Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

A tract published by Calvary Baptist Church in Oak Forest, Illinois, and entitled “19 Reasons Why A Christian Cannot Be Lost!” has been given to me with the request that I review its teaching. The author of the “19 Reasons” is not specifically stated, but the name of “Dr. William F. Schroeder, Pastor” is on it, so we shall hold him responsible and accountable. If “Dr.” Schroeder hollers “Uncle,” we will consent to take him off the hook. We trust “Pastor” Schroeder will ultimately be led to disavow the ’79 Reasons, “anyway, but if he is not the author he has only to say so. I know I would not want to be accused of writing the tract! I can think of “19” good “reasons” why I would not want to be listed as the author of it.

“I. He Has Been Chosen”

“This was before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). Why would God choose me before the foundation of the world if I were to be lost again? Is Christ not Omniscient and does He not know all? If I could be lost again, His choice was poor.”

Reply: God’s choice was not individual and particular. It was corporate and general. God did not choose you, you, and you and fail to pick me or Dr. Schroeder. The thing God purposed by His grace “before the foundation of the world” was that all who were in Chris( would be saved (Eph. 1). He did not specify each particular person (I Jn. 4,:14).

The Doctor’s questions are based on a false assumption. But let us proceed on his theory. If God chose some to be saved, it follows that He chose some to be damned. Now, does Mr. Schroeder preach the gospel to the lost? Does he save any to whom he preaches the gospel? Assuredly, he would say he does. Then, we might ask him concerning a chosen damned one who is afterward saved by hearing the gospel, “Why would God choose me before the foundation of the world to be doomed if I were to be saved?” Or to paraphrase the “Pastor, ” “If I could be saved again, His choice was poor.”

“2. God’s Foreknowledge”

“God’s Word says, ‘He knew,’ or ‘foreknew,’ that I would be saved (Rom. 8:29). If God foreknew I was going to be saved, why not that I would backslide and be lost? If He foreknew my salvation, why not my backsliding9 It is reasonable to ask, ‘If He knew I would backslide, why did He save me in the first place. Surely the Lord foreknew what I would do before He saved me. His foreknowledge of my failure afterwards did not stop Him from saving me.”

Reply: Again, if God “foreknew” each individual who is saved, He “foreknew” each one who is lost. Dr. Schroeder says he preaches to and saves the lost. Thus, “It is reasonable to ask, >If God knew I would be saved by hearing the gospel, why did he damn me in the first place?= Surely the Lord foreknew what I would do before He saved me.” This is “Dr.” Schroeder’s prescription on the other side of the matter. It is as foolish and fatal on one side as it is on the other.

“3. Predestinated@

“I was predestinated to be saved (Eph. 1:5).

(1) God foreknew I would be saved (Rom. 8:29).

(2) Because He foreknew, I was predestinated (Rom. 8:29, 30).

(3) Because I was predestinated, I was called (Rom. 8:30).

(4) Because I was called, I was justified (Rom. 8:30).

(5) Because I was justified, I was glorified (Rom. 8:30).

“This is according to the foreknowledge of God. If a Christian can be lost again, then God’s foreknowledge is no good, for His Word says that God’s foreknowledge saw the Christian even glorified.”

Reply: In the reverse and converse of Mr. Schroeder, a lost one may say, “I was predestinated to be lost (Eph. 1:5). (1) God foreknew I would be lost. (2) Because He foreknew, I was predestinated to be lost (Rom. 8:29, 30). (3) Because I was predestinated to be lost, I was not called (Rom. 8:30). (4) Because I was not called, I was not justified (Rom. 8:30). (5) Because I was not justified, I was not glorified” (Rom. 8:30). This is according to the foreknowledge of God. If a lost person can be saved, then God’s foreknowledge is no good, for His Word says that God’s foreknowledge saw the lost person even condemned.”

The conditions of Romans 8 show that verses 29 and 30 have no reference to a specific person’s predestination. Salvation is conditional–if we “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4). “For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live” (Rom. 8:13). We are “joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Rom. 8:17).

The church, the corporate body, exists “according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:11). It is spoken of without respect to any particular individual’s obedience or disobedience. “All things” which are “according to his purpose” are the plans and purposes of God from all eternity which are centered and seated in Christ (Eph. 1: 10, 11). “The called” are the saved as a class. There is no reference to individual predestination, justification, and glorification. “All things” gathered together in Christ work together in Christ (Rom. 8:28, 29; Eph. 1:10, 11). The general subject is redemption and reconciliation. “All things” that God purposed and proposed have been consummated in Christ and enunciated in the gospel.

“4. Born Again”

“A Christian has been ‘Born Again,’ ‘born from above’ (John 3:5, 6). He has been ‘born of God’ (I John 5: 1). If a Christian is born, may he be unborn? It is impossible to be I unborn,’ therefore it is not possible to be lost if born from above.”

Reply: Physically, it is impossible to be unborn, but it is possible to be denied and disinherited; it is possible to lose all blessings of sonship. A Father cannot undo his paternity, but he can refuse privileges that accrue to the child if the child is wayward and rebellious. God called Israel His “children.” They were “his sons” and “his daughters” (Deut. 32:19, 20), But to the disobedient he said, “I will . . . disinherit them” (Num. 14:12). The same is true today. “If we deny him, he also will deny us” (2 Tim. 2:12).

Dr. Schroeder treats us to statements on being “born again.” Surely, a “Dr.” should know something about births, and he asks, “If a Christian is born, may he be unborn? It is impossible to be ‘unborn,’ therefore it is not possible to be lost if born from above.” Well, I Am not an obstetrician nor a pediatrician, but the Bible says sinners are “children of the Devil” 0 Jn. 3: 10). It says their Father is the Devil (Jn. 8:44). That means, in a figure, they are begotten or born of the Devil. Question: “If a child of the Devil is born, may he be unborn? It is impossible to be “unborn,’ therefore it is not possible to be saved if born from below.” Now, let the Dr. make a delivery for us. Children are born of the Devil. Does the good Dr. believe they can be “unborn” and be saved? We trust that the Dr. himself will not go into hard labor over this matter, but it is his own obstetric principle that we are prodding him with. All have sinned; all are thus “children of the Devil.” Since “It is impossible to be ‘unborn,’ therefore,” no one will be saved-that is universal damnation according to the Dr.’s rules of birth. Will our Dr. make a house call and examine this patient’s dilemma for us? Will he attempt to clarify or “explainify” this matter for us? Or, are we going to have to induce labor to get him to answer? Only a quack Dr. keeps silent when genuine skills are needed.

“5. Eternal Life, A Present Possession”

“Every Christian is given eternal life by Christ. ‘I give unto them eternal life’ (John 10:28). He now has this life (I John 5:13). This life is not for ten, twenty or thirty years, not as long as we hold out, but it is for eternity, forever (John 6:47; John 5:24; John 3:36; 1 John 5:12, 13). One cannot be lost when he has eternal life.”

Reply; Jesus gives eternal life, but this life, this gift, is conditional. Eternal life is given to those who hear and believe (Jn. 5:24; 6:47), but one may cease to hear and quit believing (Prov. 28:9; Heb. 3:12; Psa. 106:12, 24). What then?

“God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son” (I Jn. 5:11). Eternal life is where? It “is in his Son.” But one may choose not to abide in Christ-“if a man abide not in me” (Jn. 15:6). One who does not abide in Christ does not have eternal life, for “this life is in his Son.”

Eternal life is “not for … as long as we hold out,” the tract says. But the Bible says Christ is “a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end” (Heb. 3:6). “For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end” (Heb. 3:14). Those reconciled by the blood are to be presented “holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight if ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel” (Col. 1:21-23). Eternal life is eternal, but it is not given unconditionally eternally.

Christians have eternal life in promise (I Jn. 2:25). We now live “In hope of eternal life” (Titus 1:2). Eternal life is “that which is to come” 0 Tim. 4:8). “In the world to come life everlasting” will be given to the faithful (Lk. 18:30; Rom. 2:6, 7).

“6. A New Nature”

“Every Christian possesses a new nature (2 Pet. 1:4), God’s nature. If a Christian could be lost with such a nature, this would bring God down to a human level, and God’s nature would be lost.”

Reply: 2 Peter 1:4 does not say that Christians are “possessors of the divine nature.” It says “partakers of the divine nature.” We do not possess, rather we share or have fellowship, of the divine nature. Our possessions in 2 Peter 1:4 are “exceeding great and precious promises” which have been “given unto us” and “by these”, we become “partakers of the divine nature.” A reverse paraphrase of “Pastor” Schroeder’s statement may. shed some light. “Every unbeliever possessed an old nature, the Devil’s. If an unbeliever can be saved with such a nature, this would bring the Devil up to a divine level and the Devil’s nature would be saved.” Does this prove that an unbeliever cannot become a believer and be saved? No, it does not, and when it is explained, it clarifies Mr. Schroeder’s statement.

But 2 Peter also says “Give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall” (1:10). Some “bought” by the Lord will deny Him “and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (2:1). “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning” (2:20). “Beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness” (3:17). Why these statements if 1:4 shows one cannot be lost?

(To be continued)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:39, p. 6-8
August 8, 1974

By Steve Wolfgang

Shortly before his death in 1878, the venerable Benjamin Franklin, editor of the American Christian Review (which one historian has called “the most influential Disciples journal” during this period of the Restoration Movement 1 ), wrote to the young preacher, Daniel Sommer. Eight years later, Sommer would assume the editorship of the Review. In the letter, Franklin urged his young protege to “write yourself into the affections and confidence of the brethren, while I am still at the helm, so that when I fall, you may be a necessity, as I am now.”2

Since I began preaching several years ago, some older preachers have offered similar advice to me, suggesting that I submit “short, simple articles” to the various “brotherhood journals” for the purpose of “writing oneself into the confidence of the brethren.” My inclination, however, has been to wait until becoming somewhat more experienced, and especially until I felt I had something to say instead of merely having to say something. Had I wanted to chop up a number of graduate and undergraduate term papers into article form (as some young writers apparently have done), I might well have been inscripturated by now into the brethren’s confidence. But I trust that the brethren will consider what is said on the basis of its merit rather than on the reputation (or lack of same) of the writer.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with brethren having confidence in someone based upon past experience. Nor is there anything sinful in a person using for good whatever influence he may have with others. Some of the present denouncers of “centers of brotherhood influence,” “power structures,” “paper and publishing combines,” etc., seemingly do not recognize that they are using the same type of “paper and publishing combine” to accomplish the same end (influencing brethren). Try as they may to piously disclaim any attempt to control or exert influence over other people, they cannot escape the fact that is exactly the effect they have and denunciations of others from such sources come with rather poor grace!

Additionally, some no doubt well-intentioned brethren recently have criticized human institutions (such as colleges and/ or papers which teach the Bible) using another human institution (a paper) to teach what they suppose to be the truth. One hears references to “classical Sommerism” and “the Sommer position” and wonders if those who use them realize what they refer to. There is something Brother Sommer apparently could never see-that in vociferously defending the Lord=s church from human institutions, he was utilizing a human institution (his paper, the Review) to teach what he understood the Bible to teach. Nor was he able, logically, to avoid the force of the argument by pleading that the Review was not “incorporated” or Aorganized” as such, but merely owned and operated by himself and his family. It yet remained a human institution, something other than the church.

It may well be that the brethren who are so vocally using human institutions (papers) to castigate other human institutions (such as a college), and who are quick to point to the “unwarranted influence” that a school might have. might profit from reading some history. For instance, an historical judgment which has been stated by more than one analyst of the movement is well stated by Earl West:

“Colleges, as a general rule, have not fostered the thinking of brethren on certain issues, but rather have reflected the opinion of the majority after the issues have arisen …. The charge, therefore, that the Bible schools have been the cause of digression is a generalization of very little historical accuracy. Rather, just the opposite is true. The chief sources of opinion and policy in the brotherhood have always been the brotherhood publications …. Digression in the restoration movement began not with colleges but with papers, which is to say influential editors and writers. It was not until after they had swung the opinions of the brotherhood into one line or another that the colleges began to take up the issues and become champions of them.@3

Of course, the cliche that the Restoration movement has had editors rather than bishops (as in, for instance, the Methodist church) has been repeated perhaps as often as almost any other phrase in the history of the movement. While this may be true, and while it is perhaps true that some have abused their influence over others, it is also true that some who criticize others are the worst offenders!

When one undertakes to write, he assumes the same responsibility as when he teaches in any other medium (James 3:1). However, by writing, he may be reaching an audience of thousands instead of tens or hundreds. Of course, one needs to teach the truth at all times-whether the audience consists of one or one thousand. But when the possibility exists for teaching so great a potential audience, one needs to pay strict attention to what he teaches. While religious error taught to one may have as its result the loss of a soul or, at the very least, confusion of scriptural concepts, the same error, taught before a large audience, by a sort of ” multiplier effect,” may have even more far-reaching consequences. Thus, one who teaches publicly, either orally or by written articles, should have no aversion to anyone questioning what he may teach. In fact, in view of the responsibility he bears, he should welcome such criticism. Some brethren seem to feel that they can write virtually whatever they please, without regard to the implications of what they may teach, and then withdraw to their ivory towers, behind a facade of piety, if someone disagrees with or even questions their assertions. I have even heard some brethren suggest that they should be able to teach what they please publicly, but all critics have the right to question them only privately! I suppose they feel that such is a “scriptural” (?) position.

Let me conclude these random reflections on writers and their influence by offering for your consideration some remarks made by a venerable soldier of the cross who preached for about three quartrs of a century. Brother W. W. Otey made the following observation:

A. . . it is very likely that they (non-writing preachers – SW) would do the cause as much good as a preacher whose name frequently appears in print. The mere fact that a man=s name appears often in print is no proof that he will give you satisfaction as a preacher. Nor is the fact that a man’s name is seldom seen in print any proof that he is not a good preacher. I have known of churches sending long distances for a preacher to hold a meeting and then say, ‘We were disappointed. He does not preach as well as he writes.’ I have known of churches sending for. preachers whose names seldom appear in print and then say, ‘Why have we not heard of you before? “4

It may be that, there are some today who are infatuated with those who write. There have been instances of preachers moving to a new work and then “lining up” solely influential writer-preachers and / or editors to hold meetings. Some brethren seem to think that if a brother does not write that he may not be able to preach! One capable preaching brother, who is probably as well informed as anyone on subjects such as evolution, Catholicism, and current religious thinking, but who has not written extensively in “brotherhood periodicals,” told me several years ago that some brethren had expressed amazement at his being asked to work with a certain church because “they had never heard of him!” And surely most of us have had the experience of hearing a preacher who is not nearly as effective in “Pulpit work” as in “editorializing.” Each one has his own place and should use such talents as he has-but such typecasting and stereotyping of brethren is not conducive to the most effective use of available talent.

May we all use whatever influence for good we may have, and encourage others to do likewise. Let us not develop an “Elijah complex” when others do not work exactly as we do, or as we think they ought to. Let us listen to what our brethren are saying-and accept truth, wherever it is taught, Without respect to who may teach it. “Consider what I say, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things” (2 Timothy 2:7),.

Footnotes:

1. David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900: The Disciples of Christ and American Society, Volume II (Atlanta: Publishing Systems, Incorporated, 1973), p. 17

2. Letter from Franklin to Sommer, May 30, 1878; letter from Sommer to Review owner Edwin Alden, October 30, 1878; Daniel Sommer “History,” American Christian Review, (March 3, 1887), p. 65; see Eari Irvin West, The Search for the Ancient Order. A History of the Restoration Movement, 1849-1906 (Volume 11, 1866-1906; Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1954), pp. 299-302, 306-315.

3. Ibid., II, 461-462.

4. “Facts and Reflections,” Octographic Review, XLVIII: 43 (October 24, 1905), pp. 4-5.

Preacher Needed

Truth Magazine, XVIII:39, p. 4-6
August 8, 1974

By Cecil Willis

There have been a good many rumors, and a considerable stir, about the fact that I added the word “doctrinal” into an article written by Lindy McDaniel in the last issue of Pitching For the Master to be published by the Cogdill Foundation. It is true that I added the word “doctrinal” to Brother McDaniel’s discussion of the differences that occasioned us mutually to decide that Pitching For the Master should be separated from the Cogdill Foundation.

Lindy is quite up-set because our “doctrinal” differences are paraded before a goodly number of non-Christian people who receive the paper. However, Lindy should not have sought to give any explanation at all as to why the paper would thenceforth be published elsewhere and by others. The mere fact that he had been traded to the Kansas City Royals would have been enough explanation, if any at all was to be given to these non-Christians.

I seriously doubt the wisdom of making any statement at all about our “differences,” but if Lindy was going to tell the non-Christian public (as well as the Christians who receive his paper, who probably would constitute 50% of his subscription list) about, these “differences,” I insisted that something more definite than “differences” be told them. In an accompanying letter, Brother McDaniel offered me the opportunity to make a statement also as to why the Cogdill Foundation no longer would be publishing Pitching For the Master, However, Lindy left me exactly three lines in which to make my statement. So rather than try to state anything about the problem in just three lines, I thought the explanation that our, “differences” were doctrinal rather than personal would be an improvement in the statement.

As long as we have published Lindy’s paper, I have had the entire responsibility of correcting his manuscript before sending it for typesetting, then of proofing it, and pasting it up for photographing. On occasions, I have had to delete several paragraphs in order to make an article fit the space available. On other occasions, I have had to write or “borrow” an article to fill the available space. I have had completely free reins to attend to these matters, at Lindy’s specific authorization.

Lindy has a good “fast ball,” and an excellent “fork pitch,” but I think even he would admit that spelling and grammar are not his forte. I suspect he would have been more than a little irritated if, after every correction I made, I had insisted (CW), indicating that I had made the change. Can you imagine the howl that would have gone up if I had deleted two or three paragraphs of Lindy’s article, in order to insert the one he authorized me also to write in that final issue? Had I written such an article, I will guarantee you that it would have spelled out specifically the points upon which we differ, and they pertain to “grace” and ‘fellowship.” Lindy himself admits that we do have “doctrinal” differences, but he says that it is our attitude about, these differences that necessitated the separation of Pitching, For,, the Master from the Cogdill Foundation. But whether we fellowship “instrumentalists” and “institutionalists,” to me goes a good bit deeper than just attitude. And that is what our “differences” were all about.

An article is in my hand from Brother McDaniel regarding my insertion of the word “doctrinal” into his article. Perhaps I should have initialed “doctrinal@ (CW), but I doubt that, he would have been any happier. And I refused to let the paper go out under the auspices of the Cogdill Foundation, and with my name listed as “Associate Editor” without some further explanation. The issue already was a month late when I received his article. I had never contacted him before for corrections I made in his articles, nor has he ever before objected to any correction, addition, or deletion that it has been necessary for me to make. Without the least trepidation, I fully and completely accept the responsibility for adding the word “doctrinal” to his statement about our differences, for he knows that we did have Voctrinal” differences, which we discussed for twelve or-fourteen hours ip February at Conroe, Texas in the home of Brother Roy E. Cogdill. I have no apology to make for doing so, and would do it again, if he proceeded to tell the Christian and non-Christian public about our “differences,” without revealing the nature of those differences.

I am writing Brother McDaniel to see if he really wants the article he sent to me published, for if I publish it, I must write a reply to it, and in my reply it will be necessary that I document his vacillation on the subject of “grace@ and Afellowship@ for at least two years. Lindy has wobbled around more on these subjects in the last two years than has the best “fork pitch” he ever served up to a batter! If he continues to insist that his article be published about my insertion of the word “doctrinal” into his statement about our “differences,” in which article he demands that I apologize for the insertion, and for misrepresenting his position, and insists that we have never discussed these matters until very recently, then I see no alternative but to publish his article (out of fairness), but also to reply to it (in order to present the whole truth on the matter).

Until I hear from Lindy, this article will suffice to tell you that I did insert the word “doctrinal,” and why I did so, and if you want greater explanation, let Brother McDaniel ask for it, and it will be forthcoming, in ample supply. I am sorry to see Lindy line up again with an element that seems determined to turn the Lord’s church into a sort of ecumenical conglomeration, and I have sought diligently for about two years to prevent this from happening, as a considerable host of brethren already know, including Brother Lindy McDaniel. To borrow Robert Jackson’s favorite expression again: “We shall see what we shall see!”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:39, p. 3
August 8, 1974

By James R. Cope

Six hours of daily Bible study for 36 years is the background of The Work of the Holy Spirit in Redemption, 274 pages, cloth bound, by Franklin Camp. This production. lays the axe to the root of every aspect of “Pentecostalism” inside and. outside the church. Unlike many writers, the author ignores no difficult passages. For example, he devotes a full chapter of 43 pages to the Eighth Chapter of Romans. The basic thesis of this work is that Joel 2:28-32 is the background of every New Testament reference to the Holy Spirit from Acts 2 forward and inferentially includes every statement Jesus made about the Holy Spirit in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and is, therefore, “the key to understanding the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.”

The author points out that revelation, inspiration, and confirmation always go together. He declares that the Holy Spirit miraculously revealed God’s mind to man, guaranteeing the purity of the truth, and then miraculously confirmed the revelation lest it be “impossible to distinguish between a genuine revelation and a counterfeit one.” Since revelation is completed and confirmed by the Holy Spirit, there is nothing which the Holy Spirit now reveals or does apart from or in addition to the written Word. Camp unequivocally denies that saint or sinner receives the Holy Spirit miraculously or non-miraculously or that the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian miraculously or non-miraculously.

The following expresses the author’s sentiment very clearly:

“In the study of the Holy Spirit and His work, it is vital to remember that at one time there was no written revelation. The Spirit revealed the Word directly to the apostles and others that had received miraculous gifts. It is easy for one to read passages that belong to this period of time and equate these passages with the time after revelation had been completely revealed and confirmed. This is obviously a fatal mistake because now we have a complete, written revelation. It is difficult for us to think in terms of a time when there was no written revelation. When passages that have to do with this preceding period are confused with the time afterwards when revelation was completed, it results in a complete misunderstanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion and sanctification . . . . It is absolutely necessary to keep clearly in mind passages and their contexts which have to do with the miraculous while revelation was being given, and not apply them to present-day when we have a written revelation …. We have no problems generally in leaving miracles in the apostolic age. Since the reception of the Spirit and the miraculous belong together, why not leave the reception of the Spirit in the apostolic age with miracles? Someone may ask, But what do we receive today?

We receive the gospel, the teaching of the Spirit. Is the gospel complete? If so, what could the Spirit supply today apart from the gospel? If the Spirit supplies something apart from the gospel, then it must be evident that the” gospel is not complete. If the gospel is complete, and the Spirit does not furnish anything apart from the gospel, would not the reception of the Spirit be a useless reception? It seems to me that our problem has come from the attempt to make a distinction where there is none in the New Testament. We can leave the miracles in the apostolic age where they e ong, but then we attempt to make a distinction between the miraculous and the non-miraculous reception of the Spirit. This is a distinction that the New Testament does not make. This is the source of the confusion.”

The author points out that every reference to the Holy Spirit in Acts, yea, in the entire New Testament, specifically states or infers the miraculous. Convincingly he argues that “the gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 2:38 was miraculous just as miraculous as was “the gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 10:45. He distinguishes between “the gift of the Holy Spirit” and “baptism” in the Holy Spirit but believes both terms express supernatural power. He denies, therefore, that “the gift of the Holy Spirit” was immediate upon baptism for remission of sins and was in every instance except upon the apostles (Acts 2) and the house of Cornelius (Acts 10,11) imparted by the laying on of an apostle’s hands (Acts 8:17; 19:6). Camp takes the position that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. is not only proof of the New Testament’s inspiration and God’s final witness to the divinity of Jesus but that this event also marks the cessation of miracles and the end of the “age” (world) of Matthew 28:20. He further argues from the Book of Revelation and other scriptures that Revelation was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem.

Time and again the reader finds himself asking, “But what is Camp’s answer to ‘this or that question?@ only to find as he reads on that the author overlooks few, if any, objections which have been or may be filed against his position.

One may not agree with all of Franklin Camp’s conclusions, but he who reads his book on the Holy Spirit will have a stimulating mental exercise and a refreshing spiritual experience. I consider it the outstanding book on the subject ever to come to my attention. Maybe I like it because the author says many things I have believed for many years. If, however, I disagreed with most of it, I would still say that it is the most thought-provoking work on the Holy Spirit that I have seen. I believe that any person who wants a simple detailed analysis of many difficult-to-be-understood scriptures can profit greatly from a careful study of this work. I predict for it a wide distribution. Order from Truth Magazine Bookstore, Box 403, Marion, Indiana 46952. Price: $6.95.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:39, p. 2
August 8, 1974