Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

(Editor’s Note: An introductory article to this series in which Brother Ron Halbrook is reviewing the position of his dear friend, Brother Edward Fudge, appeared in the Sept. 20th issue. If you have access to that introductory article, but have not yet read it, I suggest you do so before reading this article.)

POINT 2: Our brother shows a fundamental split in outlook by his concept of how the Bible teaches or authorizes. We’ve already seen how he apparently discusses violations of divine silence and additions to God’s Word as though they were lawful opinions and part of our. liberty in Christ. He discusses these same practice’s (instruments, socializing, centralizing), not only as opinions within the realm of liberty in Christ, but also under the expression “matters of human inference.” In this context, he explains we must be careful not to exclude anyone from fellowship because of their weakness of intellect-i.e. they might infer the above practices to be scriptural, we might infer them to be unscriptural, and neither position affects fellowship; see his article on faith and opinion referred to above (in Christian Standard, etc.)

Our brother says that the following statement should be read and “reread,” that it embodies “the entire teaching and work” of the Campbells on “unity,” and that it “is suitable for all times”:

“Although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, maybe truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection … no such deductions can be made terms of communion (or fellowship).”

Our brother approvingly quotes, “We dare not, therefore, patronize the rejection of God’s dear children, because they may not be able to see alike in matters of human inference;” then he quotes, “It is cruel to excommunicate a man became of the imbecility of his intellect.” “All things not expressly revealed and enjoined in the word of God” are “matters of human inference” (emphasis original). Thus, the instrument, centralizing, and socializing mentioned are “matters of human inference.” So, we should not be separated in fellowship just because we “may not be able to see alike” regarding instruments, etc. The user of such inventions should not require the non-user “to see alike nor should the non-user forbid the user. Note the reference to weakness of intellect as the cause of not being able to see alike. (* Along this line, we discussed what he called our “human system of interpretation,” especially as he sees it evidenced in our debates with those embracing institutionalism. I told him it is his duty as a gospel preacher to expose and refute this “human system of interpretation” which he says is so much like that of “the scribes and Pharisees.” Once he exposed the false, he could teach us how to handle aright the Word. “No,” he said he could not do that. For one thing, he can only offer his own human system of interpretation, he explained. “Mine is only a more scriptural human system of interpretation,” he said. I pointed out that Christ showed us the Bible teaches by necessary implication when he presented such arguments as Matt. 22:31-32; he responded that perhaps Christ knew how to do this, but we don’t. I pointed out that Ed has no trouble seeing one can take all the Bible says on primary obedience to the gospel, and thus understand the subject; any change is a sin and forbidden, though the particular change not be specified in the Bible. I asked why the same is not true about understanding worship or organization, with changes being sinful; he said, “It’s just not the same!”)

REVIEW: Again, we point out that our brother is using a word, which has two meanings without distinguishing between those meanings. The word is “inference.” He is confusing “necessary implication” (sometimes called necessary inference) with “differences of opinion on matters of speculation” (or, purely human inferences).

The Bible teaches by direct command (Mk. 16:16), divinely approved example (Acts 20: 7), and necessary implication (Matt. 22:23-33). Whatever God says by necessary implication, we must hear by necessary inference. When God prohibits violating His silence or adding to His Word, we must recognize (or infer) that adding instruments, etc., is just as wrong as adding hamburger trimmings to the Supper-though neither is specifically named as sin. These are inferences we must make if we are to recognize the terms of our Lord’s covenant with us! Failing to do so would bury us, in a few years, in an avalanche of human additions, 4 inventions, and traditions; the pure and simple Word of God would be lost in the landslide of human vanities, as the history of the Disciples of Christ denomination demonstrates!

Men sometimes infer when God has not implied. These are the human inferences and speculations, often found in creeds, which the pioneers were fighting (as in the quotes our brother sometimes uses); see Apr. 12, 1973, Gospel Guardian article “God’s Revelation Designed to be Understood-Ill.” God says (1) “Go,” and men infer a complex system of church centralization; (2) “Preach,” and they infer an exclusive hierarchal system; (3) “sing,” and they infer everything from tin buckets to philharmonic orchestras; (4) “fellowship,” and they infer everything from the smell of coffee to the smell of hot tar going on the roof of a new gym. Creeds are largely formalized inferences on predestination, centralization, etc., which are inventions of human inference in matters where God has not implied. God forbids such opinionating, speculating, violating his covenant, and adding to His Word. Such is not necessarily implied, not within our liberty, not within expediency because not within the law of Christ. Such is the sinful invention of men drifting from Christ as the only Head and from the Bible as the only authority (Jn. 10; Eph. 1:22-23; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Our brother’s argument hinges in part on his suggesting God wouldn’t cause one to be lost whose intellect was too weak to infer what God implied. True, but the danger is extreme in saying this means necessary implication isn’t binding. The next step, on the same premise, is to see that one might be too weak to recognize a divinely approved example, and to set that aside as not binding. Then, one might be too weak to recognize a direct command, so it can be set aside. Thus, the Bible is overturned completely. Our brother won’t travel this road to its end in this writer’s judgment, but such teaching will surely start others down a path from which there is often no return.

Dear brother, we do not desire to hurt you, but we long for some appropriate explanation or clarification.

Underpinnings Cut

POINT3: The scriptures urge us not to add to, substitute for, or take from the Lord’s will, truth, gospel, covenant, and doctrine. We are not to violate divine silence. Some pertinent passages are 1 Cor. 1:10, Gal. 1: 8-9, 2 Jn. 9, Jude 3. Others include Acts 15-24; 1 Cor. 4:6,17; 1 Tim. 3:14-15; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; Heb. 1:13; 7:14; and Rev. 22:18-19. Our brother has been cutting some of these underpinnings which have kept us close to the New Testament pattern and which show it is imperative to continue in that pattern.

He has commented on all the passages in the first list, which is why they are given separately. He thinks none of these passages apply to “doctrinal” issues-like instruments, etc. Numerous times he has written that 1 Cor. 1:10 does not require us to teach the same “doctrine,” but only to have “unity of sentiment, of aim, of spirit, of love” (as June 20, 1968 Guardian). 2 Jn. 9 doesn’t require us to continue in the teaching Christ gave through his apostles as per Acts 2:42, but only to certain specific teaching about Christ (Vol. 24, No. 37, G.G.). Gal. 1 and Jude 3 apply only to the “gospel” in the limited sense of first principles relative to primary obedience (as in Vol. 21, No. 44, G.G).

REVIEW: 1 Cor. 1:10. Paul did not write to tell Corinth that (1) it would be “nice” if they could grow into better faith and practice on the name, morals, worship, organization’ and doctrine of the church, but (2) until they got around to it, or even if they finally couldn’t “see eye to eye” with Paul, they would be “the church of God” anyway. All their goodness or rightness on these or any other matters could not make them merit salvation. Yet the security of the believer and identity of the church is plainly conditioned on faithfulness in such matters. The fact is Paul did not merely appeal for good attitudes in aim, spirit, and love for 16 chapters, though that is certainly interwoven in his appeal. Paul appealed in the name, person, and authority of Christ for the brethren to “all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; ” then he required unity in faith and practice on such matters as the name, morals, worship, and doctrine. When he concluded with the appeal to “stand fast in the faith,” he certainly meant to include all that was presented by divine authority in this very epistle (16:13); along with this, he showed the importance of attitude, aim, spirit, and love (vs. 14).

2 Jn. 9. “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” Certainly John was dealing with a particular error, but it is unfounded assumption to claim he meant no other error violates the doctrine of Christ. Does “the doctrine of Christ” mean only “the doctrine Of Jesus living in the flesh”? An atheist could affirm this and thus have “both the Father and the Son.” One objects that the context says “Jesus Christ,” meaning the Lord of glory, came and that an atheist wouldn’t accept that, then we observe that the Lord of glory holds all authority in his own hands (Eph. 1; Matt. 28). Thus any practice promoted without authority is in violation of the doctrine that Jesus Christ came in the flesh to live, die, raise, and reign. The reigning Christ declared his will to inspired men on the subject of worship, and any who persist in changing, adding to, or taking from that will do not recognize Jesus Christ as the Lord of all glory; men must repent of such sin or perish (1 Cor. 11:23, 30; 2 Jn. 9).

“The doctrine of Christ” or “the doctrine of the Lord” is the same as “the right ways of the Lord,” “the faith,” and “the word of God” (Acts 13:5-12). Such doctrine, word, ways, or faith includes all the revelation of God to men, all that distinctly originated in heaven and not of men (1Cor. 11:23; 16:13; Gal. 1: 11-12; 2:11-14). In the very same way, “the doctrine of Balaam” was not simply one particular doctrine about Balaam, but all that he stood for in faith or practice that originated of men and not from heaven;” the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes,” was not one particular doctrine about the Nicolaitans, but was all that certain ones stood for that originated of men (Rev. 2:13-14). “The doctrine of Christ” is “all the counsel of God,” “the gospel of the grace of God,” the message of “the kingdom of God,” the faith and word and ways and will and covenant and truth of God, i.e. all the revelation of God to men (Acts 20:24-27; 13:5-12; 1 Cor. 16:13). The point of 2 Jn. 9 is that all men who are not content to dwell therein sever themselves from God. The point of vs. 10 is that as they persist in their progression beyond divine revelation, they are to be recognized, marked, and severed from the fellowship of faithful brethren.

Gal. 1:8-9. All that Paul taught originated in the Lord; this included both matters of primary obedience and matters of worship and organization. He did not receive his teaching “of man … but by the revelation of Jesus Christ … For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” To neglect or reject any such divine revelation is to leave the gospel, fall from grace, come under condemnation, and die spiritually (Gal.: 6-12; 2:11-14; 5:4; 1 Cor. 11:23-34). Thus, Paul forbids hearing any other messenger or message in Gal. 1:8-9; that prohibition protects all the counsel or revelation of God, not just some particular. segment of it.

Jude 3. Jude likewise points to the necessity of holding inviolate the entire revelation of God. “Ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” If no particular item of “the faith” was dealt with in Jude, “the faith” still would not mean anything less than the total revelation of God. If we identify one or two particular items, we must certainly understand that those few items are a part of “the faith;” but it would be folly to say those few items constitute “the faith” in toto. Jude mentions “turning the grace of God into lasciviousness,” a challenge to the faith.

He also specifies the danger of despising authority-which is challenging divine authority through failing to submit to those who represent that authority. “To the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever” (vs. 25). Civil powers, parents, and the inspired men all represent divine authority (Rom. 13; 1:30; Eph. 6:1; 1 Cor. 2:13; 11:23). “The faith” isn’t limited to faith, repentance, and baptism. When men do not recognize the authority of the inspired men in matters pertaining to the work, worship, and organization of the church, they are undermining “the faith.” We must respond to the trumpet call of Jude 3 as we face innovations in the church! Anything for which there is not a thus-saith-the-Lord is not of the faith nor in the faith.

(*Ed says my review on these passages does not answer the careful exposition of them that he has previously written. In that case, it shouldn’t be too difficult for him to show in writing how I have erred. Will he do it? )

The more of these underpinnings our brother cuts, the more it appears that he doesn’t believe any scripture forbids us to add, to, substitute for, or take from the Lord’s Word concerning his church and related doctrinal matters. If the appearance is correct, the necessary conclusion is: those who centralize, use instruments, etc., are in unity with Christ and should be accepted without question by faithful brethren. If he believes such practices are positively wrong and sinful, let him please clarify and specify exactly what scriptures teach it.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 47, pp. 3-7
October 4, 1973

 

Most of the brethren know that back in 1946 when the last issue of the Bible Banner that would have ever been published had been brought out, I assumed, agreeably with Brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr. responsibility for its publication. With the help of Brother Roy D. Spears, Luther Blackmon, and all of the personal resources I could raise we formed the Roy E. Cogdill Pub. Co., at Lufkin, Texas and established a printing and publishing business. We put the Bible Banner back on a regular monthly basis with the expectation that Brother Wallace would continue to edit it. For a short time he did so and then abandoned the work and moved west.

We were able to keep it going and within a few months at the encouragement of the brethren made it a weekly paper and reverted to the original name of the paper when founded by Brother Wallace, The Gospel Guardian. Brother Yater Tant was selected as editor and Brother Wallace granted the ownership of the paper to the publishing company.

For a number of years as the president of the publishing Company it was my obligation to see to it that payrolls were met, bills paid, and the paper kept alive. Following the battle in the late forties with the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation and the schools over putting the schools in the church budgets we were met in the early 50’s with the combined forces of all liberally minded brethren and churches as they reconnoitered their forces and made their attack through the human benevolent societies (so called orphan homes) and sponsoring church projects (Herald of Truth, etc.)

For some time the Guardian was the only publication available to brethren through which these digressive innovations could be opposed and the battle raged hot and heavy. Many of those thought to be friends could not stand the pressure and deserted the ranks and sold out their convictions for the sake of popularity and a place to preach, among them were some of the men regarded among us as stalwarts including Foy E. Wallace, Jr.

The struggle was a heavy and hard one. Resources were scarce but by the grace of God and the help of a few faithful brethren we were able to persevere and continue to wage the fight. No one of any knowledge of that period will question the fact that the Gospel Guardian stood, steadfastly and unfalteringly and paid whatever cost was necessary to oppose those who would bring into the Lord’s church their unscriptural innovations.

Through the pages of the Gospel Guardian in her unwavering stand much good was done and much of the cause of our Lord was saved from digressions. Other papers were started and joined forces with us in a general rallying for truth and divine authority and saved much more of the church than was saved in the first great digression.

It is sad to me that with such an illustrious past the position and attitude of the Gospel Guardian today is not the same. Everywhere I go I am asked about the uncertain sounds that are being voiced by those in control of the Guardian now and the familiar question asked is  “what has happened to The Guardian?” People who have taken it for years have lost confidence and interest and are no longer subscribers. A good portion of those who yet take it do so because they have taken it through the years.

My concern, and I think it a legitimate one in view of the time, toil, money and effort put into it in the past, is that if it continues in its unstable course it could become a destructive and damaging influence instead of a bulwark against error. I hope and pray it will not.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 47, p. 2
October 4, 1973

By Robert W. La Coste

Just the other day I heard an individual exclaim, “Why Jesus was a good man, but this Son of God business is a story that no logical person could accept.” Needless to say, I was a bit disturbed. Really now! Do people know what conclusions must be faced if Jesus was not the Son of the living God? Consider a few:

If Jesus was not the Son of God. He was a liar and deceiver! Jesus said, “I am God.” (John 8:23) Suppose I made the statement, “I am God.” People would think I had lost my senses, or brand me as a liar. Yet Jesus went all about Palestine saying that He was God. How could a man be considered “good” and at the same time be insane or a liar???

If Jesus was not the Son of God, then all the prophets were insane or liars. Prophets, from Moses to the very last one under the law, John the Baptist, said that a Savior would come and his kingdom would be the greatest ever! Who would say that the 40 men responsible for writing the Bible were all out of their senses??

If Jesus was not the Son of God, then he was born illegitimate. The Bible says he was born of a virgin” and “conceived of the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 1:18-23) If not, then he was conceived out of wedlock, being the son of Joseph or some other man, and Mary was a fornicator and certainly put one over on the world all of these years. However, it is written that God chose her, because she had not known a man! She was a virtuous woman.

If Jesus was not the Son of God, then all the miracles were staged. If Jesus is not what he himself claimed to be, then he certainly did not perform any miracles, such as the changing of water to wine, feeding of 5,000 people, walking on water, etc., and the claims of raising many from the dead were all a hoax. If He was not the Son of God, he was some kind of magician, “scientist,” or sorcerer! Yet, he had no formal education, for the city of Nazareth was a poor, beggarly city.

If Jesus was not the Son of God, then He certainly was not resurrected from the dead. And if he was not, all of our hopes for being resurrected are forever gone! Furthermore, all of our loved ones are gone forever! If Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, then death cannot he overcome! It is the victor and all hope is lost!

In reality, if Jesus is not the Son of God, then He is a devil! Only a fool would believe it in view of the facts presented!

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 46, p. 13
September 27, 1973

By Irven Lee

“Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king” (1 Peter 2:17). This collection of short sentences is full of advice that our generation needs. This verse has, no doubt, been urgently needed in all ages. Those who are least prepared to appreciate this wisdom often use the word “relevant.” To use their often repeated word, we could say that these short messages are relevant.

The children of God are brethren. They are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. How could any one find words to describe the blessedness of one who pleases God and is added to the church or family? For God to set one in this body is the greatest thing that can be done for that one. This is much more wonderful than it is to achieve political power or to accumulate wealth. Faithful children of God receive a hundredfold now in this life, with persecution, and in the world to come eternal life. Brethren, let these thoughts linger in grateful hearts.

The children of God on earth are in need of praying for forgiveness. They are sinners saved by grace, and they have no room to glory, save in the cross of Christ. God is willing to call them children, and Christ is willing to call them brethren, so they are the most highly blessed creatures on this earth. Love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness are needed to explain this acceptance from deity. Men do not attain this relationship by merit, but in obeying the truth they walk in the light and the blood of Christ cleanses them from all unrighteousness.

If the Lord is willing to accept this great brotherhood, surely each disciple should be willing to accept all other children of God. We should all learn to be lovers of good men. The color of the skin, the degree of education or social status, and other such things do not count. There should be fervent love shown because this is a mark of this discipleship. The man who does not love the brethren is not God’s son. He is not one of this great brotherhood.

The brotherhood is made up of people who have received love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness, so they must show this same spirit toward each other. Slander, envy, bitterness, and self-will are so very inappropriate in this family of God. Let us remember this week after week, month after month, and year after year. Remember that Christ said: “Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” It seems evident that some who want to be in that number must forget at times.

The brotherhood is the universal church over which Christ is head. We may have great joy and consolation in hearing of the faith and love of a brother even if he is overseas. The saints who meet at one place regularly may be touched by the needs of brethren in other areas, and rejoice in their accomplishments. Our view is such too narrow if we are interested only in our congregation.” Is it not a sad state of affairs when the disciples in a given community forget the brotherhood, having no interest beyond the imaginary line a few miles or a few blocks from their meeting house?

We are to “love the brotherhood,” but we are not to seek to activate it under some human agency so that we can do “big things.” The servants of God are the salt of the earth, but the Lord does not want His salt in a big lump. It seems that in the different centuries it has been very difficult for men in the church to be great by being servants of all, rather than by creating chief seats where they may sit. Men began this mystery of iniquity before the apostles died, and the digression continued until the “brotherhood” was activated as a body with a government almost exactly like that of the old pagan Roman Empire, but when it was thus activated it was an apostate church. Christ had, no doubt, removed the candlestick. Similar digressions in the direction of an activated brotherhood have filled and are filling the church history books. Men forget that the Bible authorizes no unit larger than the local church as a working unit under overseers. Very much of the work authorized by God is assigned to the individual. We are to be judged as individuals, even in worship, even though we are to assemble for public worship.

We are to love the brotherhood so much that we would not condone men from among us who would speak perverse things and draw away disciples after them. We are to love the brotherhood so much that we would dispute daily in the school of Tyrannus or in any other place in earnestly contending for the faith. Would any one doubt that Paul had the proper love when he withstood Peter who was to be blamed because be caused some to be carried away in a dissimulation? People who would divide this spiritual body for which Christ died should be marked, avoided, rejected, and purged out as old leaven. Love for this brotherhood can furnish the motivating power for one’s wrestling against wickedness in high places, warring a good warfare, or fighting a good fight, as good soldiers of Christ.

Some parents say they love their children too much to chasten them. They are wrong in this remark. He that spareth the rod hateth his son. People who say, “Peace, peace, where there is no peace” are hindering those who are set for the defense of the gospel. “Love the Brotherhood.” Do not harm it seriously by defending the factious man who is subverted and sinneth, being condemned already.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 46, pp. 12-13
September 27, 1973