Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

For The Truth’s Sake, we must “flee fornication” (1 Cor. 6:18). The sexual capacity is a power for good. Like. all such powers, it can be abused and misused. “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers (fornicators) and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). Women must guard against wicked men, men must guard against wicked women, and all must guard against falling victim to temptation unintentionally. “Flee” suggests something dangerous and dreadful, just as the picture of a skull and crossbones on a bottle of poison.

We should flee fornication for many reasons:

(1) It violates the purpose for which God made the body. God made food for the body and the body to receive food. He supplied an answer to all our normal needs. “Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body . . . .he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:1320). 1 Cor. 7:2-6 shows that our sexual needs are to be fulfilled in marriage, with God’s blessing. Fornication is rebellion against the purpose for which God made us. This is doubly true for Christians, who have been purchased with the blood of Christ to serve God in all things (1 Cor. 6:20).

(2) It destroys homes. God does not allow divorce and remarriage, except for an innocent party whose mate commits fornication. Jesus said, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. . . Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:1-9). Neither can remarry when one puts the other away for some cause other than fornication. In a practical way, fornication destroys homes because it destroys mutual confidence, trust, and love. In addition, within the bounds of God’s law, permission is given to break up the home where such infidelity occurs.

(3) It stirs the wrath of God. When many Israelites committed fornication “with the daughters of Moab,” God commanded that they be put to death. He said, “Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel” (Num. 25:15). If the punishment seems horrible, it gives us some idea of how horrible this sin is in God’s sight! Today, God is still angered by such sin-He recorded Israel’s history as a constant reminder (1 Cor. 10:8-11).

(4) It will cause us to lose our soul eternally. “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness . . . and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” ,(Gal. 5:1921). If we would be delivered “from the power of darkness” and translated “into the kingdom of his dear Son,” we must be “buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col. 1:13; 2:12). Christians who become guilty will be lost unless they repent and seek God’s forgiveness.

Truth Magazine XXII: 28, p. 450
July 20, 1978

By Larry Ray Hafley

When Dick Blackford met Paul Dabdoub in debate in Dyersburg, Tennessee, late last year, one of those in attendance was Mr. W. C. Nevil. Mr. Nevil is an aged Missionary Baptist preacher. He was debating before Dick Blackford was born. He met Joe Warlick, a gospel preacher whose name and reputation are virtually unknown to our generation. Also, Mr. Nevil has engaged A. C. Grider and James P. Needham. Needham said of Nevil, “Nevil is the best debater I ever met. He knows all the old Bogard quibbles and presents them in a convincing way.” At any rate, Mr. Nevil’s blood was stirred by the debate between Dabdoub and Blackford. Like an old fire horse who hears the fire bell and feels his pulse quicken and his nostrils flair, Mr. Nevil could not resist the arena of debate. So, he challenged Dick for a debate. The debate was held near Cadiz, Kentucky, May 22-25, 1978.

The debate was rather poorly attended. This was due in part to the fact that there is not a faithful church near the site of the debate. However, brethren drove great distances to hear the discussion. Gene Harris, an elder where Dick preaches, and Wendell West, treasurer of the church, drove many miles and performed well in helping the discussion to be a success. Sam Bynum also did excellent work handling the charts for Dick. All I had to do was pour water for Dick to drink. Also, I think I led prayer one night-4hey could not have gotten along without me!

Dick had prepared many beautiful charts to present his affirmative material and to answer Mr. Nevil’s Baptist doctrine. He was well prepared. Dick has a nice, gentle way about him that makes it hard to get angry at him. Mr. Nevil has a harsh manner that was tempered by Dick’s calm, sincere presentation.

Who Are The Bad Guys?

Christians are always condemned for “name-calling.” Somehow, it is “us” but never “them” that gets the black eye for “calling names.” Well, if Mr. Nevil said “Campbellite” once, he said it a hundred times. He had a few charts that pictured the “Campbellite Church” and constantly referred to “Campbellite preachers.” Below are some of his quotes from the tapes:

“I know you despise the grace of God. You hate it worse than anything in the world.” “You Campbellite preachers are not gospel preachers. You are gospel blasphemers.” “Campbellite preachers can’t stand faith in Christ as a means of salvation.” “You Campbellite preachers preach Campbellite lessons.” “You’re a member of the outfit started by Alexander Campbell.” Those are just some samples. Campbellites trust in the water for salvation; Campbellites have their faith in the water and not in the blood of Jesus Christ these charges were constantly made by Mr. Nevil. Yet, “Campbellites” are the bad guys! We are the ones who “call names!” Dick did not respond to this kind of tactic by doing the same thing, and it was effective. He simply explained the truth and showed why we ought to be Christians.

Usual Proof

Mr. Nevil resorted to the usual line of proof for his position. He cited Lk. 7:50, the palsied man, the thief on the cross, etc. It was the usual, typical approach that has been answered through the years. Dick responded to Nevil’s arguments point by point. Mr. Nevil, on the other hand, ignored most of Dick’s affirmative material. He did not attempt to deal with the arguments which were presented in each speech.

Bloopers And Blunders

Mr. Nevil made too many bloopers and blunders to mention. It would take a whole series of articles to even notice them all. A few, though, are worthy of note. He took the position that the Lord’s Supper is referred to in Matthew 26:28 as that which is shed “for the remission of sins.” He said the Lord’s Supper, like baptism, merely pictures our salvation and that the Lord’s Supper declares the remission of sins in Matthew 26:28. Look it up and see what you think. Mr. Nevil said that repentance and faith are “the same act;” “I want to emphasize now this thought-one and identically the same-repentance and faith.” Several things were said in reply, but the most telling thing was the Lord’s statement in Matthew 21:32, “Ye . . .repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.” Mr. Nevil never noticed this passage. I think the Baptists were embarrassed by his position on this point. Mr. Nevil said that Simon the Sorcerer sought to “buy salvation.” See Acts 8:18, 19. He never corrected himself. He said that Naaman was healed by water in 2 Kings 5. There were others, but this is enough to show the plight of false teachers. Some of you who have never attended a debate probably cannot believe the things a sectarian preacher will say. It would be a good thing for you to attend and see that they do say the ridiculous things that preachers say they do. You have to hear it to believe it in many cases.

Conclusion

This report has already gone too long, but we thought you might be interested in it. Dick Blackford worked long and hard and should be commended for his valiant efforts for the truth’s sake. We trust that the brethren at the North Side church in Dyersburg will support him well for his work. Mr. Nevil is a fine gentleman in many ways, and we would not seek to take advantage of him here. However, we trust that he will consider the error of his ways and obey the Lord. He has no excuse for not knowing the truth. As an aged man, this marks perhaps his last public debate. We pray for -him and for his brethren who attended the debate.

Truth Magazine XXII: 27, p. 443
July 13, 1978

By P. J. Casebolt

There are those who do not feel that the Scriptures can imply a thing strongly enough for us to act with authority. They argue that one thing is implied to this person, while something different may be implied to another. While this may be true of the doctrines and ideas of men, this is not a necessary implication (there is that term again!) to draw pertaining to God’s word. Man is not wise enough, nor is he able enough, to express every idea so that every person gets the same impression. I believe God is able to convey ideas to His creatures in such a way that they can understand Him, and that these ideas are not just contained in the Scriptures-they are the Scriptures, revealed by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:10-16).

Jesus laid out a certain set of circumstances, with various parts and pieces, then asked a certain man to reach a particular conclusion. Even an insincere lawyer, with questionable motives, was forced to the necessary conclusion that the man who showed mercy was being neighborly (Lk. 10:25-37). Other questions recorded in the Scriptures are so expressed that there can be only one implication, or inference. (See Mark 8:36, 37 and 1 Pet. 4:17, 18.) Not only are there many questions such as these, but also plain declarative statements of inspiration which permit only one inescapable (necessary) conclusion. But, these have been quoted time and time again, often by those who still claim they do not believe in the principle. Some concede the principle is taught in the Scriptures, but doubt that it has any binding force. Well, let me use a teaching technique which may get you to see what I mean. That is just a fancy way of saying that I am going to slip up on your blind side. There are some people who are blind on both sides, even as I have been at certain times in my life, so maybe you will get the lesson before you “see” it coming.

Cow Pasture Parable

No, this is not the same thing as “chimney corner scripture.” This actually happened, and there are people yet alive who can verify it. It has long been contended that one can leave a false impression by what he does not say, as well as by what he does say. One can even imply an untruth in such a way that people form an erroneous conclusion. Take the case of misleading advertising, for instance.

Several of us were playing softball in a cow pasture. A girl came to bat, and asked me the location of first base.. Now, there are things in a pasture besides rocks and sticks. The Bible calls it dung. I never said a word, but walked over and stood beside some of this stuff, and in a dried condition I guess it did have the appearance of first base. Anyway, there was no danger, because this girl always struck out anyway. Everybody knew that. I even walked back toward second base, and sat down on the ground to talk with the second baseman. He suggested weakly that maybe I should tell her where the real first base was, but even he knew she would not hit the ball anyway. But, she did. And, she headed for what she thought was first base!

If you ask me personally sometime, I will tell you the rest of the story. But this is enough for you to get the lesson that one can tell a falsehood by the principle of necessary implication. Now, my question is this: if one can teach an untruth by this principle, why cannot he teach the truth with it? Again, the necessary implication is unescapable: you can.

But, someone will say there is more room for confusion using this principle, than if we used an approved apostolic example. I do not know. While it is true that this latter method is binding, and plainly understood as far as I am concerned, yet there are still others who contend that even an approved apostolic example is not binding unless accompanied by a direct command. Even these ignore the command to observe such an example (Phil 4:9).

Yet, there are others who claim we cannot understand anything except a direct command, and in the absence of such we have no authority for anything we do. Then, you still have those who cannot seem to understand even a direct command, else there would be more people who teach and submit to baptism as an essential part of salvation (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16).

I am persuaded that there are people who will never understand what God wants them to do, regardless of how He tells them, or how plainly He reveals His will. Since the atheist does not want to listen to God any of the time, maybe there are those who just want to listen to God some of the time.

Truth Magazine XXII: 27, pp. 441-442
July 13, 1978

By Lewis Willis

Every, generation has its little cliches that float around casually in the brotherhood. Some of these expressions, though not actually found in the Scriptures, do convey scriptural ideas and concepts. Such was the expression championed by the Campbells in the beginning of the Restoration Movement in this country. They said, “We will speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent.” If we speak the “oracles of God” we will be doing precisely what the Campbells committed themselves to do (1 Pet. 4:11).

However, not all of these sayings used by brethren are clothed in such nobility. Some, in fact, are downright false and deceptive. On the surface they sound pretty good, but when they are applied by the orators who use them, a completely different connotation prevails. In recent years, the last six or seven especially, some cliches have been heard from some surprising quarters. Few suspected that those who used them were actually on the march away from the Truth. These brethren, primarily preachers, were being challenged regarding their teachings and positions on the issues of Grace and Fellowship. When these challenges began to be felt keenly, they started talking and writing about the “party spirit” among brethren, and of those who were in control of “brotherhood politics.” They charged that their dissenters were motivated by improper motives, especially that they were being opposed by men for “financial considerations.” These false teachers tried to get faithful brethren off their tracks by charging that they were being opposed by brethren “who just want to sell papers,” since it was primarily through the religious periodicals that the battle was being waged. They were not going to submit to the “party spirit” being pushed within the Lord’s Church! These false teachers vowed they would never submit to those in charge of “brotherhood politics!” The charges are still heard occasionally. This past week I read an article by a Dallas-area preacher who raised this smokescreen. I talked personally with another preacher in the area who made the same noises. A person is guilty of the “party spirit,” according to some of these brethren, if he publicly exposes their false teaching. They want to spread their damning heresy without being exposed while doing so. If a brother has the arrogant audacity to say anything about their teaching, he is called a “brotherhood watchdog.” If we should listen to these brethren we would learn (?) that there is a “CIA in the church.” Many are intimidated by these “full of love and grace” labels and sit quietly back and allow these false teachers to go unchallenged as they subvert whole houses. As one brother wrote, “I refuse to sit back quietly and let these brethren continue unopposed. If opposing these men makes me guilty of party spirit, I plead guilty.” So do I!

Truth Magazine XXII: 27, pp. 442-443
July 13, 1978