Truth Magazine

By Roy E. Cogdill

Perhaps none of us like to be called by an epithet even though it may be descriptive, in a technical sense, of our attitude or action. When the Christian Church people “went out from us” it was actually because “they were not of us.” The use of the term “digressive” was common in describing both their attitude and action. In turn, they used the term “non-progressive” to label those who opposed their digression. Some may have been that,. but to oppose “digression” did not make one “non-progressive.” In general it was an epithet intended to discredit and prejudice.

When the present division arose over the churches building and supporting human institutions, the sponsoring church plan of centralized control and oversight and the pooling of resources by the churches, the adjectives “liberal” and “anti” were commonly used to denote attitude and actions. Many times they were mis-used and became mis-representations. Some of us have been represented as “anti-missionary” and “anti-orphan homes” and even “anti-caring for orphan children.” This is all used to arouse prejudice and is a device of the devil. In general, however, the adjectives “liberal” and “conservative” were accurate descriptions of actual attitudes toward the authority of the Scriptures that led to a course of action that separated us and led”us apart. There should be no surprise when such a difference of attitudes toward the scriptures eventually precipitated division.

In the division over instrumental music and the missionary society it was and has continued to be recognized by historians that the cause of the separation was a difference in attitude toward the Word of God. Those who rejected these innovations did so because they believed that the New Testament scriptures constitute a complete and perfect pattern-of Christianity and the Lord’s Church. On the other hand the advocates of these innovations believed the Bible to be a book of principles rather than a book of rules and patterns. In rejecting “pattern authority” they claimed the right to exercise their personal liberty to apply the principles according to their own judgment. There may have been other factors that helped to prepare the way and to further the division when once it began, but fundamentally the chief and proximate cause of such division among God’s people was not social conditions, political differences, or economic status but a difference in attitude toward the Word of God.

This attitude that the Bible is a book of principles which we are at liberty to apply according to our own judgment or .,our own sanctified common sense” begets the concept that there is no positive, complete pattern of authority in New Testament scriptures. In turn, this attitude begets the commonly expressed idea that we do not have to find authority in the Bible for what we either. do or teach. Therefore, human judgment or expediency takes over and we cease to walk by faith. The Bible authorizes by teaching, and what the Bible does not authorize it does not teach. The ultimate conclusion of such thinking is a denial of the sufficiency of the scriptures and claims that we may do (among the churches of Christ) many things for which we neither have nor need any authority, How many times have you heard such an idea advanced by supposed Christians in the last 25 years? Today, from every quarter, we hear that there is no authority, divine in origin, except in a direct precept or command of the Lord. Necessary inference and apostolically approved examples do not bind and some of our young “intellectuals” whose teachings have been under fire, call such principles a “human system of interpretation.” It does not matter to them that throughout the history of what we call the “restoration movement” such principles have been the guide lines of brethren. It does not even matter to them that Jesus limited the teaching of the apostles to the churches, or those whom they baptized, to “whatsoever I have commanded you” and that an apostolically approved example had its roots in what the Lord himself commanded them to teach (Matt. 28:18-20). -Paul said concerning the Lord’s Supper, “I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” To disallow the force of apostolic example is to reject the authority of Christ and it is but a breath of difference from that to outright infidelity. ‘ Such an, attitude is a breeding ground for modernism, a hot bed for unbelief in the inspiration of the scriptures, disregard for and denial of divine authority in its completeness. We would be interested in learning from these self esteemed young scholars just how they think the Bible teaches anything.

We have seen it coming. Those who are aware of what has happened know that it has arrived and churches who call themselves “churches of Christ” are evidencing in what they do and say that these things are a reality in the churches of today. Many of those who are directly responsible for such modernism and infidelity are running around with their shirt-tails out shouting “fire” and they do not have sense enough or the honesty of heart to know who set it.

Many of our “intellectuals” are rapidly moving in the direction of not only repudiating New Testament authority but also toward denial of the divine origin of the scriptures in both word and teaching. This has always been the pattern of apostasy,. Neo-orthodoxy, in the theological world, says, “Oh! we believe the Bible to be the word of God, but we are not willing to recognize it as our -pattern of faith and practice, we must hear the ‘voices’ from within’ and determine for ourselves what is ‘truth and right.” Their religion and impetus to believe and act and be is more subjective, (from within) than objective (from without) – an “I think, I feel” sort of a guide rather than a “thus saith the Lord.”

With this growing sentiment among preachers, elders, and churches who call themselves Christian, there can be no path to follow but that ‘which leads to rebellion against authority and unbelief in the perfection and sufficiency of divine revelation.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:33, p. 2
June 20, 1974

By Denver Neimeier

During recent years we have seen many changes occur in our methods of travel, communication and those things which make up our daily activities. We are told that progress brings about such changes. While we might question whether some of the changes that have occurred are 14 progress,” it is granted that other changes have brought about those things that provide improvement.

However, I wonder if you are aware that even though changes have been made, some are a return to the way things were before later changes were made. For example, the first car I owned was purchased in 1941. The 1931 model car had a floor shift, one-piece windshield, and ventless windows. In the years that followed, auto manufacturers changed all of these things. The gear shift was moved to the steering post, a two-piece windshield replaced the older model, and vents were added to the front, side windows. However, ff you were to purchase a new car today, the salesman would point out that the “latest” thing is a floor shift, ventless windows, and a one-piece windshield. So, sometimes when things are changed, the change is a return to the way it was in the first place. Things do change – or do they?

The years have also brought changes in religious circles. The Roman Catholic Church within the past few years has had many changes; services are now conducted in English, there are no more meatless Fridays, etc. The so-called Protestant groups have also witnessed many changes which seek to improve their structure and activities. While these changes are not of personal interest since they bring about nothing that affect my service or worship of God, they are of interest in noting that at times there seems to be at least a small effort to return to the original. Things do change – or do they?

Even among God’s people, many things are different now from what they were even a few years ago. Preachers can no longer preach in places where they used to be welcome, even though they are preaching the same message now as then. Members of the Body of Christ who used to worship under the same roof, sit on the same seat, and even used the same song book to sing from, or the same Bible to study from, no longer do so. Those who used to work shoulder to shoulder for the growth of God’s kingdom now are working against each other. No longer can one declare himself to be a member of the Lord’s church and be welcomed by others who make the same declaration. Now there must first be the determining of what one is for and against before he can be fellowshipped. Things do change – or do they?

We are told that the changes that have been made among members of the Body of Christ in their work, worship, organization, etc. are those things which help to present a better image to the people of the world and which changes help us to reach more people to influence them in order to bring more to God. Things do change – or do they?

As these things have developed, there have been those who have accepted the changes ~and others who have rejected them, thus creating the division that already has been mentioned and, from all indications, which will get worse. Discussions, arguments, sermons, lectures, debates, bulletins, tracts, classes, and other efforts have been used to justify the need, or lack of it, for such changes. Many have read the teachings and writings of those who labored before us to find out how those of bygone years stood on these issues. And, I am sorry to say, some seem to think that because some well-known preacher, writer or elder of that era thought this or that, this constitutes sufficient proof to determine whether we accept or refuse a practice or action today. While at other times, the fact that such a thing has been practiced by members of the Church for years is all the authority needed to justify these changes. Things do change – or do they?

Why is it that people do not do as they say others ought to do? Why is it that those who encourage others to just accept the truth will not accept it for themselves? Questions are asked concerning “make-believe” situations concerning people, as if such would interfere with the teaching of God’s word. This sounds very much like the type of reasoning that has been heard from those who oppose baptism in order to have salvation when they ask the question,” What about the man off by himself somewhere, who reads his Bible, learns the truth, has no one around to baptize him, and dies before he finds someone to assist him?” Situations just will not and do not change what the Truth teaches.

As we hear, read, and are told of the changes that have come about within the Church, questions begin to arise such as: Were Peter, Paul, James, John, and others in New Testament times able to “present a better image,” “bring more people to God,” “create interest” etc. without these things that so many say are needed today? Or, did they have them and just forgot to tell us about them? If they accomplished the work they were supposed to do for the cause of -Christ without such, why can we not also accomplish the task today without such? Or, did they only do a partial job, and since their time someone, somewhere has found what was lacking and has been given the information by God in order for the complete work to be accomplished today. We ask the question in reference to God’s will, Things do change – or do they? The Bible says no. What say ye?

I grant that many changes which affect our lives improve our daily activities. However, the changes that occur within the Lord’s Body today are such that have come from man and not from God? God’s instruction for man is the same today as it was in New Testament times. The changes that have occurred are here because man has changed in his attitude toward what God has said. Things do change – but God’s will does not.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:32, p. 13-14
June 13, 1974

By Ron Halbrook

The first time we ever went to see the campus of Abilene Christian College was in the Summer of 1972. Somewhere between Baytown and Abilene, Texas, we passed a building with a sign that gave us a real laugh. The best we remember, there were actually two instances of this ridiculousness. One sign announced something like this, “Congregation of the Church of God.” And the other, like unto it, said, “Church of God Church.” No disrespect was or is intended by our laugh-it is simply the genuine, spontaneous response to a glaring incongruity. Doubtless the people who erected these signs did so in ignorance. It would be a privilege to open the Bible with them and study how the Bible uses the word “church.”

Greek lexicons tell us “church” means a group or assembly called out for a particular purpose. This might apply to any group, not just a religious called-out-group. For instance, the “assembly” which gathered in confusion at Ephesus to cry out in behalf of Diana was a “church’-not because of their religious interest, but because they were called together or “grouped” for a common purpose. See Acts 19:32. Stephen referred to Moses leading the people who were called-out unto God for His possession and who were led out of Egypt for His purpose. This was “the church in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38). God’s people under the New Covenant are called out from the world unto Himself; they are assembled, grouped, gathered from all other people unto Him. Christ spoke of all the saved when he said, “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). As the gospel went into all the world, more and more people were added to this number who are washed in the blood of the Lamb through obedience to Christ (cf. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38-47). One might speak of the church in a certain region or geographical area, or more specifically in one locality~meaning the saved only in the particular place spoken of. The saved who meet together at one place to fulfill the joint responsibilities (public worship, contribution, evangelism) which God’s people have are often spoken of as the church in that place. We read of “the church which was at Jerusalem,” “the church that was at Antioch,” “the church of God which is at Corinth … .. the church of the Thessalonians” (Acts 8:1; 13:1; 1 Cor. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1).

The signs above mentioned do not use the word “church” in the senses found in the Bible. That is because they designate something not found in the Bible. The signs mean “A Local Church which is part of a denominational circle of local churches, Which Denomination Is Only One of Many Denominations Which Taken Together Are All the Saved.” The Church of God is the name adopted for that denominational circle. Since no such denominational circle is found in the Bible, the word “church” or phrase “church of God” is never used in the Bible of such a circle. The ignorance in this matter is no laughing matter, but to read the signs with Biblical definitions in mind is nothing but funny! A “church of God church” is a blatant redundance. If it’s a local church, then it’s a local church and it makes no sense at all to repeat the word church. That’s like saying, “Look at my car car.” If it’s a car, it’s a car. The only way one could speak Biblically of a church church is by stuttering like the country music star Mel Tillis! But then, the Bible does not stutter.

And, we had thought a Bible people speaking a Bible language could not “stutter” since the Bible does not. Now Abilene Christian College is not the church, but it does claim to be run by individual Christians and to teach the Bible. If the college, its publications, and its representatives are going to speak the language of Ashdod-or stutter after the fashion of those ignorant of Bible teaching-then it has no distinctive reason to exist. Well, here is why the last laugh’s on me. The March-April issue of A.C.C. Today, “published bi-monthly by Abilene Christian College’ ” just came in the mail. Page 10 reports an “alumni Citation Award” was given to Glenn Paden, Jr., who has distinguished himself for several things (Bible salesmanship, real estate executive, college degrees). Not the least of his accomplishments is this one: “Following his graduate work in 1959, he helped start a Church of Christ congregation in Suffolk County, New York” (emph. added).

Oh well, many of us have thought for some time these brethren have been leaving the Bible for denominational concepts. Denominational thinking naturally leads to denominational speech. But really it is not so funny to see such language used by those who have no excuse for it at all-it is just plain sickening.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:32, p. 12-13
June 13, 1974

By George T. Eldridge

The sixties and seventies shocked America as she learned who used, for example, narcotics, barbiturates, amphetamines, psychedelic drugs, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, or LSD. The use of those drugs is still being discussed in our legislative halls, newspapers, magazines, radio programs, television programs, books, and pulpits. All of those afore named drugs and others peculiar to the present generation have never been our nation’s number 1 drug problem!! That statement is a heavy blow in the opinions of too many people, but truth is truth. The previously named are not as damaging to an individual and society as the sin engaged in by Noah (Gen. 10:20-24). Our nation’s number I drug is as old as ‘ Noah and is sold in supermarkets, drug stores, and convenience stores.

“The nation’s no. 1 >drug problem,’ the Department of Health, Education and Welfare asserted last week, continues to be alcohol” (“The No. 1 Drug Problem,” Newsweek, February 28, 1972, page 54).

Alcohol is Valuable

Alcohol has great usages. It performs service as an industrial solvent, chemical intermediate, and is regarded as one of the most important accessory chemicals. The medicine and the pharmaceutical industry make wide use of ethyl alcohol as a chemical intermediate, therapeutic agent, and general solvent. Alcohol’s solvent power is particularly useful for the extraction of medicinals from plant and animal tissues and, for example, compounding tonics, elixirs, cough syrups, tinctures, liniments, antiseptics, or medicinal soaps. With those uses, alcohol is not branded as “the nation’s No. I drug problem.” Alcohol is the No. 1 drug problem when used as a beverage or used in beverages!

Alcohol Is a Drug

“Taken internally, alcohol acts as a narcotic and is the principal active ‘ ingredient present in all spirituous liquors~’ (“Alcohol,” Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 1, Chicago, 1952, p. 540). The word “spirits” is most frequently used as a designation for alcoholic beverages, more particularly of the ardent type which owe their strength to distillation. The ardent type is strong alcoholic liquor, such as whiskey or gin. Spiritous liquors are usually classified as (1) distilled, including whiskey, gin, and brandy, (2) malt, including beer and ale, (3) vinous, or wines. All of them contain ethyl alcohol, which is habit-forming, a narcotic drug, poison, and harmful to every form of life. Distilled beverages are usually 45% to 50% alcohol. Malt beverages are of lower alcohol content: beer usually 4% to 6% and ale about 10%. Wine is usually from 10% to 14% alcohol, but fortified wine may run 20% or more by reason of the addition of more alcohol.

Defenders of Alcoholic Beverages

The spokesmen for spirituous liquors are naturally the manufacturers, sellers, and drinkers. A few churches or church-owned societies are even among the manufacturers, too. Isn’t that a shame? Churches are supposedly trying to influence people to go to Heaven, yet they will produce Hell-sending and society-damaging booze. They aid the drinkers on their road to the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:15). The Roman Catholic Church is the best known church which makes liquor. One example is the Christian Brothers, a teaching order of the Roman Catholic Church. This order is located in Napa, California (P.O. Box 420). The Christian Brothers began their wine making operations in 1879, and they are now one of the largest wine producers in the United States. Profits from this operation help to carry on the order’s expanding educational work and to support 13 institutions of learning in California and Oregon. Also, the Christian Brothers are the largest manufacturers of commercial brandy in America. Because of a House Subcommittee on Internal Revenue Taxation meeting held in 1956, and the decision handed down by Federal Judge Sherrill Halbert in Sacramento in July, 1961, the Christian Brothers Winery meets all state and federal tax commitments like any other business. Another example of the Roman Catholic Church being in the alcohol business is the Novitiate of Los Gatos of Ukiah, California (Route 1, Box 572).

The common idea held by a number of people today is to place religion with any product or action. This will then make everything acceptable to God and, especially, to society. That is one factor as to why Christian Brothers Liquor is on the market. It is disgusting and sickening to see religion tied to any product as harmful as alcoholic beverages. God does not sanction spirituous liquors today nor did Jesus in His day. God’s Son and our Savior never used any semblance to current alcoholic beverages. Any individual appealing to the Bible as his basis of approval for his “social drinking” proclaims to everyone his total lack of knowledge concerning the Word of God. Such a person will be “destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6).

Everyone knows drinkers of spirits are found in churches. It is revolting to find a few in Churches of Christ. Why are some drinkers accepted in Churches of Christ and even permitted to participate in services? Please consider these six reasons:

1. The drinker has fair speech, a pious appearance, or financial wealth.

2. The brethren do not know that our brother or sister drinks.

3. The brethren do not believe drinking is sinful.

 4. A few men and women are cowards and traitors to the cause of Christ when the time arrives to call the drinker to repentance.

 5. The good people in the church cannot combat the strong influence the drinker has in the church.

6. A significant portion of the baptized believers will not believe that person is a drinker.

Most defenders of drinking will not be fair and honorable toward those who differ with them. In fact, they will not defend their belief publically. When “social drinkers” are men of influence in the church, the preacher might be fired for opposing this sin and asking brethren “Who is on the Lord’s side?” Defenders of alcoholic beverages are not speaking as the oracles of God and are blind leaders (I Peter 4:11; Matt. 15:14).

Conclusion

“Abhor that which is evil” (Rom. 12:9). Alcoholic beverages are evil; therefore, you must “dislike, have a horror of” our nation’s number I drug problem, which is alcohol.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:32, p. 11-12
June 13, 1974