes put him in good standing when extemporaneously answering religious questions. Rarely does the public get an opportunity such as this to study with a Bible scholar having the stature of Guy N. Woods.” Someone needs to submit the question, “Are church donations to colleges sinful and should gospel preachers cry out publicly against the practice?” Through the years, Woods has claimed to opose the practice as a violation of New Testament teaching. Whereas he was once a veritable lion, he has been quieter than the church-house mouse for the past two decades.

The problem is, some of our brethren are caught between an idol and a hard place. They maintain that the church can make donations to human institutions in benevolence (old-age centers, convalescence homes, orphanages) but not in education (kindergartens, schools, colleges). These brethren are constantly yoked with cohorts – growing in number daily – who agree with Batsell Barrett Baxter’s parallel:

Some who are agreed that the church can contribute to an orphans’ home are not convinced that the church can contribute to a Christian school. It is difficult to see a significant difference so far as principle is concerned. The orphans’ home and the Christian school must stand or fall together (Questions and Issues of the Day, p. 29).

About a year ago, we invited Fred Dennis to write an article explaining what the difference is and promised to publish it in Truth Magazine; we are still waiting! Then there is the Northridge church in the Dayton, Ohio area which admired Baxter so much that they mailed out his tract free – with pages 25-32 cut out – the heading on page 25 is “What About the Church Contributing to Christian School?”

The North Carolina Christian, which circulates among liberal brethren, carried Editor Howard Winter’s complaint in August, 1978 that the college-in-the-church-budget was winning the day because no one was crying out against it. Indeed! The Gospel Advocate, co-edited by Bible scholar Woods, carries the ads of David Lipscomb College appealing for church support. In a letter to the Knollwood church of Xenia, Ohio, dated 15 September, 1978, President Clifton L. Ganus of Harding College wished to meet with the “elders about the work that is being done at Harding Graduate School . . . . Enclosed is a card with which we hope you will respond to let us know that in January, 1979, we can expect to receive your support of $125 per month! Probably this is just a fraction of a dollar per month per member in your congregation . . . .” He quotes Ira North, editor of the Gospel Advocate, in the letter. We are sitting on the edge of our seat waiting for co-editor Woods to turn in a manuscript to editor North, crying out against these practices as idolatrous perversions of New Testament Christianity. (It will be a long wait, won’t it?)

Not to be outdone, President E. Claude Gardner of Freed-Hardemen College mailed out a letter dated 15 September, 1978 to churches. “We would be pleased for you-to join with us and with other congregations and individuals in support of the Bible Teaching Program Fund at Freed-Hardemen College by giving the Fifth Sunday (October 29, 1978) contribution to assist us in this wonderful work of teaching the Bible,” said the President of the school reputed to be a stronghold of conservative convictions. The July, 1977 F-HC News and Report greeted as a first the plans of a church in Kraaifontein, South Africa, “to send a monthly financial contribution.” For many years, Bible” scholar Woods has chaired an open-forum styled question period at the annual F-HC Lectureship. He is hand-in-glove with colleges. The October, 1978 David Lipscomb College Bulletin announced the “Annual Thanksgiving Campaign” goal of $200,000 in honor of Batsell Barrett Baxter. The Bulletin was addressed to the `Knollwood Church of Christ, 1021 Welford Drive, Xenia, Ohio 45385″ and carried a reproduction of a letter of appeal on letterhead of the Madison (Tennessee) Church of Christ, signed “Ira North Minister, Madison Church of Christ’ Editor of Gospel Advocate.” Woods writes a questions-answer column in the Gospel Advocate, But somehow the question has not come up, “Are church donations to colleges sinful and should gospel preachers cry out publicly against the practice?” Maybe Ira North will submit the question, and soon no doubt.

We suggest a special issue of the Gospel Advocate, a special forum period at the F-HC Lectures, and special question periods with Wood’s gospel meetings, devoted to the theme “Ephraim’s Idols.”

To Drink or Not to Drink

Editor Durham of Mission Magazine found it “sickeningly petty” than an African Christian should give up his life rather than submit to some thugs who demanded he drink a beer. Durham bemoans “puritanical” standards on drinking intoxicants “from the southern U.S.” and argues it were better to drink and live (October, 1978, p. 23). When the New Testament forbids Christians to use the intoxicating drug as a beverage (1 Pet. 4:3), a man faced with the choice to drink or not to drink under the threats of thugs has the same choice he would have with regard to any other law of God. How many beers should he have taken – what about a homosexual act – fraud – curse Christ – smoke pot – take LSD – commit adultery blaspheme God’s name – shout filthy slogans – bow to an idol? When will the liberals publish a bona fide list of big and little sins, important and unimportant laws of God, essential and non-essential commands of Scripture?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 28, pp. 460-461
July 19, 1979