Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In last week’s article, I sought to show the system of Calvinism to be so interrelated that one cannot accept one part of it without accepting the entire doctrine. In this week’s article, I propose to list some objections to the Calvinist doctrines of predestination and election.

It Changes The Ground of Our Salvation

According to the Bible, man is saved through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Without the atonement on Calvary, no one could be saved. However, the Calvinist doctrine of election and predestination makes one’s salvation dependent, not upon the blood of Jesus, but upon the election of God prior to all the ages began. Before the world ever began, God had already decided who would and who would not be saved. Before the blood of Christ was ever shed, God had already decided to save some and condemn others. The shedding of the blood of Christ was just the enactment of a salvation drama according to the doctrine of election.

It Is Repugnant To The Nature of God

According to the Scriptures, God is presented as all wise, all good, and all just. Yet, according to the doctrine of election, God decreed something for a particular end which neither is nor can be good. He is supposed to have created the greater portion of men for eternal damnation to the praise of His glory. In order to demonstrate the glory of God, some men and angels were created and predestinated to eternal damnation. Yet that which is supposed to demonstrate the glory of God is contrary to His mercy and justice. It is repugnant to His justice because it affirms that God saves and damns men without regard to how they live. It is repugnant to the goodness of God because it teaches that God has willed the greatest possible evil-eternal damnation in Hell-to the greater number of His creatures. Hence, this doctrine is contrary to the revealed nature of God.

It Is Contrary to the Nature of Man

Not only is the Calvinist doctrine of election contrary to the nature of God, it is also contrary to the nature of man. Man is presented in the Scriptures with the ability to choose life or death (cf. Josh. 24:15). Yet, according to Calvinism, man cannot of his own volition choose whether or not to be saved. God has made that choice for him before the ages began. I think you can see this point more clearly by examining the fall of man in the Garden of Eden from this point of view.

According to Calvinism, God created Adam and Eve in such a way that they could not keep from sinning. Indeed, He had decreed that they would sin. Then, when they carried out the will of God by sinning, God turned and punished them. Similarly, God has created some men and angels in such a way that they cannot keep from sinning. Furthermore, He withholds from them such a portion of His grace as to enable these men to have the ability to repent and accept the gospel. Then, He condemns them to Hell for being in the condition of being an unrepentant sinner.

Contrast this idea with the nature of man presented in the Scriptures. In the Bible, man is presented as having the ability to choose whether or not to be saved. Man can either reject the will of God (Lk. 7:30) or accept it (Psa. 119:30). Any view of man which teaches the doctrine that man cannot affect whether or not he will be saved is contrary to the nature of man as revealed in God’s holy word.

It Is Hostile To the Nature of Eternal Life

Eternal life is presented in the Bible as the “inheritance of the sons of God” (Tit. 3:7); it is presented as the “reward of obedience” (Mt. 5:12); it is the recompense of those who fight the good fight of faith and who run well; it is the crown of righteousness (Rev. 2:10; 2 Tim. 4:7-8). Yet, according to the doctrine of predestination, eternal life is given arbitrarily because God chose to give it to man. It is not based on the reaction of man to the offer of salvation by God; it is based on God’s choice to save men.

It Is Hostile To The Nature of Eternal Death.

Eternal death is presented as the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23) and given to those who do not obey the gospel (2 Thess. 1:9). It is for the enemies and adversaries of God (Mt. 25:41; Heb. 10:27). Yet, according to predestination, God created man in such a way as He cannot keep from sinning. Then, He withheld from man a sufficient portion of His grace as to enable him to believe and obey the gospel. Then, He condemned to hell the man who could not keep from doing this, who simply carried out God’s will. Hence, the doctrine of predestination is contrary to the nature of both eternal life and eternal death.

It Is Injurious to the Salvation of Man

When the doctrine of predestination is presented, the man is told that he can do nothing to affect his salvation in either way. Hence, why should a man want to do any good thing? Doing good, trying to obey God’s word, will not help him in any way if he is part of the reprobate. Doing evil, disobeying God’s holy word, will not affect his soul in any way if he is part of the elect. Why, therefore, should a man even be concerned about his salvation if what the Calvinists teach is true? Why should he pray? Why should he study God’s word? Why should he try to help the ones who need his assistance? In short, why should man be concerned about his own salvation? Why should man be concerned about taking the gospel to his fellow man?

It Makes God A Respecter Of Persons

The Scriptures clearly present that God is no respecter of persons. Peter said, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34-35). “For there is no respect of persons with God” (Rom. 2:11; cf. Deut. 10:17; Gal. 2:6; Eph. 6:9; etc.). Yet, according to the doctrine of election, God arbitrarily chose who would and who would not be saved. Without any concern as to whether or not man was trying to live pleasing or displeasing to Him, God showed a willingness to save one man and condemn another. That is favoritism, respect of persons.

It Destroys the Comfort of the Gospel

The gospel is presented as a gospel of comfort in such passages as the following: “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light” (Mt. 11:2$-30). Is it comforting to tell people that God chose that Jesus die only for an elect group of people and that they might not be one of those for whom Jesus died? Is it comforting to tell people that God arbitrarily elected some to salvation and some to damnation and that the greater likelihood is that they are among those who are elected to damnation? Is it comforting to tell people that if God chose them to damnation that they will be lost even if they devoted all of their life to the service of God?

This damnable doctrine destroys the very idea that God is love. If God does not love all sinners and wish that all sinners were going to be saved, what guarantee do I have that He wishes that I be saved or that He loves me? This abominable doctrine leaves one with no assurance whatsoever that God loves Him enough to wish that He would be saved. Indeed, according to this doctrine, God hates the greater portion of mankind and loves only a select few!

It Destroys Basis For God’s Opposition To Sin

God is presented in the Bible as being altogether opposed to sin. Calvinists say that God is opposed to sin but their doctrine makes that impossible. According to predestination, God has predetermined everything that is going to come to pass. When Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden, God had willed that he sin. Furthermore, when a man lies today, he lies because God so willed it; when a man commits adultery, he commits adultery because God so willed it. This view of predestination makes sin the accomplishing of the will of God! How could God punish a man for doing what He willed that he do? Hence, this view of God destroys the basis for God’s opposition to sin.

Conclusion

There are insurmountable objections to the Calvinist view of predestination and election. We have touched only a few of them in this article. We trust that you will continue to examine this doctrine with us remembering that Calvinism is a system of theology. One cannot accept one portion of Calvinism without consistently accepting all of it. Those today who are teaching the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ are logically bound to accept the total Calvinistic package or establish on what basis one can consistently accept part of it and reject the rest of it. By knowing the conclusions to which this system leads, we are better prepared to oppose the first inroads of Calvinism among us.

Truth Magazine XXII: 34, pp. 547-549
August 31, 1978

By Keith Sharp

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou-fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thy adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing” (Mat. 5:21-26).

One cannot expect pure water from a polluted fountain (cf. Ja. 3:11). Nor can one expect to serve God acceptably with a heart full of evil. The law of Moses primarily dealt with the outward actions of men. The law of Christ is superior in that it primarily deals with the heart, the source of all conduct, whether good or evil (cf. Matt. 12:33-35). The Master’s teaching concerning killing and anger well illustrates this difference between the covenants. What is the meaning of Jesus’ lesson about killing and anger?

To understand the law of the Lord on this matter, we must be familiar with the Old Covenant regulations Christ replaced. What killing did the law of Moses prohibit? Accidentally taking the life of another person was not the killing forbidden by Moses (Num. 35:22-25). Nor did the law against killing include the administration of the death penalty in a legal case for just cause, since the Old Testament demanded the death penalty for at least eleven crimes (murder-Ex. 21:1214; patricide or matricide-Ex. 21:15; kidnaping-Ex. 21:16; cursing parents-Ex. 21:17; manslaughter of pregnant woman or her unborn child-Ex. 21:22-23; malicious carelessness-Ex. 21:28-29; witchcraft-Ex. 22:18; bestiality-Ex. 22:19; idolatry-Ex. 22:20; rape-Deut. 22:25-27; and blasphemy-Lev. 24:15-16). Nor did the command, “Thou shalt not kill, ” include taking the life of another in legitimate warfare, since the Lord of hosts led his people, Israel, into battle (e.g. , Num. 31:1-5; I Sam. 15:1-3). Rather, the law against killing prohibited murder, i.e., taking the life of another human unlawfully (whether human or divine law) and with malice and / or forethought (cf. Num. 35:16-21).

Under Moses’ law, the one guilty of murder was “in danger of the judgment”. In other words, according to this correct comment of the rabbis, which they had added to the law, the murderer was to be brought before the town court. Jehovah specified the punishment for murder-death. But he left it to the people to organize courts to judge the cases (cf. Deut. 16:18). Each city or town of the Jews had a court of elders, usually composed of seven men, which was the lowest court in their judicial system. Cases could go from these to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.

How did Christ Jesus change this law? He did not change the definition of killing. So far as the outward act is concerned, the Lord accepted the definition of murder given by the law of Moses. Therefore, as accidental killing of another human, the lawful and just execution of capital punishment and just warfare were not murder under the Old Testament, neither are they under the New Testament. As unlawfully taking the life of another human with malice and/or forethought was prohibited by Moses, so it is by Christ. But the difference between the covenants is that Jesus does not merely condemn the overt act of murder itself. He goes to the very root and source of sin and prohibits the attitude of heart and the words which lead to the outward crime.

In announcing His law, the Lord Jesus deals with the progressive nature of sin. He speaks of three degrees of sin, each a step closer to the outward act of murder. “Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.” What does Jesus here condemn?

Not all anger is wrong. “God was angry” (Ps. 7:11). Jesus was angry (Mk. 3:5). Christians can be angry without sinning (Eph. 4:26). There are different kinds of anger. One Greek word described anger which quickly and perhaps violently rose and just as quickly subsided. Another term (the one used here) denoted “long-lived anger; . . the anger of the man who nurses his wrath to keep it warm;… the anger over which a person broods, and which he will not allow to die” (William, Barclay, The Daily Study Bible, Vol I, The Gospel of Matthew Chapters 1 to 10, (Philadelphia, 1958), p. 135.) The anger that will not be satisfied, that will not “forgive and forget,” that continues to fester like a sore, is a deadly sin. The qualifying phrase “without a cause” is absent in the American Standard Version, making all such smouldering grudges, whether with or without cause, sinful. Paul admonishes, “let not the sun go down upon your wrath” (Eph. 4:26).

Also sinful is the anger that vents itself in spiteful words. “And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” “Raca” was an arrogant term whereby the Jews expressed contempt for one they considered to be “senseless” or “empty-headed” (J.H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Chicago, 1889), p. 561). It scorned a man’s intelligence. The word “fool” did not just impugn a man’s intellect; it was an attack on his character. It was the term describing one who was “morally worthless” (W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan N.J., 1940), II, 114).

As the Lord expresses a progression of sin, he also expresses a progression of punishment. He figuratively uses Jewish forms of judicial punishment to teach divine judgment. The one who holds a grudge is in danger of “the judgment,” i.e., judgment by the local court. The one who calls his brother, “Raca,” is in “danger of the council, ” i.e., the Jewish Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court of the seventy revered elders in Jerusalem. He who hurls the epithet, “fool,” toward his brother is “in danger of hell fire”.

Even the term “hell fire” is derived from a Jewish background. The terrible Valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem, where babes had been burned in worship of the idol god Moloch (cf. 2 Kings 16:3), was the receptacle for the cities refuse, and the constantly burning fires accentuated the repulsiveness of this pit of filth. The term is fittingly used in the New Testament to describe hell, the place of eternal punishment of sinners (cf. Mt. 10:28).

The Lord Jesus does not teach that these sins literally lead to Jewish processes of law. Rather, he uses these processes figuratively to teach the divine judgment upon smouldering anger and angry words. Thus, the Master recognizes in his doctrine the progressiveness of sin: smouldering anger, contemptuous speech, malicious speech against one’s character, murder. He goes to the tap root of the weed and decrees that even those who practice the first three steps shall come under the punishment of God.

The Master has well taught the importance of removing all malice from our hearts toward others. But, what if someone is angry with me, whether justly or unjustly? Should I simply have the attitude that, since I have no ill will toward him, then I have no obligation? To the contrary, it is so vital that I seek to be reconciled to one who holds malice toward me that it takes precedence over public worship.

Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first to reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift (Mat. 5:23-24).

Again the Lord employs Jewish practices to teach a lesson to His own disciples. The “gift” was the sacrifice; the “altar” was the altar of burnt-offerings in the court of the Temple in Jerusalem. One might have stood in line for hours awaiting his turn to give the priest the sacrificial victim. But if he remembered that one had “aught” (anything at all) against him, he should first seek to win back his friendship, then worship the Lord. One cannot be right with God while wrong with his fellow man, (cf. 1 .Jn. 4:20). There is a real danger in thinking we can cover up our injustices to others by worship toward the Father. This was a common attitude of the Jews (cf. Matt. 15:1-9). But God will not accept our veneration if we are guilty of wrong toward other people (cf. Isa. 1:15). A person who reverences God while his brother has something against him, unless he has made a sincere effort to be reconciled to that brother, is a hypocrite, and his worship is vain. The proper relationship to our fellows must precede even veneration of God (cf. Matt. 9:13).

Notice, the Master does not teach that we should only seek to be reconciled to the one who, has a just grievance against us. If he has anything at all that causes him to reject us, even an imagined wrong, we should go to him and seek to be reconciled.

The Master then stated a short parable to illustrate the urgency of being reconciled to an angry brother.

Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison, Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing (Mat. 5:25-26). The illustration is of a lawsuit. One’s “adversary” would be his opponent at law. He, the creditor, seeks satisfaction in court against you, the debtor. Under Roman law, the adversary and the defendant would come to court together. At any time before formal proceedings had begun, the defendant could make a settlement with his adversary for whatever he would accept. But once the court proceedings were under way, the matter had to be settled by law. The “officer” would be the court official parallel to a sheriff, who had the power to put one unto jail. The reference is to debtor’s prison, which was common until modern times. A creditor could have a debtor thrown into prison until the debt was paid in full. Of course, this often meant permanent imprisonment. The “farthing” was the Roman “quadrans, “the smallest Roman coin. It represented the smallest portion of debt. Once the judicial precess had begun, the entire debt would have to be paid, down to the tiniest sum. Jesus wisely warns the defendant to settle the matter “quickly”, before he is taken to court. He should seek to win over his adversary by demonstrating good will and the willingness to fairly settle the debt. He should not be stubborn and intractable.

This is a great lesson, even in the civil realm (cf. Prov. 6:1-5; Rom. 12:18; 1 Cor. 6:1-8). I have known brethren who seem to love to settle their differences in court and who are constantly embroiled in legal proceedings. They should take notice.

But the real lesson is in what the parable illustrates. If you have wronged another, or if another even imagines you have, the time for reconciliation is now. Seek his friendship quickly. Delay can only make the matter worse, perhaps causing you to lose a friend or brother, or even worse, causing the Judge of the universe to cast you into hell.

A basic principle of the law of Christ is that all sin is rooted in an improper attitude of the heart. Thus, Christ will not be satisfied if only the outward acts are correct. He demands obedience “from the heart” (Rom. 6:17). We must carefully cleanse our hearts of smouldering anger, grudges, and cleanse our tongues of angry words. We must diligently teach our children not to hold grudges against their playmates and not to call them by reproachful names.

Does a friend or brother have something against you, whether a just or imagined grievance? Do not wait for him to come yo you. Go to him. Do not delay. Go now. “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men” (Rom. 12:18).

Truth Magazine XXII: 34, pp. 551-552
August 31, 1978

By Ron Halbrook

Fighting to the Finish

Out of step with the compromising spirit of this age, Gardner S. Hall took seriously the battle between revealed truth and speculative error. Unlike some other brethren who have wearied of battle, he did not intend for the recent false doctrines on grace and unity to go unchallenged. Neither the encroachments of age nor the pain of. terminal sickness could stop him. So long as he could preach at all, he contrasted the doctrine of Christ with the doctrines of men (Matt. 15:7-8; 2 Jn. 9).

False doctrine on grace and unity was not new to Brother Hall, nor did he take its dangers lightly. He said that the work of exposing “Ed Fudge” was much needed. Brother Hall explained, “He is in error and is leading other young men away. I didn’t know about his errors until you brought them to our attention.”(1) That remark was made in 1974; some time later I gained more insight into why Brother Hall was deeply concerned about this false doctrine. A review of some history supplies the background and context for his concern.

Premillennialism and Unity-In-Diversity

In 1915, R. H. Boll and F. W. Smith crossed swords in the Gospel Advocate over premillennial speculation, as did H. L. Olmstead and F. B. Srygley. Boll (1875-1956) and Olmstead (1883-1958) were joined in time by Stanford Chambers (1876-1969), Don Carlos Janes (18771944), E. L. Jorgenson (1866-1968), and others, as the millennial faction matured. Fighting for its sectarian life, this group repeatedly tried to justify its existence by profuse use of such terms as “grace,” “peace,” and “love,” and by use of the denominational unity-in-. diversity argument. Almost every issue of the leading millennial paper among brethren, Word and Work(2), carried such appeals and arguments. A spokesman recently summarized.

To me the millennial question was only the battleground. The real issue dividing us was the grace of God. I found many who were depending upon their correct doctrinal position for salvation, with a resulting uncertainty about their salvation.

On the other hand the premillennial brethren had a great hope. They would not come into judgment. The grace of God covered all their sin, including errors in doctrine.(3)

In his discussion, the author applied this unity-in-diversity concept of grace and fellowship (1) to “subgroups” such as “charismatics” among premillennial churches,(4) (2) to other “restoration groups” such as those which use instrumental music,(5) and (3) to “fundamental evangelical” denominations, especially those which teach immersion.(6)

Not only did advocates of premillennial doctrine make the unity-in-diversity argument, but also a number of opponents to millennial theories fell for the argument. Following the line that error in doctrine is automatically forgiven anyway, a group of sympathizers arose to plea that these false teachers be accepted in the fellowship of the saints as they were in unity with God. For instance, J. D. Tant was told by a successful furniture dealer in Chicago named Norman Davidson “that the remainder of his life was going . to be dedicated to the removing of the ‘ban’ against Brother Boll and ‘showing up’ the ‘high-handed popery’ which led to his being disfellowshipped all these years. He said all the opposition to Boll through the years had arisen out of preacher jealousy ….”(7) A major part of his effort was an article also distributed in tract form under the rubric of a Christian business man, thus offering himself as an unbiased observer.

“A Christian Business Man Writes His Brethren” was submitted to Word and Work,(8) on the one hand, and, on the other, to the Gospel Advocate,(9) Firm Foundation,(10) Apostolic Doctrine,(11) and others. After castigating brethren who regarded Boll as a “dangerous teacher” for mistreating, misquoting, and misunderstanding him,(12) Davidson said under the heading “Mistakes By All,”

I have told of mistakes which we have made. Now I would say that I sincerely feel Brother Boll has made a mistake in featuring his views as I feel he has. As a Christian brother, I have told him so ….

Further, I am sure those featuring the “Pre” views have caused trouble in several places, gone to extremes, and in some cases, have been guilty of “drawing lines.” As I have not upheld or defended mistakes made by those with whom I agree, neither do I uphold or defend those made by Brother Boll and those agreeing with him. Nevertheless, 1 see nothing in the past which should prevent us from being brethren; in all that word means, in the future.(13)

In a letter to Boll with his copy of the article, Davidson hoped that “you won’t mind” sharing some blame since “the psychology will be better to place some blame on both sides.”(14)

Davidson’s warm sympathy for premillennialists was not lost on them, that is, they welcomed the influence of such men, took advantage of it, and continued in the path of error. Editor Showalter lamented,

It is a pity that Brother Boll persists in his obstinacy to teach his false and speculative theory; and it is also a pitiful thing to see men like Brother Norman Davidson who says he does not believe the teaching of Boll’s Premillennialism himself, try to bolster up and hold up the teaching, nevertheless, by defending Brother Boll.(15)

Referring to Luke 12:51-53 (“I am come to bring ….division”) and 2 John 9-11 (“If any cometh unto you, and bringeth not this doctrine ….”), Showalter added,

As for discord there will always be discord when any part of the membership of the church of the Lord departs from

the sound teaching of the New Testament, and the cure for it is not to fellowship and unite with the false teacher but to oppose the false teacher and his false teaching. This must be done in the spirit of Christ, ‘but must not be neglected …. To do otherwise in order to be at peace with some false teacher is to betray the Master and surrender to the forces of evil.(16) Those who do not believe false teaching are obligated to oppose it.

Political compromise has no place in God’s plan. Diplomacy cannot barter divine revelation for the sake of peace. Peace by sacrifice of principle is victory for evil, as Europe learned shortly after British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned home from the betrayal of Czechoslovakia in 1938 to declare, “I believe it is peace for our time.” The blood of Britain and the world was the price for appeasement in 1938. “We didn’t feel then that there was anything wrong with it. ‘Appeasement’ has a gentle, conciliatory sound-like `reasonable’, `well-meaning’, ‘agreeable'”.(17) Christ is betrayed by appeasement of false teachers and the price is paid in lost souls (Ezek. 3).

Compromisers often believe that by ignoring error and defending errorists they will be won over by such a display of friendship-thus error is to be defeated without a fight. “Catch more flies with honey than vinegar.” Other brethren feel sorry for the false teacher who is in the heat of battle, because they have not studied the issue sufficiently to see its danger. Or. sometimes personal friendship or family ties outweigh a person’s love for truth and loyalty to Christ (Matt. 10:3439). The tragedy is that false teaching advances under the protection of excuse-makers; they provide a handy buffer zone in battle. The sympathizers’ ranks included such men as F. L. Rowe, who used Boll as a contributing writer in the Christian Lea-der .after the Gospel Advocate dropped him in 1915; J. N. Armstrong of Harding College, who carried on voluminous correspondence with Jorgenson under a veil of secrecy so as to shield the school; and Jimmy Lovell, Action editor whom Davidson found to be “in full sympathy.”(18) Because Boll and his friends would not repent and because compromisers offered comfort rather than rebuke, the premillennial sect among professed churches of Christ persists to this day.(19)

Gardner S. Hall Tested By His Father’s Stand

Gardner S. Hall did not join the compromisers who debated against debate, criticized criticism, and defended the “sincerity” of false teachers while impugning the motives of sound brethren. But Brother Hall faced the test of Matthew 10:34-39 (“I am come to set a man at variance against his father”), because his own father aided and appeased the millennialists. Flavil Hall (1876?-1952?) never became an ardent proponent of premillennial propaganda but he warmly admired the Davidsons among brethren and warmly defended the Jorgensons. The millennialists were so sweet-spirited and Christ-like; their opponents were so harsh and unkind. From his home in Pine Apple, Alabama, Flavil Hall embraced and encouraged millennialists by means of unity-in-diversity.

Almost a year before Davidson’s tract appeared, Flavil Hall gave his consent and advice to the project. While on the road in Selma, Alabama, in a waiting room and without a dictionary-. (“I don’t do so well with one, so don’t like to be without one”), he felt compelled to write Jorgenson. Hall was more than a little upset by R. L. Whiteside’s attacks on Jorgenson in the Bible Banner-“it cannot be conceived” that Whiteside was honest in his misrepresentations. Jorgenson was right in saying that “his adversaries had fabricated” charges against “premillennial brethren” and Hall wished that he himself could take more hand in “exposing them.” But, alas, like J. W. McGarvey on instrumental music in worship, “I have whistled until I have no whistle with which to whistle ….But I cannot act wholly as if the evils did not exist.” In view of Norman Davidson’s intention “to go to much expense” in exposing “the perverseness of your adversaries,” let him be cautious and careful in wording . . . . “for the least lack of accuracy will be used with telling effect upon the unwary and to your injury.” Davidson “must” stress “That the a-millennialists are often past masters in advocating opinions and speculations” on such matters as war and Revelation 20.(20) In other words, let, premillennialism be dealt with by means of unity-indiversity. Whether through Hall’s advice or not, Davidson made his very appeal.(21)

On 11 December, 1977, I discussed with Gardner Hall by phone his father’s correspondence with Jorgenson. Brother Hall said that he appealed to his father on a number of occasions to give up the denominational unity-in-diversity plea. “My father was wrong,” he said, “but I could not get him to see it. I showed him that his argument could as well be applied to those who worship with instrumental music or to those who are not scripturally baptized, as to premillennialism.” They had some rather heated exchanges over the matter.

When we talked, Brother Hall had been reviewing Journey Toward Jesus(22) on his radio program. The concepts and arguments of the “new” unity movement were not new at all, he explained. They had an old familiar ring to him. He could not countenance them when he first heard them from his father and he did not intend to now when he was hearing them from others. Hiram Hutto later judged these radio lessons “some of the best preaching that I ever heard him do ….”(23) The broad denominational implications of unity-(n-diversity were obvious to Brother Hall. It is interesting to notice that when Leroy Garrett started his journey toward denominationalism, he and Jorgenson clasped the right hands of fellowship in proclaiming Billy Graham a gospel preacher rather than a dangerous false teacher. Graham was mildly rebuked for his error on baptism but sound brethren were severely thrashed for not recognizing him as a gospel preacher.(24)

What Will We Leave Behind?

The passing of men like Gardner S. Hall, Sr. is a great loss for us, a great gain for them. Well did Paul say that he was “in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ,” yet seeing the work which needed to be done here (Phil. 1:23-24). When such men leave us, we miss their counsel (Prov. 11:15; 24:6). Yet where they have taught and encouraged us in the truth, we still have their counsel. What they have left behind enriches us still, if we keep it in mind.

The life and work of Gardner Hall reflect a healthy blend or balance of inner piety, sincerity, and purity with warm love for truth and hatred of error. Personal purity and devout living are not to be separated from doctrinal purity and militant opposition to error on every hand. In fact, these are simply different elements of the same faith, “without which no man shall see the Lord” (Heb. 12:1-3, 14). Whether these imprints of Divine truth have come to us directly from Brother Hall or by reading about him, they should become more deeply imprinted in our hearts each day. And, then, some day we too can leave behind the same lessons: (1) the need to adorn as well as to preach the doctrine of Christ; (2) the privilege of blessing the unborn: (3) the plea to sin not against children; (4) the importance of prayer; and, (5) the imperative of fighting to the finish.

Truth Magazine XXII: 33, pp. 539-542
August 24, 1978

1. Gardner S. Hall letter to Ron Halbrook, 9 Sept., 1974.

2. R. H. Boll became editor of Word and Work after Stanford Chambers brought it to Louisville, Ky., from New Orleans in 1915. After Boll’s death in 1956, E.L. Jorgenson and J.R. Clark (d. 1968) shared the editorship until about 1964 when Gordon R. Linscott took the job. Since January of 1976, Robert Heid has been editor. The paper is still published in Louisville, in connection with Portland Christian School and Portland Ave. Church of Christ, though actually printed by Heid Printing Co.

3. H.E. Schreiner, “Of Love and Labels and the Thousand-year Reign,” Mission Magazine 9 (Apr. 1976):5-8. This is the Schreiner who debated Robert C. Welch on premillennialism 5-9 November, 1956 in Louisville, Ky.; see The Welch-Schreiner Debate, 5th edition (New Albany, Ind.: Faith and Facts Press, 1972).

4. In 1934, Boll defended Virgil E. Smith and O.S. Boyer, who reported that the baptism and other miraculous manifestations of the Holy Spirit accompanied their preaching in Brazil. Though Boll disavowed the doctrine of these brethren, he claimed “a love that will not let them go” (July, 1934 Word and Work). Beginning in the mid-1960s, Pres. LaVerne Houtz at Southeastern Christian College (Winchester, Ky.) Led the school toward open acceptance and promotion of the charismatic movement. Finally, in 1970, President Houtz and ten of the fifteen faculty members where asked to resign by the Board. The church have not disfellowshippped the charismatic. By the mid-1970s, they and their opponents had forged an uneasy peace of unity-in-diversity, accepting one another without endorsing each other’s doctrine on the Holy Spirit.

5. The premillennial Highland church in Louisville, Ky., used the well-known Christian Church preacher S.S. Lappin for a tent meeting on their lawn 13-29 July, 1941. Lappis was premillennial; he and Jorgenson agreed in principal that they could exchange pulpits though it might be inexpedient (S.S. Lappin letter to Don Carlos Janes, 13 Nov., 1941). Men of mature years and young preachers alike say that preaching against instrumental music in worship has virtually disappeared from premillennial pulpits (personal interviews with LaVerne Houtz and Paul Kitzmiller, son of long-time Word and Work staff writer Carl Kitzmiller, 13-14 Apr., 1976).

6. ” ” ” ” ” ” ” “

7. J.D. Tant letter to G.H.P. Showalter, 3 June, 1946, published in Firm Foundation 63 (20 Aug., 1946):8.

8. Davidson sent Boll a copy, plus one for Jorgenson. “I hope you may approve my article,” Davidson began (Norman Davidson letter to R.H. Boll, undated: cf. Gospel Advocate LXXXIX (31 July, 1947), which refers to Davidson’s tract being mailed and which dates the letter October or November of 1946 when taken with another remark in the letter).The trusted advisors may have approved the article but did not print it. It was certainly to their advantage to let the opposition fight among themselves, without getting involved.

9. Rather than print the article, owner and publisher Leon McQuiddy allowed Davidson to send his material in tract form to the Advocate mailing list; Editor B.C. Goodpasture commented in the 31 July, 1947 issue and began a review on 7 August (p. 577).

10. The article was printed 22 July, 1947 (vol. 64, pp. 8-13) with comments by Editor G.H.P. Showalter, followed by additional comment in the 29 July issue (pp. 8-13) which included an advance printing of James A. Allen’s review (see next note).

11. Editor James A. Allen published the article in July of 1947 and reviewed it in the August issue (Vol. 16, pp. 168-172).

12. Davison “shuddered” to see among Boll’s opponents “rapid doctrines of intolerance, bigotry, discord, bitterness, and strife” supplanting “love” and Peace.” He wrote under the heading “Boll Falsely Accused,” “I would say that good men just misunderstood each other.” A Christian Business Man Writes His Brethren (Chicago, Ill.” 225 N. Michigan Ave., [1947]), pp. 9-11.

13. Ibid., p. 11. Emphasis added by R.H.

14. Davidson letter to Boll, Oct. or Nov., 1946.

15. “The Promised Review,” Firm Foundation 64 (29 July, 1947): 8.

16. Ibid.

17. Barrie Pitt (British military expert), “The Climate of Appeasement” Britain 1935/1939″ in History of the Second World War, Part 1, ed. Pitt (England and U.S.A.” Marshall Cavendich Ltd., 1972), p.iv.

18. Davidson letter to Boll, Oct. or Nov., 1946.

19. For further study on the origin and nature of the premillennial movement among churches of Christ, see Foy E. Wallace, Jr., The Gospel for Today: An Extended Edition of the Certified Gospel (Nashville Tenn.” Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Publ., 1967), pp. 392-494.

20. Flavil Hall letter to E.L. Jorgenson, 14, Aug. 1946.

21. A Christian Business Man, pp. 3-4, 9.

22. Bruce Edwards and Edward Fudge, A Journey Toward Jesus: 16 Letters on Salvation by Grace through Faith, and its Implications for the People of God (Athens, Ala.: Edward Fudge Publ., 1977).

23. “Gardner Hall,” Sentry Magazine, 4 (31 May, 1978): 7-8.

24. E.L. Jorgenson, “About Billy Graham – Again,” Word and Work, LI (May, 1957): 128-31.

By Bob Dodson

The “inspired word of God” (2 Tim. 3:16-17) pays royal tribute unto God’s “grand and glorious” son as the “one and only” big name preacher who ever graced this earth by His “sinless life and truthful message” (1 John 3:5; John 18:37). The purpose of this article is to “glorify” the Lord Jesus Christ and “praise” Him for the monumental achievements that He accomplished. There never has been nor ever shall be “another gospel preacher” that reached the pinnacles of “divine approval” as did Jesus Christ (Matt. 17:5). Below you will find listed for your consideration and study many of these great and notable deeds which the Lord “only” has performed, and which none other could ever do (Acts 2:22-24). It is our prayer and desire that this study will lead us to using the expression “big name preacher” correctly. Since in “all things” Jesus Christ does have preeminence according to Scripture (Col. 1:18), He most assuredly is preeminent among “gospel preachers.” He “alone” deserves this exaltation and none shall ever be his “equal!” For us to refer to “mere mortal” (that is any gospel preacher of the past, present, or future) as the big name preacher surely constitutes “robbery!” This “robs” Jesus Christ of His distinction of being worthy of “all” glory, and honor, and praise, and blessing (Rev. 5:9-12). He alone has a “name” that is above every other name (Acts 4:12).

Origination

The beloved apostle Paul declared by the Spirit that Jesus Christ was the architect and builder of this great universe (Col. 1:15-17). He surely did “create the heavens and the earth and all things therein!” He is both the originator of the universe, and the “original” cause of all creation (John 1:1-4). His work as the Creator gives Him the right to be “blessed forever” (Rom. 1:25). This “monumental task” absolutely beyond measure “evidences” His everlasting power and deity (Rom. 1:20). Moreover this big name preacher “upholds all things” (sustains this living and intelligent universe) by the “Word of His power” (Heb. 1:3)!

Predestination

John the beloved reveals the “high and holy” purpose of the Son of God as that of “destroying ‘the Devil and his works” (1 John 3:8). Jesus Christ was “predestined for greatness” by virtue of the most important “task” and most difficult “task” ever given to anyone in the history of “time” (Heb. 2:9-15)! He met every challenge that He faced in the form of “temptation” and was found without sin (Heb. 4:15). He fought with Satan and “bound him” and He “spoiled his goods” (Matt. 12:27-30). He was God’s prophet (Deut. 18:15-22) who revealed unto “mankind” the exceeding riches of God’s grace (Eph. 2:4-10). He fulfilled God’s eternal purpose in building and establishing the “church” of Christ (Eph. 3:1-11) which is the “Kingdom of God” (Col. 1:13-14). Jesus Christ was “predestined for supremacy” and never once faltered in obeying His Father, and hence God has exalted Him and given Him a name greater than all others (Acts 4:12)! This big name preacher “heads” all principalities and powers (1 Pet. 3:22).

Divestation

Truly the “greatest” account of humility in all history is that of Jesus Christ manifesting “sacrifice without equality” (Phil. 2:5-11). He “emptied” Himself of being deity and clothed Himself with the “likeness” of humanity. The great Creator became the “creature” (Gen. 1:26-28). Being God He was to be served, but He became Himself a “servant” in order to die for the sins of men (Matt. 26:28). This is truly “divestation without. limitation” (2 Cor. 8:9)! He was truly rich but for the sake of sinful man He became poor, that man might through His poverty become “rich” indeed spiritually! He “humbled Himself” and became obedient unto the “death of the cross.” Surely He does possess the right to demand of us to “deny ourselves” to follow Him (Luke 9:23). This big name preacher “tasted of death” for every man (Heb. 2:9).

Foreordination

The apostle Peter declared by the Spirit that Jesus Christ was “foreordained” before the foundations of the world to be the “atonement” for the sins of mankind (1 Pet. 1:18-20). John the Baptist said as he beheld Jesus walking, “Behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Let us thank God that He has laid upon His Son the “iniquity of us all” (Is. 53:3-6). The “vicarious death” of the Lord Jesus Christ was a product of the “determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:22-24). Every event in the history of this world is “centered” around Jesus Christ as God purposed to “sum up all things” in Him (Eph. 1:10). Everyone who chooses to obey the “gospel of Christ” (Rom. 1:16-17) is adopted by God through God’s Son (Eph. 1:3-7). This big name preacher fulfilled every “prophecy” of Him (Luke 24:44).

Legislation

One of God’s seers prophesied that Jesus Christ would be a “governor” (Micah 5:2). Another great prophet of God said that the “government would be upon his shoulder” (Is. 9:6-7). He was prophesied to be the “governor” of the Kingdom of God that Daniel mentioned in his great book (Dan. 2:44). In the New Testament we find that the Lord Jesus Christ “openly states” that the “church” of Christ, is the Kingdom of God (Matt. 16:18-19). He was also prophesied to be the “governor” or ruler of the Kings of the earth (Ps. 2:512). Therefore, in “essence” Jesus Christ is the “legislator” of the “entire universe”, and His will surely “legislates” every event according to his divine providence (Rev. 1:5-7). He has “legislated” His will for all mankind in that which is called the “gospel of Christ” (Rom. 1:16-17). His “legislation” is law and must be obeyed by everyone in order to obtain everlasting life and escape eternal punishment (2 Thess. 1:7-9). This big name preacher will judge all (2 Cor. 5:10-11)!

Proclamation

In prophecy Jesus Christ is announced to be God’s messenger who would “proclaim” liberty from sin for a “sin-cursed world” (Is. 61:1-3). He is most assuredly God’s divine “proclaimer” (Luke 4:16-19) of the “mercy and long-suffering” of God toward man (2 Pet. 3:15). His “proclaimation” is the truth that sets men free from sin (John 8:31-32). Jesus Christ did “proclaim” very beautifully and accurately the way and the truth and the life that will lead each man from earth to heaven (John 14:6). This “heavenly proclaimator” has provided all mankind a “spiritual roadmap” that will lead them to everlasting happiness with God (Rev. 22:14). This map (New Testament) is so simple and easy to follow that “way-faring men though fools, should not err therein” (Is. 35:8). In this big name preacher is “hidden” all of God’s wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). Jesus Christ “proclaimed” that everyone who “hears his words and obeys them” is wise. But everyone who “hears his sayings and rejects them” is foolish (Matt. 7:24-27).

Interpretation

Truly the divine “announcement” from the angel of the Lord, concerning the Lord Jesus Christ at His birth, signifies His “greatness” (Matt. 1:18-23). He was called Emmanuel which is interpreted “God with us!” This was in fulfillment of (Isa. 7:14). The “God of eternity” (Ps. 90:1-2) became flesh and “dwelt among men” (John 1:14). He interpreted unto man the great “mystery of godliness” (1 Tim. 3:16). He is the “word” (John 1:1-2) who became “incarnate in man!” He “interpreted perfectly” God’s precepts unto man through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:9-13). This big name preacher surely interpreted unto man “God’s righteousness and true holiness” (Eph. 4:13-24).

Personification

Jesus Christ “personified” deity on this earth, as He progressed through the “land of the living” (Heb. 1:1-3). His every thought and word and deed was a glorious tribute to the “majestic righteousness” of God (Eph. 4:20-24). Every personal circumstance of His life reflected that “God is no respector of persons” (Matt. 22:15-16). His “overwhelming compassion” for the sinner never caused the Lord to compromise the truth about “sin” (John 8:3-11). He truly could and did “read the hearts and the minds of men” (Mark 2:1-11) which is a “peculiar trademark” of God and Him “only” according to the scriptures (1 John 3:20)! As the “ambassador” of His Father, He certainly “personified” the greatest of truths (John 3:16-21). Truly Jesus Christ spoke the truth when He said that “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:7-9). Indeed the Lord “personified” deity through His condemnation of the “hypocrisy” of the “scribes and Pharisees” (Matt. 23:139)! This big name preacher demonstrated always that He “loved righteousness and hated iniquity” (Heb. 1:89)!

Determination

It has been said that “the worth and value of someone” can best be determined by the amount of opposition that it takes to defeat him. Jesus Christ passes this great test with “flying colors”, for our Lord never “gave place to the Devil” (Eph. 4:27). He was “more determined” to glorify His Father in heaven and do His will, than Satan was “determined” to deceive Christ and cause Him to “sin” (Matt. 4:1-10). It was by “sheer determination” that Jesus Christ was able to “die for the sins of men” apart from any assistance from His Father (Matt. 27:46). His “concentration” on the goal set before Him never waned (1 Pet. 2:21-24). By intensive determination He was the big name preacher who endured the cross, while despising the shame (Heb. 12:13)!

Authorization

Jesus Christ taught people as one “having” authority and not as the scribes (Matt. 7:28-29). He cast out the strongest and meanest of evil spirits by the awesome “power” of His word (Mark 1:27). He is the “possessor” of all “authority” in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:1820). He delegated this “authority” in some measure to His apostles when He directed them to “go into all the world and preach the gospel” (Mark 16:15-16). Jesus Christ said that “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not (this command) shall be damned!” Jesus Christ is the “author and perfecter” of the people on earth who chose to obey His teaching (Heb. 12:1-2). His divine “authority” comes from the Father and those who fail to heed His “doctrine” sever themselves from grace (Gal. 5:4, 2 John 9). When this big name preacher comes to judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31), He will have “put down” all rule and authority and power (1 Cor. 15:24). The last enemy “death” also will be destroyed by Him that hath the “keys of death and of hades” (Rev. 1:17-18).

Recognition

He “fully realized” that the scripture cannot be “broken” (John 10:34). Time and again He pointed to Himself and the events that transpired in His life as the “fulfilling” of the “scriptures” (Luke 24:44-49). He was able to “recognize” every appearance of evil that Satan sent against Him and resisted the Devil (1 Thess. 5:22, Jas. 4:6-8). He certainly “recognized” the need for continual learning of God’s divine laws (Luke 2:40,52). He amazed the lawyers in the Temple with His knowledge and wisdom of God’s word (Luke 2:42-48). This big name preacher possessed perfect recognition of His goal while He walked in the flesh (John 12:23-27).

Truth Magazine XXII: 34, pp. 549-550
August 31, 1978