Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

Thomas G. O’Neal of Bessemer, Alabama met John A. Welch of Indianapolis, Indiana in debate August 1-2, 4-5 in the meeting house of the West End church of Christ in Bowling Green, Kentucky. The house was well filled the first two nights but attendance dropped off the last two. Average attendance was 214. People were present from several states. For three mornings there was an open forum to discuss Bible questions. Harry Lewis of Evansville, Indiana moderated for brother Welch with Ronny Milliner operating the visual equipment. The writer served as moderator for brother O’Neal with Donnie Rader handling charts.

The first two nights Tom O’Neal affirmed that “The Scriptures teach that Jesus was not a man as I am.” The last two nights John Welch affirmed that “The Scriptures teach that Jesus was a man as I am, yet without sin.” In his opening speech, Tom O’Neal stated that he believed that Jesus was a man possessed of the qualities that make one a man, but that he was not a man “as I am” in the sense that while on earth he was possessed of inherent powers of deity, that he was “God with us.” The whole debate turned on this issue.

Brother Welch argued that Jesus emptied himself of such divine powers when he came to earth and that the powers he demonstrated were imparted to him by the Holy Spirit at the time of his baptism. Brother O’Neal said the issue hinged upon whether the powers of Jesus, in raising the dead, walking on the water and forgiving sins on earth, were inherent or imparted.

Brother Welch made strong appeals, at times eloquently so, for the humanity of Jesus, from Hebrews 2 and other passages. Philippians 2:5-12 was a crucial passage in the debate. While early in the debate brother Welch asked, “Why are we having this debate since I agree with you?” It became apparent as the week progressed that there was serious difference. Much was said of having powers but limiting the use of them. O’Neal argued that Jesus willed to limit his powers but that he used them at times when they did not serve selfish ends. This may go down as the “shotgun” debate. Tom said he had his grandfather’s shotgun which he kept in a closet and did not use. John seized on the phrase “I don’t use it” to press his point of limiting his powers when Jesus came to earth. Some good-natured bantering took place about this. Tom had a chart with an empty closet and another with a shotgun in the closet. John had charts with a shotgun sticking out the door and then the last night, with his high-tech visual and audio equipment he fired the shotgun four times. Tom insisted that in the illustration Jesus came to earth with the powers of deity but voluntarily limited his use of them except on such occasions as when he forgave sins. John said the last night that he did not care whether that closet for the shotgun was “in heaven, on earth, or on the moon.”

Throughout the debate John Welch quoted extensively from other brethren, both living and dead, quotes which he contended favored his position. Many of these quotes were from brethren in the audience who had opposed the views expressed by brother Welch. This was the first high-tech debate most of us had ever attended. Brother Welch had excellent equipment which was used in a professional manner. He could not only flash quotes on the screen, but matched them with pictures of those quoted and in several instances in the voice of those quoted from tapes.

The styles of the debaters were in sharp contrast. Brother O’Neal was deliberate while brother Welch was more impassioned and intense. Both men pressed their arguments. With a couple of exceptions, good order prevailed.

From this writer’s viewpoint, it appears that the issue of inherent versus delegated powers remains unresolved in so far as it involves agreement between the two positions. The difference remains. Either brother Welch is right in contending that Jesus maintained his “essence” without the powers of deity on earth, or else he gave them up and the question remains: how could he give up qualities of God and still be God with us? It is not a question of the humanity of Jesus for we all believe and preach that.

There has been considerable shifting of ground on the part of brother Welch since this controversy began. In a sermon at Shively in Louisville five years ago and then later at Beaver Dam, Kentucky, he ridiculed saying that Jesus was “100% God and 100% man.” In Beaver Dam he said such a view was “baloney.” But at Bowling Green he showed a chart affirming that Jesus was “100% God and 100% man.” He has written earlier that such a concept made Jesus a “hybrid” being. There was some shifting back and forth on “having” powers and “using” powers. The question of “using” powers is not a moot point unless he “had” such powers in the first place.

Some offers for additional debates on this subject have been made at Russellville, Arkansas and Evansville, Indiana. It is this writer’s view that any such debate, to serve any useful purpose should have a clearly worded proposition which spells out the difference between intrinsic divine power and delegated, or imparted power. Side issues will not resolve this fundamental difference.

Audio tapes of the debate can be ordered from: Tom O’Neal, P.O. Box 723, Bessemer, AL 35021. Video tapes may be ordered from Rick Hubartt, 3012 Foxfire Circle, Indianapolis, IN 46214.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 2-3
September 15, 1994

By Paul K. Williams

It happened in about 1950 when I was on a two-week Texas National Guard training camp at Fort Hood. A Baptist boy accepted my invitation to go to mid-week service at Killeen, and to my surprise the service was a rip-roaring sermon against denominationalism. I thought, “My friend will never come back!” But as we were leaving the building he said, “Paul, I want to talk to you about these things.” And at midnight on Friday, after he and I had studied for hours, he was baptized into Christ.

I never forgot that lesson. The unvarnished truth has power with one who loves the truth. Calling names and telling it like it is will not drive that one away.

I have been reading with concern the pleas of some for us to preach the cross instead of preaching “a lot of anger and name-calling” (Bob Setliff, June 20, 1993 bulletin, Gruver, Texas). And I personally resent the implication that the kind of preaching I grew up on, and the kind of preaching I have done all my life, is not preaching the cross. The preachers I heard in my youth repeatedly quoted Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 2:2, “For I deter-mined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” I heard prayer after prayer from men who pleaded that the preacher would “hide behind the cross.” How people can say that such preaching is not cross-centered is beyond me.

This morning I decided to take note of how cross centered our worship was. Before classes we sang for our usual half hour. Thokozani led “Rock of Ages” in Zulu. The English translation of the second verse goes: “Though my tears flow, Though I try everything, Nothing can take sins away Except the cross. Nothing can I do Except to cling to the cross.” And we sang, “To God Be the Glory” in which the second verse says, “0 Perfect redemption, the purchase of blood.” Thokozani took time to emphasize certain things from the songs, bringing our hearts to praise and devotion. During our regular worship we sang “The Old Rugged Cross.” When Eric rose to wait on the Lord’s Table he led, “I Saw the Cross of Jesus” and used that as the basis for his talk before the Lord’s Supper.

Every Sunday in every church of the Lord Christians eat the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of the Christ who died on the cross. This proclaims that the center of our lives is the sacrifice of Jesus, our Lord. Every Sunday in the Lord’s Supper we are preaching the cross.

In my sermon on certain truths which show that there is a God, and that he is the God of the Bible, I did not specifically refer to the cross of Christ. But I was preaching the cross in the same way that Paul was preaching at Athens (Acts 17).

Those who say that Baptists are preaching the cross are sadly deceived. Paul said that a distorted gospel is no gospel at all (Gal. 1:6-7). Though the Baptists preach about the cross, they distort the gospel of the cross by refusing to baptize people into Christ’s death (Rom. 6:3-4). Sentimental talk about the cross of Christ which does not lead people to obey that Christ is not preaching the cross!

My brethren, plain preaching of the gospel truths which condemn denominational error is preaching the cross. Tearing down the false doctrines which keep people away from forgiveness through Jesus Christ is preaching the cross. Naming the names of false religions and pleading with people to follow Christ instead of men is preaching the cross. When we “shrink not from declaring to you anything that was profitable” (Acts 20:20) and we declare “the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27) we are preaching the cross because only in that way can people be brought to the obedience that the crucified Jesus requires.

Those who condemn that kind of teaching do not love the cross of Christ! They love a distorted theory about the cross and are putting themselves in danger of being rejected by God (Gal. 1:6-9)!

Brethren, let us stand against error and for obedience to Christ. Only in this way can we truly preach the cross.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 18, p. 1
September 15, 1994

By Louis J. Sharp

“Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things” (1 Tim. 3:11). A man who does not have the respect of his wife enough to cause her to conduct her-self properly should refuse to allow himself to be appointed as an elder or a deacon. More attention should be given to the qualifications of the wives of men whom we seek to appoint. Often, this is overlooked.

Occasionally, there are delicate matters these men must deal with and should be kept to themselves. A woman once asked for a meeting with the elders to discuss a very delicate matter. She believed she was talking to men who had her best interest at heart. Soon after the meeting, the entire discussion was known throughout the church because an elder went home and related the whole story to his wife (first mistake). His action indicated his own lack of qualification, and his wife was likewise guilty as she spread the story. “Gossip is an insect without any wings or legs but with many tales and in each of them a stinger.”

Wives of elders and deacons should not make the decisions for their husbands in matters pertaining to the church. Any man who must go home and talk with his wife before he can make up his mind is not qualified to occupy that important position. This does not rule out discussing certain questions with one’s wife, but does say the man himself is the decision maker. God did not command that the wives of elders should take the oversight of the church. For a wife of elders and deacons to be “faithful in all things,” she might ask: “How can I help my husband be a better elder or deacon?” Let us look at some ways these good women may help.

1. “Be sure you are everything a Christian wife should be.” A good ex-ample will assist your husband greatly. Your poor example can destroy the good influence of your husband.

2. “Encourage your husband in his work.” He has grave responsibilities. He can use an encouraging word rather than a hassle, about what he is doing. Many men would be much better elders and deacons if they received more encouragement at home.

3. “Never demand that he tell you anything that you should not know.” Never question him about what was discussed in the meetings he attends. He will feel free to tell those things that are public information, but delicate matters must be treated as such.

4. “Never place a burden upon his heart with unjust criticism.” One who watches over the affairs of the church hears enough criticism with-out having to hear it from his wife.

5. “If you happen to learn some-thing that is not general knowledge, never repeat it to anyone.” It hurts the influence of your husband when you relate anything that is not general knowledge.

6. “Do not try to run the life of your husband by making his decisions for him.” Such women are never happy with themselves or their husbands.

7. “Do not complain about the time it takes for him to do the work of an elder or deacon.” Keep in mind he is doing an important work!

8. “Help him to grow in his work  to be stronger in his service.” Talk to God about him and the great work he is doing. Let him know you are proud of him, and the great trust that has been placed in him by the congregation that he serves.

We may have been a little blunt in some statements, but our only concern is that God’s great women help God’s great men.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 1
September 1, 1994

By Ron Halbrook

At a wedding in a southeast Texas nudist camp, the bride wore a veil, the groom a bow tie, and the minister his glasses  nothing more! No, this is not a joke, nor is it funny. Such events are degrading to marriage and the home, and demoralizing to our nation, state, and community. This mockery of a marriage ceremony was covered by Richard Kotrla II in the “Browsing on the Brazos” column for 23 September 1993 (Brazoria County News). Can’t the press report on Peeping Toms, voyeurs, exhibitionists, nudists, and other perversions without going along for the ride? Public nudity is a moral outrage. Indecency does not become pure when those who practice it gather into a camp. How about an incest community (for consenting children only, of course), a free-sex commune, a polygamy colony, or a bestiality camp? This is like sanctifying the sin of homosexuality by forming a homosexual church, or sanctifying the slaughter of infants by calling an abortion death house a “health and reproductive services clinic.” Shall we sanitize murder by establishing a Mercy Assisted-Suicide Hospital? Almost anything is possible in a society where the “proper” technique of committing fornication is facilitated by teaching “safe sex” to unmarried teenagers.

When people lose their moral bearings, they consider perverted practices to be “freedom of expression in its purest form.” They consider clothing and standards of decency “a facade.” They may hide their practices for a while but then they want to come out of the closet and be accepted as “a part of the community.” Some of us may feel we could not join such infamous camps and communes, but we “admire” how “friendly and open” their inhabitants are “about their lifestyle.”

We need to get back to the Bible, back to its family and moral values, back to its teaching on how to truly love God and our fellowman (Matt. 22:37-40). We are losing sight of our very purpose for existing: “Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man” (Eccl. 12:13). “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (1 Jn. 5:3). Every word of God was given for our good. “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4).

We need to put our clothes back on and respect Bible standards of modesty and decency. God himself put proper clothing on man and woman after sin entered the world, for their protection from temptation (Gen. 3:21). This garment covered more than their fig-leaves briefs, covering the upper body and hanging down around their knees. Since that time, God has taught that it is shameful for men and women to uncover their nakedness in whole or in part (Isa. 47:2-3; 1 Tim. 2:8-10). Proper clothing prevents displaying “the shame of thy nakedness” (Rev. 3:18). When men harden their hearts against God, they lose their sense of shame and no longer blush at immodesty, indecency, or immorality (Jer. 6:15).

Let us forsake our sins and hardness of heart. Believe in Jesus, repent of all sin, confess him as God’s Son, and be baptized for the remission of sins (Mk. 16:16; Rom. 10:10; Acts 2:38).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 17, p. 5
September 1, 1994