Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

As we examine the Calvinist doctrines of salvation, we need to also examine what Calvinists teach about reprobation. The strict Calvinists have no hesitancy in stating emphatically that God has decreed the damnation of certain men. They state,

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, No. 3).

After having stated their belief about God electing some to salvation, the writers of the Westminster Confession of Faith stated their belief about God’s treatment of the reprobate.

The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extended or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to passby, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice (Chapter III, No. 7).

Even the early Baptists wrote openly of their conviction that God has predestinated some unto life and others unto eternal damnation. The Philadelphia Confession of Faith states this doctrine as follows:

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated or foreordained to eternal life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; other being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice (Section III, No. 4).

Their creed goes on to discuss how the reprobate are damned because God withholds from them a sufficient amount of grace to cause them to be saved. Hence, strict Calvinists had no trouble stating their belief in both election and reprobation.

But, my brethren, Calvinists have long ago perceived that the doctrine that God damned some people to hell was not all that popular. Who wants to believe that this reprobate baby who died in infancy long before it was old enough to commit a single sin will burn forever in hell because God predetermined that this should occur to the praise of His glory?

Yet, this is what strict Calvinism teaches. Most rational men want nothing to do with such a damnable, pernicious doctrine. Hence, in recent years, Calvinists have begun to back off of the doctrine of reprobation. They want to continue to

believe in election but deny that they believe in reprobation.

In Present Truth magazine, Klaas Runia wrote as follows about this problem:

When L. Berkhof gives his proof for the doctrine of reprobation, he begins with the following statement. “The doctrine of reprobation follows from the logic of the situation. The decree of election inevitably implies the decree of reprobation. If the all-wise God, possessed of infinite knowledge, has eternally purposed to save some, then He ipso facto also purposed not to save others. If He has chosen or elected some, then He has by that very fact also rejected others.” And L. Boettner opens his discussion of “Reprobation” with these words: “The doctrine of Predestination of course logically holds that some are foreordained to death as truly as others are foreordained to life. The very terms `elect’ and ‘election’ imply the terms `non-elect’ and `reprobation.’ When some are chosen out others are left not chosen.”

It is of course true that `logic’ does play an important part in theology. Reformed theology has always freely acknowledge its good right. The Westminster Confession states that “the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture or by good and necessary consequence, may be deduced from Scripture” (Ch. 1, vii. By this very means the church has developed its doctrine of the Trinity also its Christology, yet the question must always arise; is a particular consequence `good and necessary’? In general we must say that especially at the point of an eternal decree of reprobation we have to be most careful. And one should ask oneself: why does Scripture itself not draw this conclusion, if it is so natural and so logical! (Vol. V, No. 6, p. 28).

The author in Present Truth chose to call this a “paradox” and left it unresolved. The truth of the matter is that some Calvinists want to believe in election without accepting the logical conclusion of the doctrine, reprobation. That doctrine is just a little too sour for their taste. Hence, they choose to abide in inconsistency rather than accepting the logical consequences of their damnable heresy.

My brethren, please keep in mind the logical conclusions to which Calvinism leads. It states that God has predetermined every event in history. Hence, God has predetermined, not foreknew, that the greater majority of men would die in sin, whether inherited or committed, and be eternally punished in hell. He predetermined that this would happen for the praise of His glory. We must not allow the Calvinists the luxury of not accepting the logical consequence of the doctrine of election.

Does God Want Men To Perish?

It seems ridiculous to pose such a question, yet this is exactly the question we must pose to deal with reprobation. This doctrine teaches that God has decreed, predetermined, and foreordained that the great number of men in this world would end up in hell for the praise of His glory. Inasmuch as God wants to be praised by men, He certainly wants these men to end up as He has willed that they be. Hence, this is by all means a legitimate question for Calvinists to answer. Does God want the greater portion of mankind to burn eternally in Hell. Calvinists say yes; the Bible says no. Read the following passages:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time (1 Tim. 2:5-6).

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9).

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (Jn. 3:16).

Contrary to what Calvinists teach, God gets no pleasure out of watching the wicked perish and burn forever in Hell. The prophet Ezekiel stated this plainly as he wrote:

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? (Ezek. 18:21-23).

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, 1 have no pleasure in death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? (Ezek. 33:11).

The God which the Calvinists worship is a horrible God indeed. He obtains some kind of sadistic pleasure in watching people burn forever in hell. He creates a large number of men for the express purpose of watching them die in sin and burn forever in hell! Who can worship such a God?

The Calvinist doctrine destroys the plain statement of Scripture that God is love. Rather, Calvinism demands that God be a god of hatred. He hates more people than anybody else; He hates them longer than anyone else can hate them inasmuch as He hates them prior to their coming into this world and forever after they come into this world. Having hated more people than anyone and harboring this hatred forever, God would become a God of hatred! As a matter of fact, God would have this hatred toward every man except that select little group of “teacher pets” whom He arbitrarily chose to elect to salvation.

Conclusion

This doctrine of Calvinism is by all means the most repugnant of the doctrine presented in that system. Men tend to turn their eyes away from it and look at the positive points of Calvinism. Indeed, some among us are even intrigued at the idea of “once in grace, always in grace.” Others like the idea that God personally called me to give me faith and repentance so that I could be saved. These doctrines which attract men cannot be logically maintained without accepting the conclusion that God damns the non-elect of His own will. They doctrine of reprobation is one of the main reasons for rejecting Calvinism in all of its parts.

Truth Magazine XXII: 31, pp. 499-500
August 10, 1978

By Keith Sharp

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell (Matt. 5:27-30).

American society is sex-saturated. With the constant emphasis on lasciviousness-dancing, mixed swimming, immodest dress, lurid magazines, movies and television shows, sex-oriented advertisements, accepted premarital sex and widespread marital infidelity, lust has become so commonplace it is accepted as normal by people in general and is no longer repulsive to many children of God. Yet, the Master warns that lust is so spiritually deadly one should prefer to lose a hand or an eye rather than to fall prey to its allure. This is an important difference between the law of Moses and that of Christ. What was the Old Testament law concerning adultery? How did the Lord change this law? What is the meaning of his teaching concerning the offensive eye and the offensive hand? It is the purpose of this article to answer these questions.

To answer these inquiries, we must first define “adultery.” Two words are commonly used in the New Testament to denote unlawful sexual acts: “fornication” and “adultery.” Both terms have a primary, restricted meaning and a secondary, more general use. When employed in contrast with “adultery,” “fornication” entails unlawful sexual intercourse between unmarried people (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9). But sometimes the word is used in a more general, secondary sense to describe all unlawful sexual relationships ,of any king, whether the parties are married or unmarried. On the other hand, “adultery” has a primary, restricted meaning of “unlawful intercourse with another’s wife” (J. H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 417), i.e., illegitimate sexual relationships involving at least one married person. But, in our text, “adultery” must be used in a secondary, more general sense of all unlawful sexual intercourse, whether the parties are married or not. This is true because the Master applies the lesson to “whosoever,” not just to married men, and warns against lusting after any “woman,” not just married women. If this is not the usage of the word in this passage, the law of the Lord concerning lust applies only to cases involving at least one married person, meaning unmarried men could lust all they desired after single women and not violate the Master’s stern prohibition.

What did the Old Testament expound as touching adultery? Moses forbade the act of adultery itself (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). The law fixed death to both parties as the penalty for adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-27 this law pertained to married people), unless the woman was a slave (Lev. 19:20-22). Moses demanded a trial by ordeal for a wife suspected of adultery (Num. 5:11-31). If a man “humbled” a virgin, he was to take her to be his wife, with no possibility of ever putting her away (Deut. 22:28-29; Exod. 22:16-17). The Mosaic Covenant did command, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife” (Exod. 20:17), but being “the law of a carnal commandment” (Heb. 7:16), the first covenant primarily dealt with the outward act itself.

What is the Master’s doctrine concerning adultery? Christ certainly condemns the outward act, but he goes behind the deed and censures the attitude which leads to the action (cf. Matt. 15:18-20; James 1:13-15; 2 Pet. 2:14). Thus, in contrast with “the law of a carnal commandment,” the law of Christ is “in newness of spirit” (Rom. 7:6).

What is this lust which the Lord so sternly prohibits? The term “lust”

. . . denotes strong desire of any kind …. Such lusts are not necessarily base and immoral, they may be refined in character, but are evil if inconsistent with the will of God (W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, III, 25).

Obviously, in this context, “lust” denotes “evil desires.” Does this mean it is sinful for a man to possess base desires? Is the temptation a sin also? Dr. Alfred Marshall, in his Literal English Translation contained in The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament renders the Master’s warning thus:

But I tell you that everyone seeing a woman with a view to desire her already committed adultery with her in the heart of him.

This brings out the Lord’s idea of deliberately leering in order to purposely arouse carnal desire. Thus, Dr. Alexander B. Bruce comments:

The look is supposed to be not casual but persistent, the desire not involuntary or momentary, but cherished with longing (The Expositor’s Greek Testament, I, 108).

As the old saying advises:

One cannot keep the birds from flying over his head, but he can keep them from building a nest in his hair.

Involuntary, momentary temptation, over which a man possesses no control, is not sinful, although we should, as much as possible, avoid placing ourselves in tempting situations. Deliberately aroused, persistent desire of unlawful fleshly gratification is condemned.

Many commentators limit the “lust” of Matthew 5:28 to the intention to commit adultery prevented only by the lack of opportunity (cf. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., The Sermon on the Mount and the Civil State, p. 37). Although I see no reason to so limit the Master’s prohibition, I recognize this “criminal intent” is one attitude condemned.

Some inquire, “Does this mean, since lust is as adultery, that lust is grounds for divorce?” The Lord alone is capable of judging the human heart (John 2:24-25; 1 Cor. 2:11; 4:3-5). In his sight, the man who persistently and deliberately employs his eyes to arouse carnal desire or who intends to commit the act, lacking only the opportunity, is as guilty as the one who actually commits adultery. But man lacks the ability to read another’s heart and has not the power to judge in that realm. Putting away one’s mate involves human judgment of guilt (Matt. 19:9). Such judgment must be limited to knowledge of the outward act, not assertions concerning attitudes, whether real or imagined.

What is the meaning of Jesus’ teaching about the offensive eye and the offensive hand? In these verses (Matt. 5:29-30; cf. 18:8-9; Mark 9:43-48) the Master presents two great lessons: the means of averting lust and adultery and the importance of so doing. How can one avoid adultery and lust? Jesus advises the very removal of that which offends. To what does the term “offend” refer? Barclay explains that the noun form of this word

means the bait-stick in a trap. It was the stick or arm on which the bait was fixed and which operated the trap to catch the animal lured to its own destruction. So the word came to mean anything which causes a man’s destruction. Behind it are two pictures. First, there is the picture of a hidden stone in a path against which a man may stumble, or of a cord stretched across a path, deliberately put there to make a man trip. Second, there is the picture of a pit dug in the ground and deceptively covered over with a thin layer of branches or of turf, and so arranged that, when the unwary traveler set his foot on it, he was immediately thrown into the pit. The skandalon, the stumbling-block is something which trips a man up, something which sends him crashing to destruction, something which lures him to his own ruin (William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, I, 145).

Does Christ actually, literally demand the removal of the right eye or right hand to prevent sin? What good would it do to remove the right eye, if the left eye were still free to lead to lust? Why remove the right hand, if the left hand can yet perform evil? The Master here employs a figure of speech known as “hypocatastasis.” Dr. E. W. Bullinger, in his classic study, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, explains:

As a figure, it differs from Metaphor, because in a metaphor the two nouns are both named and given; while in Hypocatastasis, only one is named and the other is implied, or as it were, is put down underneath out of sight. Hence Hypocatastasis is implied resemblance or representation: i.e., an implied Simile or Metaphor. If Metaphor is more forcible than Simile, then Hypocatastasis is more forcible than Metaphor, and expresses as it were the superlative degree of resemblance.

For example, one may say to another, ‘You are like a beast.’ This would be Simile, tamely stating a fact. If, however, he said, ‘You are a beast’ that would be Metaphor. But, if he said simply, ‘Beast!’ that would be Hypocatastasis, for the other part of the Simile or Metaphor (‘you’), would be implied and not stated.

This figure, therefore, is calculated to arouse the mind and attract and excite the attention to the greatest extent. This beautiful and far-reaching figure frequently occurs in Scripture. The Lord Himself often used it, and that with wonderful effect.

Matt. v.29, 30. . . . The right eye, etc., is compared by implication to the most highly prized possession (pp. 744, 747).

What, then, is the point? Anything, even “the most highly prized possession,” which causes us to lust or leads to adultery is to be immediately cast out of our lives.

How important is it that we take these preventive measures? By mentioning the right eye and the right hand, Jesus makes the demand even more radical, for these were generally considered to be more valuable and of more use than those on the left. Any earthly sacrifice is to be preferred to the loss of one’s soul in hell!

Dear friend, adultery is a terrible sin, but so is the lust that leads to adultery. Are there things in your life that cause you to lust? Do you like to dance, go mixed swimming, read lurid magazines, listen to filthy music, watch obscene movies and television programs? Is there a social contact that causes temptation? Cast it from your life immediately! No earthly thing is as valuable as your soul. No sacrifice is too great to save your soul. It is better to sacrifice the dearest thing in life than to lose your soul in hell through lust.

Truth Magazine XXII: 31, pp. 501-502
August 10, 1978

By Roland Worth, Jr.

It is difficult to get people to realize that they should choose their friends with care. It is easy for them to brush aside the admonition as a needless warning. Yet a careful consideration of the matter shows that this is the wrong reaction.

1. In choosing our friends we should remember the fate that their immoralities will earn them. In the symbolic language of the book of Revelation, “But as for the, cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Rev. 21:8; cf. 22:14-15). In less picturesque language Paul makes the same point, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Then Paul adds the comment, “And such were some of you” (v. 11); note the past tense, which indicates that they no longer were supposed to be such. Hence, if we fall back into those sins because of our close association with the worldly we will share the same fate as the worldly, exclusion from the eternal kingdom of heaven.

2. In choosing our friends, we should remember that the outsider has little or no reason to uphold the moral .standards that we practice. Peter warned the Christians of his day that they would be criticized for their abstention from the evils popular in that day. “Let the time that is past suffice for doing what the Gentiles like to do, living in licentiousness, passions, drunkenness, revels, carousing, and lawless idolatry. They are surprised that you do not now join them in the same wild profligacy, and they abuse you” (1 Pet. 4:3-4). Our living differently from others constitutes a continued indictment of the way they act. So it is no wonder that they can not peacefully tolerate this. They have to lash out in order to blot out any personal feelings of guilt. But why should we expose ourselves to such needless taunts by a bad choice of associates?

3. In choosing our friends, we should remember that their evils will tend to rub off on us. Paul warned the Corinthians. “Do not be deceived: `Bad company ruins good morals”‘(1 Cor. 15:33). The nation Israel made this mistake when the people refused to remove the sources of moral contamination that dwelt in their land, “They did not destroy the peoples, as the Lord commanded them, but they mingled with the nations and learned to do as they did. They served their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons; they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood. Thus they became unclean by their acts, and played the harlot in their doings. Then the anger of the Lord was kindled against his people, and he abhorred His heritage (Psa. 106:34-40). (The parallel to the danger the church faces when it allows blatant moral evil to go unchecked in its midst should be obvious.)

4. In choosing our friends, we should remember that if we partake of the same evils as they do we will be punished in the ,same way. This point has been mentioned in passing but it bears re-emphasis. We have already noted Paul’s warning (1 Cor. 6:9-10) that corrupt morals will keep a person out of heaven. The apostle’s warning to Timothy not to “be partaker of other men’s sins” (1 Tim. 5:22, KJV) is an admonition that should be heeded by all.

5. In choosing our friends, we should remember that we are under the obligation to separate ourselves from them if they are acting as a drag on our faith and morality. This is what Paul is referring to when he writes, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers… Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord… Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 6:147:1, KJV). The apostle John makes the same point when he writes of fallen “Babylon,” “Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, `Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities’ ” (Rev. 18:4-5).

Conclusion

We should choose our friends with care; they will have an impact on us whether we wish to admit it or not. Many centuries ago Sallust recognized this when he wrote, “To live in friendship is to have the same desires and the same aversions.” If we do not have the same likes and dislikes when we begin our friendship, our close acquaintance will tend to cause them to come out as time passes. We should heed the warning of Charles Spurgeon, “Take care of your best friends; be careful of your companions. Choose the best you can; then follow them no further than they follow Christ.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 31, p. 498
August 10, 1978

By Gardner S. Hall, Ill

One by one, death is taking from us a generation of faithful gospel preachers. These older brethren who are leaving us for their reward are men who through the gospel have converted many of us. They are men who have fought various errors such as premillennialism, institutionalism, worldliness, and a host of other false doctrines and concepts that Satan has thrown at God’s people. We are now left to serve God without their wisdom and advice.

One such preacher is my grandfather, Gardner Sewell Hall, Sr. (At the risk of being too personal, I shall refer to him through the rest of this article as “my grandfather” or “Papaw.” It is difficult for me to be comfortable calling him Brother Hall.)

Background

Gardner S. Hall Sr. was born in northwest Georgia on May 24, 1906. He died May 16, 1978 in Athens, Alabama. His father, Flavil Hall, was widely known as a gospel preacher and songwriter. His mother died when he was young. Later, his father married Bertha Williams whom I remember as one of the sweetest, godliest women I have ever known. She made a wonderful stepmother for my grandfather and he was thoroughly devoted to her. She died recently in Awin, Alabama, her home. Papaw had one brother, Leslie, and one sister Zellner. They are still living near Trion, Georgia.

Early Meetings

As Timothy, my grandfather was taught the Holy Scriptures as a child. He began preaching soon after his obedience to the gospel. My grandmother tells me that by the time he was 17 years old he was already holding meetings in Tennessee and North Georgia.

Papaw liked to tell me about gospel meetings during his early years as a preacher. Gospel meetings in those days had no competition from television and little from other social activities. A great number of non-Christian visitors from the community could be expected each night. Papaw said that brethren then would be disappointed if at the close of the meeting there were no more than 5 baptisms. Usually there were more than 10 responses, sometimes as many as 25 or 30.

Papaw liked to tell about his experiences eating with the brethren during those early meetings. The brethren who invited him home for meals were not always as careful to be clean as Papaw would have liked for them to have been. At one home way back in a hollow, my grandfather said the hogs lived underneath the floor of the house. Of course their odor drifted upwards into the kitchen where the meal was being served. To make matters worse the meal seemed enjoyable only to the flies that buzzed joyously from dish to dish. Papaw said that he struggled to get a few bites down but begged off from eating more, saying that he would save room in his stomach for the raisin pie he saw on the counter. “Oh that’s not raisin pie,” said the hostess getting up and walking over to the counter, “that’s coconut pie.” Saying this, she waved her hand over the pie and all the “raisins” flew away.

Family

In 1924 my grandfather married “Mamaw,” Gartrelle Mitchell, a young woman who was also raised in northwest Georgia. She was a perfect mate for him, complimenting him in his work and encouraging him to serve the Lord in whatever way possible. Their faithfulness can be seen in their four children whom I feel (speaking from a prejudicial viewpoint of course) are some of the finest children produced by any home. Sewell (Gardner S. Hall, Jr., my father) is currently preaching the gospel in southeastern England. Mary Faye (Headrick) currently lives in Athens, Alabama and is the wife of faithful gospel preacher, Lynn Headrick. Lillian (Perkins) lives in Huntsville, Texas and is married to a godly man, Franklin Perkins. Bill, the youngest, preaches the gospel in Chattanooga, Tennessee at the North Terrace church.

My grandfather and grandmother have worked to preach the gospel in the following places: Rome, Ga.; Anniston, Ala.; Alabama City, Ala.; Birmingham, Ala. ~1North Birmingham church); Pensacola, Fla.; Tuscumbia, Ala.; Jackson, Miss.; Chattanooga, Tenn.; Bessemer, Ala.; Port Arthur, Texas; Midfield, Ala.; and Athens, Ala. (Corinth church).

Hatred For Evil

In 1963, my grandfather almost died. He suffered an aneurism of the aorta and was taken to Houston for surgery by the famous surgeon, Dr. Denton Cooley. During this illness, my grandfather told his son Sewell that perhaps it would be best if the Lord allowed him to die then because he had seen so many older preachers, including some of his closest friends, begin to compromise the truth in their later years. He certainly did not want to do that. The Lord chose, however, to give him 15 more years of service on this earth. During those last 15 years instead of compromising the truth as had some of his friends, it has been said that he perhaps did his greatest work in defending it and encouraging others to do the same.

The truth is that few can imagine Gardner Hall, Sr. ever compromising the truth. In fact, perhaps his greatest attribute was his hatred for evil. My father says he can remember seeing his usually gentle father literally grit his teeth with rage upon hearing of false doctrine or other types of sin. Perhaps Papaw comprehended bether than some of the rest of us the terrible consequence of sin, separation from God.

One thing that grieved my grandfather in his last years was the tendency among some younger preachers to try to excuse error and to give encouragement to those who taught it. This attitude was unthinkable to one who loved the Lord and therefore hated evil (Ps. 97:10). Just before his death, on the daily radio program of the Corinth church my grandfather presented what some told me were some of the best lessons that they had heard on the current “fellowship” error. As a hater of evil, my grandfather could never understand those who refused to take a stand against error, whether that error be institutionalism, worldliness, or whatever. He was especially concerned that some churches in Limestone County, Alabama, his last home, seemed reluctant at times to take a solid stand for the truth against error.

Papaw was always careful to use good grammar and to pronounce his words correctly. He had a running skirmish on the radio program in Athens with a Baptist preacher whom he called (with a bit of fondness I believe) Al. Al’s Baptist church had a radio program 30 minutes after the program of the Corinth church. Al tried to appear as a suave, scholarly Baptist preacher. To try to impress the radio audience, Al would talk about what happened while he was studying for his Master’s degree or, what happened at the seminary. Al’s ignorance, however, was quite obvious when he talked about unfringed (not unfeigned) love that Peter said we ought to have in 1 Peter 1:22, or when he talked about the Greek words which he pronounced “jenosis” (gnosis) and “panyuma” (pneuma), forgetting that the p and g are silent. Papaw wanted so badly to point out these errors of pure ignorance on the part of Al but for the longest time he refrained because he said those grammatical errors had nothing to do with Al’s false doctrine. Finally, however, he could restrain himself no longer and in one of his radio sermons he pointed out that anyone who had studied for a Master’s degree at the seminary should not be so ignorant as to pronounce the g and p in gnostic and pneuma (pneumonia either), or to say that we are to love each other with “unfringed” love (whatever that is) when the word is unfeigned love. Just before Papaw’s death, he remarked that he would be ready to go if he could just convert his Baptist friend, Al.

Gentleness With The Weak

Though my grandfather hated evil, compromise, and half-hearted effort, there was never anyone more patient with those who were giving their best efforts to serve the Lord. He would spend hours in homes counseling and teaching the weak. He loved children and young people. I can remember watching his classes for youngsters at Corinth on Sunday evenings before the regular services. He could tell (and act out) the story of David and Goliath so vividly to those children that you could almost hear the thud when Goliath fell. The love Papaw gave to children was always reciprocated. They loved him. I thought of this as I watched the line of people pass by his casket at the funeral home. One little, red-headed, freckled, farm boy about 10 years old seemed especially sad as he walked past the body of my grandfather. He was weeping silently yet with much sorrow. My grandmother told me that Papaw had bought him a pitch pie and worked with him to teach him how to lead singing. I wondered how many other little freckled boys and young men he had worked with patiently to teach how to lead singing and make talks. I certainly can remember his patient advice to me as a young preacher.

Though my grandfather had perhaps fewer faults than any man I have known, he was a sinner in need of God’s grace. He accepted that grace and gave his life to telling others about it. He was humble, having no desire for prominence. He loved to be with God’s people so much that he insisted on attending services at Corinth in his emaciated condition up to only a few weeks before his death. I guess he could simply be described as a simple, humble, old-fashioned, gospel preacher who wanted more than anything to serve God.

He has finished his work now and is resting. Others of his generation are rapidly leaving us. We can never fill their shoes. We must simply work much harder to serve God as we remember their examples.

Truth Magazine XXII: 30, pp. 490-491
August 3, 1978