Truth Magazine

By Dan Huddleston

I have told hundreds from the pulpit in the USA, South Africa, and Zambia why I left the liberal folks. I hope and pray that hundreds more will read this article, not just to know why I left institutionalism, but to know how far the average liberal has gone into apostasy. I do not know many Christian Church preachers and members that I have met over the years, but they have all said the same thing. They say that the only difference between us and them is the instrument. We know that this is not true and that there are many differences. Too many times we have preached against the instrument, which is sinful to use in worship, as if it is the problem when actually it is only a symptom of the problem. The problem is that of authority.

To make a long story shorter, that is what I discovered about the institutional question. All my life I had been taught that the only difference between institutional and non-institutional brethren was the matter of how to use the church treasury, and that this difference was only a matter of opinion. During the years I grew up, did secular work and fill-in preaching, and even during my studies in a preaching school, I was insulated from the truth as the issues were presented in a very one-sided way, if and when they were presented. Great effort was extended by many of the liberals to avoid the issues. Even in preaching school, the issues were not explored. In debate classes, we debated the one cup and no Bible class issues but not the institutional issues. I was asking myself and classmates why there was no real attempt to answer these questions.

After school, my first full-time work was in Colorado. There I met Jim White who again stirred my mind on the issues. He arranged for me to meet the preacher of a faithful congregation in Ft. Collins. Gary and his wife had an adopted child. I had been told that “antis” did not practice what they preached, and that one could not be found who had adopted a child or taken in a foster child. Now I know the truth and I know dozens and dozens of brethren among conservative congregations who have adopted children or taken in foster children. Not a one of them do it for show, and I do not know of an “orphan hater” among any of the hundreds of brethren that I have met.

An opportunity came for me to go to Zambia, Africa. There was an opening at a “Christian” secondary school and Bible college. I could teach during the week and preach on weekends and school holidays. Someone asked if a board or an eldership would have my oversight. I thought it was an eldership but it turned out to be a board. This put more questions in my mind. As I prepared to leave the U.S.A., I attended a series of lectures which also included a debate on the general benevolence questions between Jack Holt and Mac Deaver. Mac was a very dear friend of mine and I wanted to hear his answers. It was clear to everyone present that Mac did not answer Jack’s arguments. This put more questions in my mind, but, alas, I was off to save the lost in darkest Africa and this through a church supported institution!

Our first day witnessed a baptism in the mighty Zambezi River. After I preached the following Sunday, a Zambian preacher approached me with a big smile. He stated that he had not heard preaching from the Bible like that in years. As our conversation went along, he asked me if some of the Americans sent there in recent months were Christians. What a shock! I soon found out what he meant and was told this by several other Zambian preachers. I found so much false doctrine and immorality coming from the liberals there that it would take several articles to discuss it. I do want to write about some of these as they are important for you to know. I documented over two dozen false doctrines coming from them besides those involved in institutionalism. Brethren, it is not just the issue of institutionalism that divides us from the liberals today! Once Bible authority is not needed for one thing, then it opens the door for wholesale apostasy.

In Zambia and the U.S.A. as well, I have found the liberals teaching that instrumental music in worship and choirs in the worship are OK. Many are having fellowship with the Christian Church and many are saying that there are Christians in the various denominations. I know a liberal, American preacher in Zimbabwe who receives funds from the Disciples of Christ, the Christian Church, and from liberal Churches of Christ. I received a letter and cassette tape from Don DeWelt of the Christian Church through a slip up in their mailing department. DeWelt was soliciting funds from Christian Churches to be sent to a big sponsoring church among the liberals. That church was White’s Ferry Road Church of Christ, home also of the White’s Ferry Road School of Preaching in West Monroe, Louisiana. The funds were going to a food project in Ethiopia.

I have also found many of the liberals teaching Calvinistic doctrines, direct operation of the Holy Spirit, demon possession and exorcism, polygamy, and false doctrines on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Premillennialism is showing its ugly head again. Some are “shaking in the denominations. ” One elder and preacher with the liberals in Zambia “shook in” an entire Pilgrim Wesleyan Church. These people baptize three times from a misinterpretation of “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” He laughingly told them that he would accept their first baptism and throw the other two out. Many are teaching theistic evolution, that miraculous spiritual gifts are on going today, that everything a Christian does is worship, that Christians are under grace only and not under any law, witnessing and testifying, anointing and laying on of hands, and a host of other false doctrines. Some of them even teach that Jesus sinned by breaking the Sabbath. How absurd! These things really woke me up and made me begin to think.

How we ended up in Buna, Texas, is beyond me, but here we found someone who had been through these issues and who had fought many battles, someone who could tell us “the rest of the story.” Ray Votaw was in the Buna area due to the illness and death of his youngest daughter. We began a quick and in-depth study of the issues since Ray had to leave soon for South Africa. He told me to apply the principles for establishing biblical authority which I had already been taught, and to study these things to see if there is any authority for them. When Ray called me a liberal, I was shocked. I had always thought I was conservative, and some liberals had called me a “neo-anti.”

The questions that had built up in my mind for the past few years were now answered. We could see that it was not a matter of opinion, but a matter of faith. There is no authority for general benevolence. There is no authority for the church to establish, to fund from the treasury, and to pool funds from several churches to run institutions such as hospitals, orphan homes, old folks’ homes, unwed mother’s homes, etc. There is no authority for the sponsoring church with its pooling of funds from other churches and its centralization of power. There is no authority for one church to make decisions for another church, nor for them to hold the deed to the property of another church. There is no authority for church kitchens, church gymnasiums, church funded camps, church funded ball teams, or for any church sponsored or church funded recreation or entertainment.

As soon as we knew the truth, we knew that we must accept it, repent, teach, and defend the truth even though we would be branded as “antis,” and even though we would lose many or all of our old friends. We have been branded “anti,” and we have lost all our old preacher and elder friends. None of them has even called or written us. Two of the families did leave the liberals where I stood up and preached the truth on the issues. Of course, I was promptly fired and given less than two weeks to get out of the preacher’s house. I was not even given the money that was due me much less any kind of severance, but it was worth it all to have the truth and to have salvation.

This is not the end of the story. It is only the beginning. We never thought that we would make so many new and wonderful friends. We are the happiest we have ever been, and we do not regret for one moment having left the awful clutches of liberaliam. My prayer is that this article will encourage faithful brethren, and that it will stimulate my liberal “friends” to study, learn the truth, and give up their error before it is too late. I am ready and willing to study these issues that divide the church with anyone. I also stand ready to defend the truth in public debate which is more than 99 percent of the liberal folks are willing to do. They have forgotten long ago such verses as 1 Peter 4:11; 3:15; Philippians 1:17; and Jude 3. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:32).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 14, pp. 422-423
July 16, 1992

By Frank Jamerson

For by one Spirit were we all baptized into one body whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free – and have all been made to drink into one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13).

This passage is often used to prove that a person must be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Both the context and teaching in other passages show that this cannot be the meaning of the verse.

First notice that the word en (translated “in” or “by”) is used in other verses in this chapter. “Wherefore I make known unto you, that no man speaking in (en) the Spirit of God saith, Jesus is anathema; and no man can say Jesus is Lord, but in (en) the Holy Spirit” (v. 3). The speaking “in” the Holy Spirit is obviously speaking by the direction of the Holy Spirit. In verse nine he said, “to another faith, in (en) the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings in (en) the one Spirit.” The gifts given “by” or “in” the Spirit were those imparted by the Spirit’s power. He was the source of those gifts.

The same word is used in the verse quoted in the beginning of this article. It is “by” (en) the direction of the Spirit that we are baptized into the body of Christ. Every person who is in the body entered in this manner. This is not baptism with the Holy Spirit, but baptism that the Holy Spirit commands.

Other passages shed light on the meaning of this verse. Paul wrote the Ephesians that Christ loved the church enough to die for it, “that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:26). The word “by” is from the word en, just as “by” in 1 Corinthians 12:13. It is “by the word” that the church is “cleansed with the washing of water.” This harmonizes perfectly with other Bible teaching that men are baptized “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), to “wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16) or “into Christ” (Gal. 3:27). The writer of Hebrews made a similar statement when he said that the sacrifices and offerings according to the Old Law were taken away that Christ may establish a new law. “By” (en) that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). It was “by the Holy Spirit,” “by the word” or “by that will” that we were cleansed of our sins when we were “baptized into one body.”

Other passages also show that 1 Corinthians 12:13 cannot refer to Holy Spirit baptism. There are only two examples of Holy Spirit baptism in the New Testament. The apostles received it on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), and the household of Cornelius in Acts 10. In both cases, those who received it spoke in tongues. The verse under discussion (1 Cor. 12:13), says that “all” were baptized into one body, but did all the church in Corinth speak in tongues? Paul asked, “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers ? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way” (1 Cor. 12:29,30). The obvious answer to these questions is “No.” Since all in the church in Corinth did not speak in tongues, they did not all receive Holy Spirit baptism.

When Phillip went to Samaria and “preached good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and woman” (Acts 8:12). Were they saved? Certainly they were! Had they received the Holy Spirit baptism? No! When the apostles heard that Samaria had received the word they sent Peter and John to them to lay hands on them that they may receive the Holy Spirit, “for as yet, he was fallen upon none of them; only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:14-16). Baptism “in the name of the Lord Jesus” is in water (Acts 10:47,48) and is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

Holy Spirit baptism was never administered “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” and it was never “for the remission of sins” or “into the one body.” The Spirit, through the word, commands men to be baptized into Christ. When we obey that word, it is “by the Spirit” that we are baptized in water into the body of Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 13, p. 389
July 2, 1992

By Lewis Willis

I receive a lot of things in the mail that I do not request. I do take the time to scan most of it. I recently received a paper edited by Alfred Mielke which I had not requested. It says it came from “Christ’s Church of Wis. Rapids, 1550 West Grand Ave., Wis. Rapids, Wis. 54494.” The first issue that I received asked, “CARS, ARE THEY FOR CHRISTIANS?” I must tell you candidly that I do not really know what Mielke’s position is on this question. It appears that he thinks that it is a sin for a Christian to own a car, But then, reading further, it seems that he condemn’s the sinful use of a car. This latter point, from his article, seems to be a possible objection to his position, which he has under consideration. I suppose it is not a good idea to review something that is not understandable, but I have some thoughts I would like to share. The reasons he

gives for a, car being sinful could be raised regarding numbers of questions, such as, “Is it a sin for Christians to publish papers such as his.” I have put his “reasons” why cars are sinful on the left and why his paper would be sinful for the same “reasons” on the right.

CARS	RELIGIOUS PAPERS
1. It has been proven to kill more people than anything else.	1. Some papers have spiritually killed more people than anything.
2. It causes more young men and women to go sexually wrong.	2. Some papers cause more young men and women to go spiritually wrong.
3. It is one of the prime causes of our unhealthy environment.	3. Some papers are one of the prime causes of our unhealthy spiritual environment.
4. It causes sin because of speeding and other law breaking actions.	4. Some papers cause sin because of false doctrine and other law breaking actions.
5. It has been shown to corrupt good morals.	5. Some papers have been shown to corrupt good spirituality.
6. It can cause pride and covetousness.	6. Some papers can cause pride and covetousness.
7. Because so many people sin with the car, we become hardened to sin.	7. Because so many people sin with some papers, we become hardened to sin.
8. Money used to buy the car could have been used to feed the poor.	8. Money used to publish some papers could have been used to feed the poor.
9. It is not a necessity, but a luxury that most of the world lives without, or can’t have.  With all these facts and more, how could any right thinking person not see the sins such an action of owning and driving a car can bring on our young and old alike?	9. Papers are not a necessity, but a luxury that most of the world lives without, or can’t have.   With all these facts, and more, how could any right thinking person not see the sins such an action of owning and publishing a paper can bring on our young and old alike?

Several years ago brethren in debate used to tell their opponents, “That which proves too much, proves nothing at all.” This gentlemen’s position proves too much.

If this were not bad enough, the next issue of his paper that he sent was designed to prove that women were to refrain from any sound at all during the worship. We have all known for some time that women are not permitted to preach (1Cor. 14:34-35). His point was that “keep silence” prohibits a woman from even singing in the worship. Paul taught us all to teach and admonish with singing (Col. 3:16), but this fellow is not going to permit women to do what Paul said, charging that such is a commandment of man. I wonder if it would be acceptable with him for a woman to confess her faith in Christ during the course of an assembly. If so, how can she confess “with the mouth” her faith in Christ, and remain silent at the same time? “That which proves too much. . . “

This entire matter illustrates for us once again how important it is that we not accept every doctrine we hear, but that we test them to determine if they are so (1 Jn. 4:1). Otherwise, we are in danger of following blind leaders all the way to the ditch (Matt. 15:14).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 13, p. 397
July 2, 1992

By Louis J. Sharp

In defense of his integrity, Job makes an astonishing statement in chapter 31, verse 1: “I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?” (KJV) A.R. Fausset remarks: “In this chapter he vindicates his character in private life.” He says “think -cast a (lustful) look. . . He not merely did not so, but put it out of the question by covenanting with his eyes against leading him into temptation.” He refers to Proverbs 6:25: “Do not lust after her beauty in your heart, nor let her allure you with her eyelids” (NKJ) [Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Vol. II; p. 73]. Thus, the rendering of the NIV: “I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl.

The NKJV likewise supports this rendering: “I have made a covenant with my eyes; why then should I look upon a young woman?” Clarke offers this thought. “My conscience and my eyes are the contracting parties; God is the Judge; and I am therefore bound not to look upon anything with a delighted or covetous eye, by which my conscience may be defiled, or my God dishonored” (Clark’s Commentary, Vol. III; p. 136).

Joseph S. Excell states: “The covenant must have been with himself. Job means that he came to a fixed resolution, by which he thenceforth guided his conduct, not even to ‘look upon a woman to lust after her’ (Matt. 5:28). We must suppose this resolution came to in his early youth, when the passions are strongest, and when so many men go astray” (Pulpit Commentary, p. 499). “Having made such a resolution, how could I possibly break it by ‘looking upon a maid?’ Job assumes that he could not be so weak as to break a solemn resolution” (Ibid., p. 499).

Several excellent lessons are brought to our attention by these brief comments. (1) The value of virtuous resolutions; (2) The exercise of self-control in one’s life; (3) Covenants made are not to be broken; (4) The covenant one makes with oneself (in our text), with one’s eyes.

Our eyes are expressive – they do speak – they reveal much about a person. I recall my mother always demanded that I “look her in the eye” when she questioned some story I was relating and she did not believe. Somehow or other, I could not lie while “looking her in the eye.” In her own way, she was instilling in me a lesson of truthfulness. In a sense, I was “covenanting with my eyes.” This may seem a little far-fetched, but it does illustrate the value of eye-contact!

In Scripture we do read of lustful eyes. 1 John 2:16: “For all that [is] in the world – . . . the lust of the eyes, – is not of the Father. . .” And the evil eye (Pro. 28:22): “He that hasteth to be rich (hath) an evil eye.” Solomon spoke of an eye “not satisfied with seeing” (Eccl. 1:8). At another time, Job asked: “Hast thou eyes of flesh? or seest thou as man seeth?” (Job 10:4) And in Proverbs 27:20, Solomon says: “Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied.” This shows how praiseworthy the covenant Job had made with his eyes.

Our Lord’s teaching concerning adulterous eyes needs to be a part of this study. Said He: “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell” (Matt. 5:28-29) Thus, we learn that the covenant Job had made with his eyes comports with the teaching of Jesus centuries later.

Is it any wonder that God had such a high regard for his servant Job? In chapter 1:8, he asks Satan: “Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?” If we direct our lives and our steps as Job, we too will be called “the faithful servant of God.” “In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly” (Job 1:22). Have you made a “covenant with your eyes?”

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 13, p. 399