Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In recent years, several well-known brethren among us have begun to teach that the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ is imputed to the believer’s account so that when God looks at the believer, He does not see a man who sins, repents, sins again, repents, again, etc. but sees instead the perfect obedience of Christ applied to the believer. Edward Fudge was one of the first who taught this doctrine among us but recently several have begun to whistle the same tune. Most recently, I have seen the writings of Arnold Hardin from Dallas, Texas which propagate and defend this same doctrine.

As these doctrines have been circulated, there has been the charge that these brethren are teaching Calvinism. Fudge, Hardin, and others utterly deny this charge. They deny that they are guilty of teaching Calvinism. Indeed, Arnold Hardin wrote in defense of the periodical Present Truth as follows:

“This branding and choosing sides is of the devil! And these gossips that would set brethren against brethren ought to be marked in the true sense and meaning of Paul. I have received much good from the Editor’s writings in Present Truth. Why should anyone-reading that paper or any other—be called upon to answer to some of these ‘fense riders’? I am quite capable of recognizing Calvinism when I see it! (The Persuader, Vol. XH, No. 1, August 23, 1977).

If Brother Hardin has the capability of recognizing Calvinism when he sees it, as he says that he has, I can only conclude that he has accepted Calvinism. For this much I know, the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account is part of the warp and woof of Calvinism. Consequently, if he has the ability to recognize Calvinism when he sees it, I can only conclude that Arnold Hardin has knowingly accepted the doctrines of Calvinism.

In the remainder of this article, I propose to define the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account and to show that it is part of the theological system known as Calvinism. I invite your consideration of the following material.

Defining The Doctrine

Inasmuch as most of us are not too acquainted with the doctrine of imputation, I would like to begin by carefully defining it.

“Imputation, in the O.T. chashab, in the N.T. logizomai, is employed in the Scriptures to designate any action, word, or thing, as accounted or reckoned to a person; . . . The word imputation is, however, used for a certain theological theory, which teaches that (1) the sin of Adam is so attributed to man as to be considered, in the divine counsels, as his own, and to render him gusty of it; (2) that, in the Christian plan of salvation, the righteousness of Christ Is so attributed to man as to be considered his own, and that he is therefore justified by it” (“Imputation,” M’Clintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. IV, p. 524).

The doctrine has three distinct features to it. Although my brethren have not accepted all three features of it, I want to set the doctrine in its total theological content.

“Three acts of imputation are given special prominence in the Scripture, and are implicated in the Scriptural doctrines of Original Sin, Atonement and Justification . . . the term ‘imputation’ has been used in theology in a threefold sense to denote the judicial acts of God by which the guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity; by which the sins of Christ’s people are imputed to Him; and by which the righteousness of Christ is imputed to His people. The act of imputation is precisely the same In each case. It is not meant that Adam’s sin was personally the sin of his descendants, but that it was set to their account, so that they share its guilt and penalty. It is not meant that Christ shares personally in the sins of men, but that the guilt of His people’s sins was set to his account, so that He bore its penalty. It is not meant that Christ’s people are made personally holy or inwardly righteous by the imputation of His righteousness to them, but that His righteousness is set to their account, so that they are entitled to the rewards of that perfect righteousness” (“Imputation,” James Orr, Editor, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. H, pp. 1462-1463).

This article is designed to consider one of these three acts of imputation, namely, the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the account of the believer. It makes no pretension to discussing all three of these acts of imputation as mentioned in these quotations.

However, there is one thing that I want to make crystal clear from these quotations, namely, the relationship that these doctrines of imputation sustain to each other. Regarding the logical connection which all points of Calvinism sustain to each other, the Encyclopedia Brittanica said,

“Through faith also the believer receives justification, his sins are forgiven, he Is accepted of God, and is held by Him as righteous, the righteousness of Christ being imputed to him. This imputed righteousness, however, is not disjoined from real personal righteousness, for regeneration and sanctification come to the believer from Christ no less than justification; the two blessings are not to be confounded, but neither are they to be disjoined. The assurance which the believer has of salvation he receives from the operation of the Holy Spirit; but this again rests on the divine choice of the man to salvation; and this falls back on God’s eternal sovereign purpose, whereby He has predestined some to eternal life and some to eternal death. The former he effectively calls to salvation, and they are kept by Him in progressive faith and holiness unto the end” (“John Calvin,” Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1944 edition, Vol. IV, p. 633).

Notice that the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account is part of the warp and woof of Calvinism. This is the theological basis for their doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. God does not hold the saint accountable for his sins (whether they be committed ignorantly or willfully makes no difference to Calvinists, although my brethren inconsistently try to make some distinction) because he sees the perfect obedience of Christ instead of the sinfulness of the believer. The imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ is the theological justification for the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.

Of course, the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is related to all of the other points of Calvinism. No one whom God has called can in any way fall from grace or else the sovereignty of God is thwarted. Hence, the attending doctrine of election must be logically accepted. But, if election is accepted, then the doctrine that some are reprobates because of God’s divine decree must also be accepted. Then, one can logically backtrack through the entire system until he is compelled to accept inherited total depravity, irresistible grace, limited atonement, unconditional election, etc. Calvinism is a system. If one accepts a part of the system, he is logically compelled to accept the other parts of it.

To further confirm that these doctrines relate to each other, I want to consider some other evidences. Keep in mind that the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account is the theological justification for the belief in the perseverance of the saints. In its chapter on “Of the Perseverance of the Saints,” The Westminster Confession of Faith states the following:

“1. They whom God bath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly preserve therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

“2. This perseverance of the saints depends, not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree. of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of graces from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof” (6.086-6.087).

Notice that this quotation shows the relationship of these doctrines to each other. The doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ is the theological justification for the belief in the perseverance of saints. The perseverance of the saints is based on the doctrine of election. The interrelationship of these doctrines reminds me of the song about the ankle bone being connected to the leg bone, the leg bone being connected to the knee bone, the knee bone being connected to the thigh bone, etc. They are all related to each other.

Calvinists on “Imputation”

Since some are challenging whether or not the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account is a part of Calvinism, let us go to the Calvinists themselves to find the answer.

1. John Calvin. Here is what John Calvin had to say about this doctrine:

“I reply that `accepting grace,’ as they cuff it, is nothing else than his free goodness, with which the Father embraces us in Christ when he clothes an with the innocence of Christ and accepts it as ours that by the benefit of it be may hold an as holy, pure, and innocent. For Christ’s righteousness, which as it alone is perfect alone can bear the might of God, mast appear in court on our behalf, and stand surety in judgment. Furnished with this righteousness, we obtain continual forgiveness of sins in faith. Covered with this purity, the sordidness and uncleanness of our imperfection are not ascribed to us but are hidden as if buried that they may not come into God’s judgment, until the hour arrives when, the old man slain and clearly destroyed in an, the divine goodness will receive an into blessed peace with the new Adam” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter, XIV, No. 12).

Notice that Calvin argues just exactly as I stated. He stated that the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ was the reason why saints do not fall from grace. As a matter of fact, his statement resembles that which some of my brethren are writing today. Let us consider other statements from the Institutes.

“Therefore, we explain justification simply as the acceptance with which God receives an into his favor as righteous men. And we say that it consists In the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness” (Book III, Chapter XI, No. 2).

. . . It is quite clear that Paul means exactly the same thing in another statement, which he had put a little before: ‘As we were made sinners by one man’s disobedience, so we have been justified by one man’s obedience’ (Rom. 5:19p.). To declare that by him alone we are accounted righteous, what else is this but to lodge our righteousness in Christ’s obedience, because the obedience of Grist is reckoned to an as if it were our own?” (Book III, Chapter XI, No. 23).

2. The Second Helvetic Confession:

“Imputed Righteousness.. For Christ took upon himself and bore the sins of the world, and satisfied divine justice. Therefore, solely on account of Christ’s sufferings and resurrection God is propitious with respect to our sins and does not Impute them to us, but imputes Christ’s righteousness to us as our own III Cor. 5:19ff; Rom. 4:25), so that now we are not only cleansed and purged from sins or are holy, but also, granted the righteousness of Christ, and so absolved from sin, death and condemnation, are at last righteous and heirs of eternal life. Properly speaking, therefore, God alone justifies, and justifies only on account of Christ, not imputing sins to us but imputing his righteousness to us” (5.108).

3. The Westminster Confession of Faith:

“l. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justified: not by Infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any things wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves: it is the gift of God” (6.060).

Conclusion

Can anyone now doubt that the doctrine of the im?utation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account is part of the theological system known as Calvinism? Brother Hardin might write, “I am quite capable of recognizing Calvinism when I see it!” but I am not willing to let his statements that the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is not Calvinism be my basis of determining whether or not it is Calvinism. I must infer that (1) he recognizes Calvinism and has accepted it knowingly or (2) he was wrong when he wrote, “I am quite capable of recognizing Calvinism when I see it!” There can be no doubt that the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account is Calvinism. These evidences are too obvious!

What has happened is this: my brethren are attracted by the certainty of salvation which Baptists and other Calvinists feel. They want that same degree of certainty. Consequently, they have accepted the theological doctrine on which that certainty rests. However, these brethren ignore their inconsistencies. This doctrine is a part of a total system. If one. accepts a part of this system, he is logically compelled to accept all of it or to show how it can be consistently accepted while denying the other parts of the total system. Whereas theses men are wont to write about the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, they are not likely to deal with this aspect of the doctrine.

Furthermore, my brethren are not as consistent as the Calvinists in the application of their doctrine. The Calvinists use the personal righteousness of Christ to cover every sin. My brethren limit the application of Christ’s personal righteousness to sins of ignorance and weaknesses of the flesh. I have yet to read anything from the pens of these men to warrant this distinction. If Christ’s personal righteousness is applied to my account, why won’t it cover all of my sins instead of just certain kinds of them. Have my brethren accepted a distinction in sins similar to that of the Catholics (mortal and venial)? Then, too, I wonder how many sins of ignorance and of weaknesses of the flesh this will cover. For example, if through the weakness of my flesh I lost my temper and committed murder and then died of a heart attack, would Christ’s personal righteousness cover me?

My brethren refuse to grapple with these inconsistencies. Rather than do that, they prefer to write about their assurances of salvation as a result of this doctrine. One thing is certain, however, they have accepted a part of the theological system known as Calvinism as the evidences cited in this article clearly show.

Truth Magazine XXII: 3, pp. 51-53
January 19, 1978

By Leslie Diestelkamp

From the apartment house in which I live here in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, it is about thirty-five miles to the Sears Tower, the world’s tallest building. On a clear day or night it can be seen from this apartment building. But between here and there; and then, throughout the whole city, lies a vast jungle – a sprawling mass of humanity compacted together in mansions and shacks, in neat rows of clean houses and in rat-infested tenements, in town-houses and in condominiums, in skyscrapers and in flats.

Twenty-three years ago when I first moved to Chicago-land the city had a reputation for wickedness, but I felt quite safe in walking in its parks alone or on its streets even at night. But things have changed here, and such activities are now very dangerous. Yet it may be no worse here in proportion to the population than in other areas of the country, generally. The fact is now well-known that the crisis in American is not in Chicago alone, but it reaches to the very crossroads of this great nation. Crime reaches into the lonely rural areas, violence reaches even the small towns, safety seems to be almost nowhere. People fled the cities a few years ago to rear their children in the security of the countryside, but now there is no use to run — there is no secure place.

Rebellion At Home

The moral crisis of which I write may indeed have been escalated by improper behavior by high officials of government and it may have been implemented by various social changes in the national scene. Liberal interpretation of law, reckless abandonment of authority and lawlessness in high places have all contributed to moral decay in the nation. But the real crisis is still at the crossroads! The family has always been the bed-rock foundation of society, and out of family circles have always come the men and the morals that were to determine the destinies of people. And when the family circle has deteriorated, then the very stalwart fabric and fiber of society has been destroyed. And that is the crisis we face today in Chicago-land and in every highway and by-way, every town and hamlet, every state and city of the nation.

These words should not be misunderstood. I am not a prophet of doom nor a pessimist who sees no good anywhere. I do not believe the whole country has gone to the dogs. I believe most of the people are still good, law-abiding folks. A relatively small minority have `become corrupt that they make it look bed for everyone. Yet, in this vast mass of law-abiding people, this “majority” who are basically good folks, the family circle is usually a broken circle, the home is insecure and an attitude o: despair prevails. Husbands become fugitives, wives seek “fulfillment” outside the home, children go home only when everything else is closed!

Most importantly, Christians are being swept up in this storm of rebellion against God-given directives for the family. Husbands, wives, parents, children — the whole family structure — seem to accept the new way of life as inevitable. The joy and peace, the tranquility and serenity that should characterize the family circle have been replaced by fear and dread, by anxiety and depression. Feelings of helplessness and despair prevail. The home, which God designed to be the cradle of civilization and which, historically, has always been the bulwark of the nations, has been neglected by husbands, deserted by wives and despised by children. Our society may be on the brink of disaster because the family circle, the foundation of that society, has crumbled beneath the weight of prosperity, materialism and worldliness.

In the very same way that the nation prospers economically but falters morally, the Lord’s church grows in our generation as it has seldom done before, yet it constantly loses doctrinal and moral vitality. If this loss of internal strength is not halted the church may follow the historical path of denominationalism: that is, the church may lose its identity as the “pillar and ground of the truth” and it may cease to be the spiritual house that is portrayed in God’s Word (see 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Pet. 2:5). If the spiritual crisis that is now obviously imminent is not averted, the impact of the church may be little more than a social and cultural power.

Indeed, the crisis at the crossroads will determine the destiny of the nation, for “righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). Most of all, the crisis at the crossroads will determine the quality of the church, for no church can rise above the level of quality that characterizes the families that constitute the temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16, 17). God said to Solomon, “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sins, and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14). If God’s people will be faithful today, then surely God will bless us and our land and his church. Our faithfulness certainly must include devotion to the Word and to the church -fidelity in doctrine and in religious activity. But it must also include righteousness and holiness that prevails in, and emanates from, the family circle. If these essays can serve to help all of us see the reality of the crisis and if they can help in some small way, at least, to halt the deterioration of home life, then my time in writing and your time in reading will have been well spent. So, let us study, in succeeding chapters, ways to bring greater joy and success, as we, in our daily lives, meet the challenge of the crisis at the crossroads. Our next chapter will be a consideration of “Broken Circles.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 3, p. 50
January 19, 1978

By Fred A. Shewmaker

In Acts 15:3 we read about Paul and Barnabas “being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.” This is a description of their journey “to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about” the question of Gentile circumcision (v. 2). Before making this journey “Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation” (v. 2) with those who were telling Gentiles, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (v. 1).

From this it is evident that “the conversion of the Gentiles” which “caused great joy” was not conversion to Judaism. “The conversion of the Gentiles” is described by James in v. 19, “Them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God.” In order to turn to God it was necessary to turn from something. These Gentiles had turned from the false religion of idolatry. In this study we will examine the changes necessary in order for a person to be converted — turn from an existence without God to God.

Paul wrote Gentile Christians at Ephesus, “Remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:11-12). Necessary to an alien’s conversion are changes that must take place in the mind The first of these changes is a change of one’s acquired knowledge. Jesus said, “Whosoever heareth these sayings of mike, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man” (Mt. 7:24). The Heavenly Father said of Jesus, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him” (Mt. 17:5). Again Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me” (Jn. 13:20).

Jesus sent His apostles, saying unto them, “Go ye into the world, and preach the gospel” (Mk. 16:15). Therefore, necessary to conversion is an acquired knowledge of the gospel. If a person acquires knowledge of the gospel and rejects it, that person cannot be converted. When one acquires knowledge of the gospel, to be converted there must be also a change of what the mind accepts. One’s mind must accept the validity of the gospel. One apostle wrote, “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (Jn. 20:30-31).

When one has heard the gospel and believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the mind must continue the process of change by changing what it approves. The alien approves ungodly activities. For him to be “turned to God” the mind must change to approve the things required of servants of God “God . . . now commandeth all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). “The Lord is not slack concerning his promises, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pt. 3:9).

One may change by acquiring knowledge of the gospel, accepting “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” and approving the things required of servants of God without revealing these changes of the mind to another. This also must change, if one is to be converted. One of the changes necessary to conversion eliminates the possibility of being a secret servant of God. That is the change of what one acknowledges.

The person who has not acknowledged Jesus Christ, the Son of God as Lord must openly do that. Jesus said, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven” (Mt. 10:32). Paul write, “With the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10) and “Every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God and Father” (Phil. 2:11).

There is, yet, another change necessary to conversion. It is not enough to acquire knowledge of the gospel, in the mind accept “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” approve the things required of servants of God and openly acknowledge Jesus Christ, the Son of God as Lord. We might illustrate this by considering one who is an alien to the United States: He may acquire knowledge of the United States, in the mind accept that the United States is the greatest nation on earth, approve the constitution of the United States and openly acknowledge the greatness of the United States and remain an alien to the United States. What is lacking? For an alien to become a citizen he must change his allegiance.

Paul wrote unto the Colossians about “giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:12-14). For the alien to be converted, “turned to God,” he must be “translated into the kingdom of” God’s Son. This necessitates redemption through the blood of Christ (“the forgiveness of sins”).

Paul wrote, “As many of you have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission (forgiveness) of sins” (Acts 2:38). If an alien who has no allegiance to Christ will not change and give his allegiance to Christ by being baptized to obtain forgiveness, he will never be translated into and become a citizen of the “kingdom of God’s dear Son.”

If in your life you have not experienced conversion, my friend, make the changes necessary to turn to God: acquire knowledge of the gospel; accept “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;” approve the things required of the servant of God; acknowledge Jesus Christ the Son of God as Lord before men; give your allegiance to Christ and become a citizen subject to our Lord Jesus Christ!

These are the changes which take place when one hears the gospel, believes the gospel, repents of his sins, confesses his belief that Jesus Christ is Lord and is baptized to obtain forgiveness of sins. Be converted, my friend! Turn from the service of Satan to the service of God.

Truth Magazine XXII: 2, pp. 45-46
January 12, 1978

By Donald P. Ames

(Editor’s Note: The following article written by Don Ames is published in reply to Brother Roy Cogdill’s request for help in defending the Akin Foundation. Brother Ames wrote me shortly after the article appeared regarding the fact that Brother Cogdill had requested that churches help in the legal defense of the Akin Foundation. When Brother Cogdill first submitted his article, I was reluctant to publish it because I did not want to get Cogdill Foundation tied in with the Akin Foundation in any way, especially since the Akin Foundation was presently under investigation and some of the Board members of that Foundation were also Board members of Cogdill Foundation. I did not catch the statement that Brother Cogdill made requesting that churches contribute to the legal defense fund for Akin Foundation until Brother Ames called it to my attention. I say this in spite of the fact that I read the articles which are printed in Truth Magazine several times before they are published. I just missed it.

At that time, I requested that Brother Ames correspond with Brother Cogdill to try to get the matter straightened out. As the article will continue to explain, Brother Cogdill believes that his statement is defensible and Brother Ames does not. Consequently, Brother Ames requested that I publish his response to Brother Cogdill, which I gladly will do.

I have been reluctant to make any comment about this matter for several reasons. First of all, I know so little about the Akin Foundation that I felt that I would be speaking with too little information should I say anything. Secondly, l have more than a little confidence in Brother Cogdill. Inasmuch as he knows the Akin Foundation better than I and is opposed to institutionalism, I did not believe he would consciously involve the church in institutionalism. Nevertheless, he is human and errs. Consequently, the cautions which brethren have sounded regarding our respect for other brethren blinding us to statements they make is something that needs to always be reiterated. Thirdly, so far as I know, not one church has contributed one dime to Brother Cogdill to tide legal defense of the Akin Foundation. This makes the discussion which follows more a matter of principle than a matter of practical application. Consequently, I have been hesitant to make any comment about this matter.

I guess that I now need to make a statement of my doctrinal convictions about the matter. I shall speak with reference to Cogdill Foundation rather than with reference to the Akin Foundation because I know more about the Cogdill Foundation than I do the Akin Foundation. I believe that it would be sinful for churches to make donations to Cogdill Foundation, as does every member of our Board of Directors, including Brother Cogdill. I do not believe that churches could make donations toward a legal defense of anything with which Cogdill Foundation may become involved without becoming guilty of sin; the Board of Directors, including Brother Cogdill, feels exactly the same way.

If the Akin Foundation is parallel in all essential respects to the Cogdill Foundation, my conclusions are the same with reference to it. It would certainly clarify the matter if someone associated with the Akin Foundation would let us know a little more about its organization, purpose, etc. Personally, I have enough questions in my mind that I could not conscientiously recommend that any church send any money for its legal defense. On the other hand, if the Foundation should be able to be legally defended, those who care enough about it should rally to its aid individually.

Furthermore, I resent the implications made by some among us that there has been a “cover-up” of sorts with reference to this matter. If there was any effort at “cover-up,” I am not aware of it. Some have been making wild charges without investigating the matter to see what is going on before making them. Frankly, I would prefer that some make a little more effort to believe the best about their fellow man than being guilty of evil surmising. With these statements having been made, I hope that the matter is laid to rest.)

In both the April 1, 1977 issue of the Gospel Guardian and the July 28, 1977 issue of Truth Magazine, Brother Roy E. Cogdill had an article regarding the Akin Foundation and the possibility of a successful defense of the continued use of those funds by faithful brethren. I have no quarrel with his efforts along that line and, if he is successful in. that defense (which now seems at least a little more hopeful, according to a note in Vanguard, 10-13-77), I will be among those rejoicing in his efforts, even though I have never been a recipient of any funds from the Akin Foundation and do not foresee any occasion for becoming such.

Likewise, in this article, I am not interested in seeking to determine who has been at fault in the dispute over the handling of the Akin Foundation funds. Frankly, I do not have adequate information to determine accurately who did what or who is at blame. This, those involved in it and with more information than I have, will have to determine. Those guilty (on whichever side) will have to answer for their deeds — if not in this life, in the life hereafter — whether right or wrong.

But, what does bother me was the closing remarks of Brother Cogdill’s article referred to above. Here he stated, “Those of you who through the years have been supported by and have participated in its help, what will you do to help preserve it — both churches and individuals (emp. mine-DPA) are urged to respond.” Having already written several letters to Brother Cogdill about this statement, and as time is marching on, I feel it important to express my convictions about this

statement, and let Brothel Cogdill make whatever reply he may wish to my remarks.

First of all, I do not believe churches have any scriptural justification at all to become involved in the defense of the Akin Foundation! Hence, for them to do so would be, I believe, a sin. If I am in error in this conclusion, I welcome the proof from the word of God wherein I have erred.

Let us take a look at exactly what is involved. The Akin Foundation is a “private religious foundation” (so recognized by Rother Cogdill also in his letter of 9-13-77)! The money, under the control of the board of that “private religious foundation,” may well eventually be distributed to various faithful congregations as the board so determines. However, until the time of such distribution, the funds are strictly those of the Foundation; no church or churches have any right whatsoever to dictate how those funds are to be used. This being so, where is the scriptural justification for churches to contribute to the defense of a “private religious foundation”– be it the Akin Foundation, an orphan home, or the Cogdill Foundation? If there is scriptural justification for such, I have failed to find it; and, in light of 2 John 9, I contend that to do so would be a misuse of the Lord’s money by those churches so involved.

In his letter to me of September 13, 1977, Brother Cogdill offered the following as justification for “a congregation making a contribution toward a fund to compensate a lawyer for performing legal services for a righteous cause”:

(l) Drawing up a deed for a church for church property.

(2) Clearing the title to church property.

(3) Defending the tide to church property against trespassers.

(4) Prosecuting those who vasdaiaae or disturb the use d church property for proper purposes.

(5) Seeking an injunction against resurgent individuals who interrupt or seek to prevent the proper functioning of the church or in rebellion against the elders of the church in functioning in their proper authority.

(6) Defending the church against a slander or libel suit brought by a member withdrawn from.

(7) Etc., etc.

Without even questioning these points, the fact remains there is no parallel between this argument and what is involved in churches contributing to the defense of the Akin Foundation. One involves the action of one congregation in defense of its right to work and function; the other involves the right of many churches to contribute to a lawyer in defense of a fund belonging to a “private religious foundation.” The very closest one could come in making a parallel would be to assign the funds of this “private religious foundation” to all the churches of. Christ! (And, in so doing, remember the same logic can be applied to the Cogdill Foundation, an orphan home, or whatever else may be slipped in under the same cover!) Hence, one could then activate the church universal to come to the defense of “its” fund. Then, all local congregations would be obligated to contribute for the preservation of this fund belonging to the church universal, on the same basis of logic one church would be called upon to defend its own property. If not, why not? This logic is a renunciation of the very principles of church activities and oversight versus the activation of the church universal concept that we have, battled with our liberal and apostate brethren over the past 140 years.

I wish Brother Cogdill success in his defense of the continued use of the funds of the Akin Foundation by faithful brethren — but not under those terms! I hope various individuals who have been benefitted by the Akin Foundation will aid him in the expenses of such a legal defence. However, I do not believe Brother Cogdill has fully thought through the implications of his statement in his zeal to defend what he deems a worthy cause — or else he did not actually mean what he said in his article. I therefore urge him to pause, think if over, and retract his statement. I also urge congregations to pause and think for themselves before coming to the aid of a “private religious foundation” to hire a lawyer for $90 per hour to defend its fund, even if the board of that “private religious foundation” might someday designate a portion of that fund to some specific congregation!

If the church itself is placed in such a position that we must violate the word of God to maintain control of the funds of a “private religious foundation” for our existence, then my advise is let the funds go! I hope we never become so dependent upon any “private religious foundation” that the word of God is compromised in order to preserve the operation of that “private religious foundation”! Nor that we ever allow our love and respect for the dedication, of any faithful brother ever to become such we do not have the courage to call a careless statement into question.

Truth Magazine XXII: 2, pp. 43-44
January 12, 1978