Truth Magazine

By Jeffery Kingry

Over the past twenty years there has been a growing discussion among brethren and in some of the papers expressing fear over the growing centralization of influence and power among editors, papers, evangelical foundations and organizations, and the one college run by our faithful brethren. It has caused some brethren, notably in Texas, to question the very right of an independent organization run by brethren for religious ends to even exist.

Those who support the individual’s liberty to organize have felt quite strongly that this growing debate would result in schism among the “conservative brotherhood” (actually there is no such thing as a “conservative brotherhood” but we will be accommodative as a discussion of that point is not within the scope of this article). Because of this fear, privately they have tried to put a “lid” on discussion of the subject in print.

Quite benignly and with high motive, articles dealing with the dangers of organizations and their influence have faded from print. Some have continued the deliberations in independent and expressive journals like Torch and the Gospel Anchor. To judge from the content and tone of the writing done though, it seems as though they have come under a great deal of criticism for doing so. Also, the limited circulation of these papers has not provided a very representative discussion of the issues involved.

This past debate has raised several very good issues that need to be discussed. But, more disturbing than the disagreements are ‘the very strong emotions which have surfaced as a result of the dispute. As with any subject which becomes colored by emotion, understanding and patience between brethren has begun to fray.

Is This A New Issue?

To argue that this issue will divide us, is all the more reason to discuss it. Reaching a common understanding is sometimes both arduous and frustrating, but too much is at stake to merely ignore one another and hope the other is “swept” under the rug.” The context of the discussion may be new, but the principles underlying the relationship of the institution with the saint are hardly freshly arisen among us.

There are those who worship at the shrine of denominational organizations. They give their money and their lives to build them and they will not turn away from them even for God. Such people have not stopped to realize that they have sworn fidelity to a human organization rather than to God and His Christ. The Psalmist tells us that they who build the house labor in vain unless God does the building (Psa. 127:1). When all is said and done, their only reward will be in the organization they have built; for God will not recognize it or them. They were builders, but they built the wrong kind of house (Gospel Guardian, Vo. 2, No. 25, p. 8).

Brother Cogdill’s words were not directed primarily at the unscriptural nature of the organizations he had in mind (though, no doubt, they were unscriptural because of their funding), but his objection was at the place such institutions had in the hearts of those who promoted them. In our discussion today of “our” institutions (and they are only “ours” in the sense that they are run by brethren we trust and have fellowship with), there has been a persistent misunderstanding that opposition to the place an organization holds in a brother’s heart is opposition to the organization itself. Whether the misunderstanding is the result of malice, prejudice, or faulty perception, its effects are impossible to deny. It is as difficult to dissuade as the long-lived opinion, held by some that to oppose the church’s support of an orphan’s home is to oppose orphans! Certainly, ,if God can oppose the place the tower of Babel held in the hearts of its builders, without being opposed to towers, cannot good-intentioned brethren sound warnings of similar quality?

This writer does not oppose gospel papers, religious journalism, or good education. But, we hope that all godly saints are opposed to devotion to any human group, and the power such groups may wield over the independent thought and action of the brethren. To deny that existing groups do have such influence (whether it is practiced or not is another question) is to deny the plain message of history and the testimony of our own eyes. That is not at issue. What is of concern is, what do we do about it?

To quote Brother James Adams, former senior advisor to the Truth Magazine staff, staff writer for Preceptor, and present editor of Gospel Guardian, “The world is full of institutions of every kind, religious and otherwise, but there is one institution that is infinitely superior to all others . . . . an institution of such character and dignity is worthy of a full measure of our devotion: The church ‘of our Lord Jesus Christ. The church of the New Testament, as God made it, possesses an organization perfectly adapted to and adequate for the accomplishment of the mission with which God has charged it” (Gospel Guardian, Vol. 3, No. 6, p. 8).

Again, Brother Adams does not address himself to the scripturality or right-to-exist of any institution built by man, but emphasizes their lack of relevance beside the all-sufficiency of the church, the one institution designed to accomplish God’s spiritual goals on earth. The institution, right or wrong, is not in competition with, opposition to or supplemental to God’s church. It is utterly irrelevant.

We need to learn from the words and experiences of others. The message of the past is the message of today. In considering A. Campbell and his associates, we need to weigh the great good he did against the irreparable harm he wrought in his support of the societies and colleges. The great influence for good accomplished through’ the pages of the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation should be weighed against their effect in the past thirty years. The colleges begotten by pioneer educators, godly men all for the most part, need to be compared with those same colleges today as they turn out rebellion and falsehood. The ability of power to corrupt the leaders and administrators of these institutions has proven historically to be without exception. Even within the history .of the church we find the warring given that “of your own selves (elderships) shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch. . .” (Acts 20:30, 31). To oppose what power does to an eldership, is not to oppose the eldership. The conclusion of the apostles was “Therefore watch!” We need to be aware of the dangers among us, and be on guard.

“Today we look diligently for the statement that might justify our conduct. In all of this we are only worshipping the idol of self-justification. If we are wrong, we should face it, and correct it. The greatest act of self-deception is the effort men make to justify themselves” (Cogdill, Ibid.).

James Adams, after quoting the words of Tolbert Fanning who questioned giving any loyalty to human organizations, wrote, “Do we really learn from history, or do we but interpret its lessons in the light of our own ambitious desires for the present” (Gospel Guardian, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 2)?

“Learning from history” means applying history’s lessons to ourselves. If these organizations and associations (whatever they may be) have been so apt to apostasize in the past, we need to guard and be sensitive (even over-sensitive?) to such trends we might be associated with. “Apostasy does not come overnight. It comes gradually and takes us unawares. That is why trends must be noted and departures detected in their beginning. When a trend away from the truth is noted and attention is called to it, it is never taken seriously by many: They `just can’s see any harm in it’ and the devil will keep them blinded if he can” (Cogdill, Gospel Guardian, Vol. 2, 1 No. 6, p. 9). If we “put a lid” on discussion of any valid topic, we are not avoiding in a healthy way the abuses of the past, but are compounding them. How can we oppose the failings of others if we ourselves are not bound by the same rule?

“The way to meet the problem is… (in) recognizing .all the while the serious dangers inherent in any organization (gospel journals as well as colleges) which influence and mold public opinion. A responsible college administration will be aware of this and will `Lean over backward’ to give full and ample opportunity for criticisms to be voiced and for opposing views to be presented. Any college (or journal) which permits itself to be used as a ‘propaganda organ,’ permitting no expression of contrary views is unworthy of anybody’s support” (F. Y. Tant, Gospel Guardian, Vol. 13, No. 8, p. 116).

There is more than one way to “censor” the contrary view-whatever that view might be. The most effective way is to ignore it, limit its expression, and privately discredit it. Papers have a greater capacity to do this than most other institutions for they are designed to be a media of communication with masses of brethren, while colleges and private organizations are not. So, upon the papers lay a greater responsibility than other institutions. Papers run by godly brethren, above all others, need to provide for free discussion and intercourse on legitimate issues, in a setting and atmosphere conducive to finding truth.

Brother Robert Turner, writer for Vanguard and Plain Talk, raised some interesting questions on this issue that have yet to be discussed and decided. “Is it possible for brethren to function collectively in the teaching of the word of God, in some relationship other than that of the local congregation, and not infringe on the allsufficiency of the Lord’s church? Or do we need to reexamine our definition of `all-sufficiency’? We will not answer these questions by `blowing our top’ “(Preceptor, Vol. 11, No. 11, p. 172). ‘Blow our top’ indeed. Surely we are capable as God’s children to .discuss something as important as this without the mistakes emotionalism genders, that same emotionalism which is so puzzling in our liberal brethren.

Some Suggestions

It may be presumptuous of this writer to suggest to his brethren anything that flavors of “wise advice.” Being young in years and experience, bruised and bloodied by past mistakes, this source is questioned by many, we feel sure. But, love of my brethren and an unconquerable faith in the saint’s good will makes me bold. Since all recognize the abuse of the past, it behooves those who write and edit words which reach large numbers of brethren in print to do so with humility and concern for proper influence. Let us refrain from addressing the elderships of all the churches with personal views of wisdom and practice. Let us avoid instructing all preachers in our views of proper and necessary sermon content. We need to beware before we step forward to issue a call, or blow a trumpet, or seek to arouse the “Brotherhood” around, before, or behind us on any issue. The call has already been made by our Captain (Heb. 2:10; Psa. 60:4). We battle against all evil, whatever form it may take. The fault does not always lie with the content of our call, but in its precedent and presumption.

As writers, we need to let the content of our writing be designed to build up and instruct (Eph. 4:29, Col. 4:16). Too often what is written is just plain mean, in its inference, tone, and thrust. This does not negate the truth, but it does make it more difficult to win an argument. “A brother offended is harder won than a city with walls.” Or .as Brother Turner put it, “We won’t answer these questions by blowing our top.” Reasoning together is the only method we have for obtaining unity.

All brethren of contrary views need to divest themselves of any beleaguered mentality. As Brother Cogdill put it, “If we are wrong, we should face up to it, and correct it:” We might add, if we are right, we are in God’s hands, and can therefore glorigy God if we are despitefully used. Either way, “everyone who doeth evil hateth the light. . . but he that doeth truth cometh to the light.” Only the false way suffers from honest investigation. Repression, denial, stopped ears, and insensitive hearts are not the tools of the seeker of truth.

Those open papers which are published by good and faithful brethren should find means to provide fair and honest discussion of legitimate differences between brethren. Several.means come to mind, but they all fall under the heading “Do unto others, even as you would they do unto you.” Men who have been stung by the censorship and unrequited review of brethren in the past should be sensitive to the feelings and conscience of those they may find themselves in disagreement with.

Finally, the papers, colleges, and organizations should be the first to draw attention to and decry their abuse by brethren. Denying a problem does not make it go away. The institution which will last longest as an aid to brethren will be that institution kept in bonds, and carefully pruned by critical and wary leaders. Because, in truth, the officers of such institutions are the only ones who are able to keep their effort viable. Other brethren may criticise, but only those brethren actually associated with these efforts will effect any change. When they are silent, one is only left to wonder whether their power has already corrupted them.

Truth Magazine XXII: 33, pp. 535-537
August 24, 1978

By Carol R. Lumpkin

Every time a person is baptized there is pictured the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. “Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-4). Any change in this pictured event would be a perverted one. This very thing has occurred with the practice of sprinkling and pouring being substituted for a burial in baptism.

Jesus was baptized in the Jordan river by John. After He was baptized, He “went up straightway from the water” (Matt. 3:16). Both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, where the eunuch was buried in water. They both came up out of the water. “They both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” (Acts 8:38). The person being baptized went to the water; the water was not brought to him. There is no scriptural evidence of anyone being baptized into Christ, except by a burial in water.

The substitution of sprinkling for baptism was unknown until the second century. Then it was used only because sufficient water was not available. Sprinkling was accepted for baptism in unique cases about the middle of the third century. The Greek word for baptism means to bury, to plunge, to immerse. It never was translated to mean sprinkling or pouring. Sprinkling is the work of man and does not meet the requirements of scriptural baptism. Sprinkling must be rejected by all who have a love for the truth.

Leaders in most all religious groups who practice sprinkling agree that the early church practiced immersion. Martin Luther, whose influence founded the Lutheran church, practiced sprinkling. Luther said, “The name baptism is Greek; In Latin it can be rendered immersed. When we immerse anything in water, that it may be covered with water. And although that custom has now grown out of use-yet they ought to be entirely immersed, and immediately drawn out. For this the etymology of the word seems to demand.” John Calvin, a leader of the Reformation and the founder of the Presbyterian Church, practiced sprinkling. He said, “The word baptize signified to immerse; and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the primitive church.” John Wesley, early Methodist leader said, “We are buried with him alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion.

Does it seem rather strange that these men, and many others could as well be used, with one accord understood the true meaning of the word baptize; yet, they each taught and substituted sprinkling and pouring for immersion in baptism.

We also see from these quotes how leaders of religious movements were satisfied to teach and practice that which the Bible does not authorize. Paul said those who would do this were perverters of the gospel of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:6-9). John declared that those who would go onward and abide not in the doctrine of Christ have neither the Father nor the Son (2 John 9). John wrote that those who would add unto, or take away from God’s word would not obtain eternal life (Rev. 22:18-19).

Truth Magazine XXII: 33, p. 530
August 24, 1978

By Johnie Edwards

`Mormons open lay priesthood to blacks” was the title of an article which appeared in The Indianapolis Star on Saturday, June 10, 1978. According to the article, Mormon Church President Spencer W. Kimball, received a new revelation, from God. Mr. Spencer is quoted as saying, “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the church may be ordained to priesthood without regard for race or color.”

Which Is Correct?

The Mormon Church has taught in the past that Blacks could not be a part of the Priesthood. Notice some of the statements Mormon leaders have made concerning this subject.

“Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of priesthood and the fulness of the blessings of the Gospel” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 101).

“This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith …. we all know it is due to his teachings that the Negro today is barred from the Priesthood” (Ibid.).

“As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin: he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 102).

“Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot receive the priesthood” (Brigham Young in Wilford Woodruff by Mathias F. Cowley, p. 351).

“The church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro . . . It’s a Law of God” (N. Eldon Tanner, 2nd Counselor to Joseph Fielding Smith, in Seattle Magazine, December 1967, p. 60).

“Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty” (Bruce R. McConkie in Mormon Doctrine, 1958, p. 477).

I am asking, which of these teachings is correct? They both cannot be. Rather interesting isn’t it?

No New Revelation

When the last book of the New Testament was written the pen of inspiration was forever laid down. Jude said, “Beloved, when I have all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith, which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). The word `once’ means once for all time. All of God’s truth has been made known. “How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery: Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph. 3:3,5).

No Distinction As To Color

‘The New Testament makes no distinction as to color in regards to man’s relationship to God. The newspaper article quoted Mr. Kimball as saying, “he had received a direct revelation from God to extend to every worthy member of the church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.” I read where God has already extended all of the privileges and blessings of the gospel to all men. “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:26-29).

All Christians Are Priests

Long before Mr. Kimball learned that Blacks could be priests, God had already made known that every Christian is a priest unto God. “And bath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father: to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever” (Rev. 1:6). There is no such thing taught in the Bible, as the Mormons teach, concerning priesthood. for man today.

Truth Magazine XXII: 32, p. 524
August 17, 1978

By Carol R. Lumpkin

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). There was order, meaning, and beauty. Everything was good for God made it so. Some 4029 years after the creation, Jesus authorized baptism as an act which would bring salvation to man. He gave it order, meaning, and beauty. Everything about it was and is good.

There is no religious act in the New Testament which is described with so rich and varied symbols. Baptism is a birth into the new life. Baptism is God’s way of washing away sins. Baptism is the exodus out of bondage to sin into Christ. Baptism is the act through which one enters the church and begins his journey toward heaven.

The apostle Paul described baptism as the re-enaction of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. “We were bured therefore with him through baptism into death that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). Just as Jesus died, man must die to sin. Just as Jesus was buried, man must be buried in water. Just as Jesus was raised, man must come forth from the grave of the water. The new life is experienced not before but after baptism.

Jesus speaks of baptism as a new birth. “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except one be born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5). The new birth consists of both water and Spirit. The Holy Spirit begets us through the revealed word. “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God” (1 Pet. 1:23). The physical birth brings one into the family of man while the spiritual birth brings one into the family of God. “In one spirit are we all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13).

The apostle Peter compared our baptism to Noah’s salvation from the flood. “Which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away. of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21). Even as Noah and his family were saved by water, so we are saved after receiving water baptism. The new life in Christ cannot be realized until the old man of sin has been removed. Peter certainly makes this rather plain, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). There is no remission of sins without water baptism. Salvation always follows scriptural baptism. Jesus makes this shine forth when He gave the Great Commission; He, said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. . . ” (Mk. 16:16).

It is certain from each case of conversion recorded in Acts, that baptism was the final act commanded to be saved. The eunuch requested baptism after Philip had preached Jesus to him (Acts 8:35-39). Peter commanded Cornelius to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:48). The only way Paul could remove his sins was through baptism (Acts 22:16).

That baptism is commanded to have salvation from past sins in no sense means that it must. not be preceded by faith, repentance, and confession of Christ. Each of these commands are imposed on the sinner before he becomes a saved person. Why not give baptism the place that God gives it? Baptism is indeed a beautiful act since it betrays the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The saved will and must obey Jesus in baptism.

Truth Magazine XXII: 32, pp. 520-521
August 17, 1978