Truth Magazine

By Dan King

Those students of the Bible who have drunk deeply at the wells of modernism have been affected in most every area of their study. The conclusions which they draw are slanted away from any literal application of scriptural texts which touch upon such subjects as the miraculous, the unseen realm, angels and demons, inspirational and prophetical activities of God – in short, most every theme which makes the Bible a unique production of the Holy Spirit. The biblical doctrines of heaven and hell, found as they are in quite literal contexts, are not subject to any approach which would spiritualize them away. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have attempted this with hell, but do not use the same or comparable logic with heaven. The effect of modernism is to rationalize them away, seeing them in terms of ancient mythopoeic thought.

Modernists neutralize both biblical notions, describing them as part of the mythic world of the ancients. Believing, as they do, that the writers of the Bible lived in societies which were backward and pre-scientific in their perspective upon all aspects of life, they imbibed these viewpoints, even though they were filled with folklore, legend, and common myth. The result is that they produced a literature which was characterized by belief in such. The biblical books are representative of the larger body of that literature, differing from it only in that these works were the “survivors.”

Genesis and Creation Myth

It has long been held by liberal scholars that the creation narrative of Genesis chapters one and two is heavily dependent upon ancient Babylonian myth. In the middle of the last century archaeologists unearthed Assyrian copies of the old Babylonian creation and flood stories at Nineveh in the library of Ashurbanipal (669-633 B.C.), the last great king of the Assyrian empire. In 1876 George Smith, a young Assyriologist at the British museum, published his epoch-making book The Babylonian Account of Genesis, which recounted the Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma elish (named after its opening words: “When on high. . . “). At first liberal scholars were tempted to think that practically everything in the old Testament was borrowed from Babylon. Hugo Winckler became father to the theory called the “pan-Babylonian” view of biblical origins. His books Geschichte Israels (Vol. 1, 1895) and Das alte Westasien (1899) precipitated the “Bible vs. Babel” controversy, when Friedrich Delitzsch took his viewpoint to the ultimate extreme in Babel und Bibel (1902). Delitzsch attempted to show that there was nothing in the Old Testament that was not but a pale reflection of Babylonian ideas.

Hermann Gunkel, who authored Shopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (“Creation and Chaos in Beginning-time and End-time, ” 1895), was one of the first to assess this mythological tradition upon the Bible. From a “history of religions” viewpoint, Gunkel argued that the Babylonian creation myth concerning Marduk’s victorious combat against the dragon Tiamat and her chaotic allies had tremendous influence upon the writers of Scripture. And, although his approach has since been refined by subsequent scholars, Bernhard W. Anderson in his book Creation versus Chaos, still posits that the Babylonian story is at the root of the entire ancient near eastern tradition which became the source for the Bible narrative. All he adds, in terms of approach, is a discussion of the mythological texts from Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) dating from about 1400 B.C., wherein Baal, the storm god of old Canaan battles Yam the god of the sea, and Nahar the god of the River. He, like many other modern liberal scholars, sees Canaanite religion as the bridge through which these notions were mediated to ancient Israel.

Despite the fact that scholars have often demonstrated the glaring differences between the creation story as told in Genesis and that in the Babylonian epic, and how strained are the similarities, this position continues to be put forward as the correct one. K.A. Kitchen writes: “Assyriological scholarship has by now largely rejected the old idea that Genesis 1-2 had any close relation at all with Enuma elish. Such is essentially the verdict of Heidel, Kinnier-Wilson, Lambert, and Millard, for example. Writers on the Old Testament who suggest the contrary are out of date” (The Bible in its World 27).

Biblical Cosmology

Perhaps more to the point, the idea of cosmology as taught in the Bible has come under fire as one aspect of modernism’s assault on scriptural concepts. Heaven and hell are viewed as aspects of a “three-storied universe” which went out of vogue conceptually with the beginning of the scientific era. The old notion is seen as having been a part of the fabric of ancient thought about the world. One scholar articulates it this way:

By 3000 B.C., Sumerian culture in lower Mesopotamia had already worked out, it seems, a view of the universe which was to endure with only minor modifications for over 2000 years. The threefold division of the universe with which we are familiar from the Bible is found in Sumerian culture. Heaven, consisting of various regions, is the abode of the gods. The earth, conceived of as a disk, and the underworld complete the divisions of the universe. The primeval waters are located both above the vault of heaven and below the earth. The upper and lower seas (the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf) represent the limits of the earth. The vault of heaven rests upon the outermost bounds of the earth, thus enclosing man in an earth which is protected from destruction by the firm underside of heaven and by the under-earth mountains which support the disc-earth over the lower primeval waters. This cosmological picture is precisely that found in the Old Testament (Walter Harrelson, The Significance of Cosmology in the Ancient Near East 257; also in From Fertility Cult to Worship 2).

In order to make the Old Testament fit this scenario, modernist scholars must do two things. First, they find it necessary to literalize highly figurative expressions from the book of Psalms and elsewhere. Terms like “waters above the firmament” are taken for seas that existed above the sky, rather than the sources of rain in the clouds; “storehouses of snows,” “storehouses of hail,” and “chambers of the winds” are taken literally – even though we might ourselves use such language today in a figurative sense. “Waters under the earth” are viewed as underground rivers of the nether world, instead of the waters of the ocean (which are indeed below the land). Heaven and hell are seen as mere holdovers in this ancient way of seeing the universe. Modern scientific man should not take them seriously, for they are precritical in their origin.

The second thing many scholars do is to ignore the general tendency of the Old Testament to strike out beyond the mythic approach to the world as taken by Israel’s neighbors, and even to attack many of their ideas directly. In a most helpful chapter in the book Before Philosophy: The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man, called “The Emancipation of Thought From Myth” the authors (H. and H. A. Frankfort) suggest that Israel broke from the mythic traditions of the ancient world: “The God of the psalmists and the prophets was not in nature. He transcended nature and transcended, likewise, the realm of mythopoeic thought. It would seem that the Hebrews, no less than the Greeks, broke with the mode of speculation which had prevailed up to their time” (237).

Probably the most outrageous statement of this belief, as it applies to the New Testament, came from the pen of Rudolf Bultmann in his essay New Testament and Mythology: “The cosmology of the New Testament is essentially mythical in character. The world is viewed as a threestoried structure, with the earth in the center, the heaven above, and the underworld beneath . . . Supernatural forces intervene in the course of nature . . . Miracles are by no means rare.” Bultmann did not conceal his general skepticism, suggesting that the New Testament needed to be “demythologized” in order to be rescued from this prescientific thinking. Bultmann’s favorite teacher was the avowed atheist Heid.egger who applauded Bultmann for “making theology out of my philosophy” (quoted in Carl F.H. Henry, Frontiers in Modern Theology 19). Although much of his methodology has gone by the wayside as newer scholars and schools of thought have taken his place, yet there is still a skepticism on the part of the liberal scholars as to the existence of the unseen realm.

A Kinder, Gentler Doctrine

Finally, the liberal approach to heaven and hell have been affected by the tendency among liberal scholars to make Christian doctrine “nice” and “clean it up” so that it is more acceptable to the modern mind. Of course, the modern mind tends to be much more hostile to the notion of punishment, especially if it is considered harsh. In our own society it is the liberal who is ever worried over whether government will mete out some punishment which is considered “cruel and unusual” (i.e. the death penalty), and so contrary to the constitution. Beyond this, the liberal is concerned that we not punish the criminal at all. He is more interested in having a programme of rehabilitation rather than punishment. “Give the guy another chance . . . and another . . . and another.” Never mind the consequences for society generally or for the victims specifically.

There is little doubt that the same thinking is at work in the effort to undermine the biblical doctrine of hell. The liberal cannot believe in a God who will punish, much less punish in a place and under circumstances so terrible, as are portrayed in the scriptural pictures of hell.

All of his meanings and rationalizations notwithstanding, it is still the teaching of the Word of God. Let us not fall prey to such subjective and heretical thinking, for in doing so we may very well experience the reality of God’s place of punishment for the wicked – first-hand!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 19, pp. 577, 598-599
October 3, 1991

By Andy Alexander

The book of Numbers records part of the history of the Israelites as they journeyed from Egypt to Canaan. As they neared the land of Canaan, they, with God’s assistance, destroyed the nations that were in their way. After they had destroyed the Amorites the neighboring Moabites became very frightened (Num. 22:3).

Balak, the king of Moab, sent for Balaam and requested that he curse the Israelites so that they might be able to defeat them (Num. 22:6). God came to Balaam that night and said, “Do not go with them; you shall not curse the people; for they are blessed” (Num. 22:12). The word of God was clear, easy to understand, and Balaam got the message; he did not go with Balak’s leaders (Num. 22:13).

Balak’s men reported to him the reply of Balaam, but this did not satisfy Balak. He sent to Balaam again and offered him riches to curse the children of Israel and Balaarn went a second time to inquire of the Lord whether or not he should go (Num. 22:19). Now, Balaam knew God’s will but he wanted the riches and honor that Balak was offering. He was probably hoping that God had changed his mind and that he would want him to go and curse Israel. Whatever Balaam thought, he knew what God had said and that should have been the final answer for him.

There are many professed followers of God like Balaam. They know what God says, but they think that God will not mind if they do something differently. For example, many people are aware that immersion in water is baptism and they have no problem accepting one into their fellowship who has been immersed, but they see no harm in sprinkling or pouring as alternate forms of baptism. They know immersion is right, but they think sprinkling or pouring is just as good.

If we are going to follow the steps of our Savior then we must do exactly what God teaches us to do and leave off everything else (Matt. 7:21; Prov. 14:12). Those who substitute sprinkling or pouring for baptism may be sincere and have nothing but good intentions, but they are not pleasing God (2 Jn. 9).

The Scriptures clearly teach that a penitent believer must be baptized for the remission of his sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). There are people who read these verses but they, like Balaam, keep going back to God for a different answer. Because of worldly pressures, family resistance, or some other reason, they just do not want to obey God. Preaching a different or perverted gospel may pacify these people, but it will not save them (Gal. 1:6-10). Preachers of righteousness must proclaim God’s word regardless of the consequences (Ezek. 3:17-21; 2 Cor. 4:7-14).

Church Cooperation

In the Lord’s body there are those who know the Lord’s will, but they go beyond what is written in order to be like the denominations around them. Denominations have their big worldwide programs, so some members of the church feel they must have them too. They know that churches in the New Testament cooperated by sending support directly to a preacher (2 Cor. 11:8-9). In this passage, several churches in Macedonia sent concurrently to the apostle Paul while he was preaching in Corinth. In this way they were cooperating in preaching the gospel in that area.

These brethren who want to be like the denominations want to turn Paul, an individual, into a sponsoring church or some other kind of organization which is foreign to the New Testament. These brethren follow the pattern that God gave concerning salvation; why do they not want to follow the New Testament pattern of church cooperation? It worked in the first century and it is being worked today by churches of Christ which are honoring God by following his word (Col. 1:23; Rom. 2:23).

Divorce and Remarriage

Some preachers understood at one time what God had said regarding divorce and remarriage, but they have succumbed to the pressure of the world to question God’s law. They have gone back to God, as Balaam did, for a different answer and sure enough they have found one. People change and people’s attitudes change, but God’s word does not change (1 Pet. 1:24-25).

We may cry, “I know what you said God, but surely you weren’t talking to alien sinners in Matthew 19:9 and surely you meant to put into 1 Corinthians 7:15 that deserted Christians are free to remarry” but God’s word still stands. Faithful preachers will not compromise the gospel in order to accommodate sinners who are unwilling to repent.

It is sad that some preachers among us have departed from the faith concerning divorce and remarriage, but even sadder is the fact that many preachers who claim to teach the truth on divorce and remarriage will not expose and rebuke those who have fallen away, so that they might repent of their error and be restored to the Lord (Rom. 16:17; Eph. 5:11; Tit. 1:9).

They may say, “I know what you said Lord concerning false teachers and those who do not bring the doctrine of Christ, but. . . ” There are no “but’s” about it to those who want to serve God and reach heaven!

Immodest Clothing

“I know what you said about immodesty and shamefacedness God, but people are going to lust anyway.” This is the cry of some Christians who want to engage in mixed swimming and wear shorts in the summertime like those in the world. We know God specifically instructs us to dress modestly and in a discreet manner, but we still try to rationalize our way around this plain teaching (1 Tim. 2:9-10). While others may lust regardless of the clothes we wear, Christ strictly warns us not to be the cause of such lusting (Matt. 18:7-11). This excuse is just a poor rationalization for those who have not fully devoted themselves to the Lord.

Conviction Needed

Micaiah was a prophet of God who was reluctantly summoned by Ahab to prophesy concerning an upcoming battle (2 Kgs. 22:8-9). There was a great amount of pressure upon him to prophesy pleasing words to the king, but his reply to the soldier who was escorting him to the king was, “As the Lord lives, what the Lord says to me, that I will speak” (2 Kgs. 22:14). Micaiah was jailed for speaking the truth on that day. Micaiah was a man of conviction.

There is pressure on preachers today to soften up and preach in such a way as to please those who hear rather than God who judges (2 Tim. 4:3-4). We must demand faithful gospel preaching that is true to God’s word and just as strict as God intends it to be. Let us heed the admonition of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 16:13-14, “Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 18, pp. 565-566
September 19, 1991

By Mike Willis and Steve Klein

The recent controversy over the nature of Jesus has caused anything written on the subject of Jesus to be carefully scrutinized. Brother Gene Frost has called our attention to an article in Guardian of Truth which, in addition to teaching the truth that Jesus resisted sin without relying on his divine attributes, conveys some wrong impressions about Jesus (Gospel Anchor, Sept. 1991). The article was written by Steve Klein and titled “The Human Life of God.” The primary thrust of the article was to teach that Jesus resisted sin without using his divine powers (man does not ”have” to sin). With this I am in agreement.

In the article, brother Klein quoted with approval from The Gospel for an Age of Doubt by Henry Van Dyke which said Jesus “was subject to ignorance, to limitation, to weakness, to temptation, even as we are. The only point of difference between Him and us is that we sin, but He sinned not. The Godhead that was in Him was such as manhood is capable of receiving.” Both brother Klein and I disagree with these statements, realizing that they emphasize the humanity of Jesus at the expense of his deity. I have not read the book quoted by brother Klein but have since learned that its author is a modernist who denies the deity of Christ. Brother Klein cited the quotation only to emphasize that Jesus partook of the flesh (Heb. 2:14), experienced the same weaknesses (became tired [Matt. 8:241, hungry [Mk. 11:12]), and was subject to temptation as other men (Heb. 4:15). As intended by Van Dyke, brother Klein also disagreed with the statement and acknowledges that he used the quotation with a meaning other than what the author apparently intended.

Brother Klein’s article contained other statements which described Jesus as the “God-man,” saying that in him ”dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9), that “he was the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being,” “he who has seen men has seen me Father,” and other such statements as to show clearly that he believes that Jesus possessed all the attributes of deity while on earth. The meaning of the quotation from Van Dyke disagrees with the Bible verses quoted by brother Klein.

However, to remove any doubt about where the editor of Guardian of Truth or brother Klein stands on this issue, we want to publicly repudiate these statements from Henry Van Dyke quoted by brother Klein. To remind our readers that this is the same position which I always have held, I remind you of several articles addressing this subject which already have appeared in Guardian of Truth, including a series which I wrote (“The Deity of Christ” [1-4], Nov.-Dec. 1990; “Revival of An Ancient Heresy,” Weldon Warnock [21 Feb. 1991],102). Both brother Klein and I reject the idea that in emptying himself Jesus laid aside his divine attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, holiness, etc.) just as we reject the idea that Jesus could only overcome sin by relying on his divine attributes.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 18, p. 566
September 19, 1991

By Ron Halbrook

I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase (1 Cor. 3:6-7).

We are not to “glory in men” or to “think of men above that which is written,” but we are to glorify God alone for the good accomplished in the salvation of souls through the gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 3:21; 4:6). At the same time, we can be thankful for men who faithfully plant and faithfully water, and we can “consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works” (Heb. 10:24).

Otto Alvarez

Otto Alvarez of Merida in the Yucatan area of Mexico is doing the work of ten men in Mexico and neighboring countries. There are few preachers in Latin America who arc supported on a full-time basis because many people do not have regular work, and when they do, salaries are very low. Brother Alvarez gave up a lucrative job with a Japanese pharmaceutical company in order to begin the work of full time preaching. This was in 1987. He began immediately working with brethren over an area of some nine hundred miles. As brother Wayne Partain once said, brother Alvarez “is perpetual motion, and is all over the country.”

When Otto left the pharmaceutical firm for which he used to work, fie received $25,000 severance pay. He used half of it to get a van to use in his preaching travels and has spent all the rest in the Lord’s work. He has a wife and two children who share his labors and sacrifices. He is working with seventeen different churches, and travels hundreds of miles to reach many of them. So many poor brethren call him collect to ask Bible questions that he has considered disconnecting his phone in an effort to save on expenses, but he does not want to cut off his brethren from this avenue of study. Quite frankly, Otto is getting in desperate straits financially and yet does not complain!

Living costs in the Yucatan area where Otto lives are inflated by the tourist industry. He hopes to move to another location soon to open up additional labors from a more central location, but living costs are inflated in that area by the oil industry. In preparation for his move he is diligently trying to get some of the churches ready to stand on their own without his regular visits. He is preparing printed materials to help preachers and other brethren to be able to equip themselves to teach others (2 Tim. 2:2). He occasionally goes into Guatemala to preach, sometimes staying a month or six weeks at a time, but expenses for such trips are very high.

Otto is a veritable modern-day Paul in the nature and plan of his work as an evangelist. He desperately needs more regular support but is virtually unknown to American brethren. His work is well known to sound men in America who help with the work in Latin American countries, such as Bill Reeves (312 E. Zipp Road, New Braunfels, TX 78130) and Wayne Partain (806 Charming, San Antonio, TX 78210). His work is also well known to the churches at Pecan Valley (268 Utopia Road, San Antonio, TX 78223) and West Avenue (106 Sherwood Drive, San Antonio, TX 78201), both in San Antonio, Texas, and also the church here at West Columbia (15th and Jackson, West Columbia, TX 77486). These three churches have been helping with his support on a limited basis, but we are all aware that this is inadequate for the work he is doing.

Because of their confidence in Otto and their recognition of his desperate need, the elders of the church here (Charley Alexander, J.D. Harris, and James Moore) asked that this brief report and appeal be printed in hopes of stirring up other brethren to take an interest in this work. Otto’s sincerity, ability, and devotion are very evident in both his reports and his visits with us. In addition to all of his other work, he has been determined to learn English and to speak to us in English. When he visited us on 31 March 1991 he spoke to us in English part of the time by reading from a prepared manuscript, and we had Carlos Antunez to translate the rest of the time.

Not only is he reaching the alien sinner with the gospel, but also he has many opportunities to teach brethren from a liberal background, some of whom are so untaught as to be involved in Pentecostal practices and to defend social drinking. In view of all the work Otto is doing and the way he pushes and taxes himself, we pray that his physical health will hold up. May God continue to bless his labors and may God open our hearts to help, encourage, and support this faithful brother in every way we can! (Otto is now moving to a new area, I just learned, and Mexican mail is not forwarded. Write him in care of Bill Reeves, Wayne Partain, or myself and we will get your letters to him as soon as we get the new address.)

Thomas G. O’Neal

Torn O’Neal was born in 1938, was baptized in 1952, and began preaching the gospel of Christ in June of 1954. He has preached regularly for churches in Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee, has had several debates, has authored or coauthored tracts and booklets, and has written for gospel papers. For many years he diligently used every ability and opportunity to spread and to defend the gospel of Christ in its purity and simplicity. Younger preachers desiring to walk in the old paths of divine revelation have found Tom to be a warm friend and helper.

Tom held up the hands of H.E. Phillips and James P. Miller in the work of the gospel paper Searching the Scriptures almost from its beginning. Beginning in 1968 and continuing through December of 1983, his regular columns appeared in Searching the Scriptures.

All of his teaching and preaching has been noted for three elements. First, he has been characterized by Script ure- filled reaching and teaching. He once told me that when he hears speaker go the first two or three minutes into his sermon ithout introducing passages of Scripture as the basis of the ermon, he immediately begins to wonder where the speaker headed. Secondly, a strong stand for the truth of the ospel has been characteristic of Tom’s work in the ingdom. No one has ever had to wonder whether he would and or where he would stand when false doctrine and err have raised their ugly heads. Tom has been noted as a iend of truth but also an enemy of error. Those who teach ror know it well. Thirdly, simplicity has always aracterized Tom’s teaching. The common man can derstand the truth as preached by Tom O’Neal.

Few Bible characters are beloved as King David and the apostle Peter, partly because the mistakes and failings of such men are recorded and we can so easily identify with in. David became guilty of unrestrained lust, adultery, deception, and even murder. Passages like Psalm 32 and Psalm 51 reflect the genuine repentance of David as he was restored back to his Lord. After Peter denied the Lord three times, and became conscious of his great failure, he “wept bitterly” (Lk. 22:62). The Bible does not record the tragic failures of these men in order to embarrass them but in order to forewarn us of the bitter sorrows of sin and to help those fall to find their way back.

During the spring of 1984 Tom O’Neal quit preaching and left the Lord. Many who loved him and benefitted from his labors were crushed, but we continued to plead with Tom to pray unto God that he might be recovered from the snare of the devil. On 3 December 1989 Tom made the following confession before the Vestavia church of Christ Birmingharn, Alabama:

Dear Brethren:

My purpose in coming before the congregation on this Lord’s Day is to make acknowledgment and repent of each and every sin of which I have been guilty. I am sorry for the reproach that has come upon the name of Christ as a result of my sins. I ask forgiveness and your prayers that God might forgive me. Should you see fit, I am willing to serve in any way you may in time request.

I ask for your love, understandings, friendship and encouragement. Through a very difficult period in my life, I am thankful for the encouragement of Connie W. Adams, Ron Halbrook, H. E. Phillips and Ida Cogdill Terrell.

I plan to cause this statement to be circulated in other places where I think brethren will have an interest.

“The Lord wants men to change in the right direction” (Searching the Scriptures, December 1983, p. 561). Tom wrote those words and Tom has applied them to himself. Like David and Peter before him, Tom has taken a step which forewarns us all not to leave the Lord and which encourages those who have fallen to return to the Lord. Welcome home, Tom!

Tom has tremendous talents to give in the service of the Lord. As he has steadied his course, he has been used in the teaching program at the Vestavia church and has preached in the pulpit both there and elsewhere as needed. He has revived his excellent publication Walking in Truth, dated January-February-March 1991, an effective tool for teaching the truth in years past. The publication is free, Those who wish to be added to the mailing list can write Tom at P.O. Box 723, Bessemer, Alabama 35021. Please write him a note of encouragement that he may go forward in the work of the Lord, redeeming the time, planting and watering, so that God may use his life for the increase of the kingdom of heaven.

East Memphis Church and Larry Hafley

During the week of 15-21 April 1991 1 had the privilege of laboring with the church in East Memphis, Tennessee in a gospel meeting. I met young people and young couples who are devoted to the Lord and who are developing their talents in the kingdom. I met middle-aged men and women who love the truth and are raising godly children. I became acquainted with older men and women who are stable in their faith and represent a stablizing influence for good. Above all, I was impressed with this congregation because it has endured a great trial of afflictions in order to maintain the purity of the gospel. Although such trials are always heartrending, they serve a purpose by purifying and strengthening the church.

For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you (1 Cor. 11:19).

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us (1 Jn. 2:19).

The East Memphis church is smaller than it was a few months ago, but it is spiritually stronger and more united in the truth than ever before.

After seven years with the church in Pekin, Illinois, Larry Hafley and his family moved to East Memphis in the summer of 1988. A dark cloud began to gather on the horizon in the fall of 1989, and the storm broke in its full fury in November and December of 1990 when an effort was made to fire Larry.

Larry’s preaching did not suit the tastes of those who wanted a generalized, sophisticated, all-positive gospel. Larry was adhering too closely to the concept of Jeremiah, that the Word of God is designed “to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant” (Jer. 1:10). Brethren in some churches today have the idea that it is possible to plant without rooting out. Larry’s positive, faith-building sermons were balanced and matched with lessons which reprove sin and rebuke error (2 Tim. 4:2). Themes such as the cross of Christ, the conditions of pardon, and the Christian’s hope were regularly also presented from the pulpit, but the doctrines and commandments of men were exposed as the cause of souls falling into the ditch.

Murmurers and complainers said that they did not mind the truth being preached, but it should not be so plain, so pointed, and so direct. For instance, preaching against worldliness should not involve specific applications to the modern dances and proms, to gambling, to social drinking, and to immodest dress, especially immodest dress! Preaching against denominationalism must be sanitized to remove all direct references to denominations, their preachers, and their errors. Catholics who visit our services should not be offended by preaching that Peter was not the first Pope. We should not observe Christmas religiously but neither should we preach plain and pointed lessons exposing the sin and error of the religious observance of Christmas. False teachers and false doctrines among us should not be specified and identified in the pulpit. In other words, the time had come when some would “not endure sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3).

Brethren at East Memphis who came out of denominationalism insisted that they had already heard the kind of preaching which the murmurers and complainers demanded, and had heard it in denominational churches. They did not care to hear it in the pulpit at East Memphis. The brethren at East Memphis are to be commended for stopping the mouths of those who would subvert the truth and subvert souls and for their determination not to compromise with error, “no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue ” (Tit. 1:10-11; Gal. 2:4-5). Finally, the false brethren who could not endure the truth left and, as always happens, others left because they could not endure the battle between truth and error.

Even though the attendance and contribution have suffered, the brethren at East Memphis are standing strong for the truth of the gospel. They want Larry to stay, and he has agreed to do so if at all possible, even though it means raising outside support for the first time in his life. Make no mistake about it, brethren, other churches among us are in to face the same battle because a spirit of compromise is slowly but surely creeping in among us. By standing in the gap, the church at East Memphis and Larry Hafley have set an example which should strengthen all of us for the days that lie ahead. We must remember that God will give the increase which is according to his will only who we teach the truth of the gospel with boldness and great plainness of speech. Write a note of encouragement to the East Memphis church of Christ, P.O. Box 341535, Bartlett, Tennessee 38134.

Stan Adams

While some young preachers have defected from the faith, others have been growing stronger and stronger in the Lord, My wife and I first became well acquainted with Stan and Carla Adams when we preached for the Midfield, Alabama church and they were working with the brethren at Calera, both near Birmingham. The Midfield church had suffered a division while resisting a rebellion against the elders in the form of such political tactics as petitions. Because the church had been through this problem, some brethren had a sort of “hands-off” policy and stood off from us, but Stan was not afraid of that stigma and was a true friend to Midfield and to my family. Whereas some brethren professed confusion over whether petitions might be right or wrong, Stan never once faltered but recognized the petitions to be a challenge to God’s ordained pattern of church government, This should be no surprise because his father who trained him in the truth is a faithful gospel preacher of many years, J. Wiley Adams.

Perhaps some younger preachers are weak and compromising because they have never been through the fires of controversy. I have had the opportunity to watch Stan’s dedicated and consistent work in a context of peace. He did a good work at Calera and then also a good four years at the Southern Oaks congregation in Lake Jackson, Texas. Stan is the same dedicated, consistent person when passing through the trials of controversy. The same spirit of humility and patience is there. He is soft-spoken in personality and yet firm in faith and convictions. One of his strengths is the willingness to engage in self-examination, so that if he needs to make corrections he is ready and willing to do it. Whether in a context of peace or controversy, both his love for truth and his hatred of error are evident.

Stan is to be commended for his family life. As he faces the opportunities and pressures of preaching the gospel, he is mindful of his wife and children. While preaching the truth to others, he is also putting it into practice by raising a godly family.

Stan is currently working with the good church at Edna, Texas. We are fortunate to have the example and influence of this godly man in our area. He is not alone in the characteristics which are mentioned here. Other young men are walking in the old paths of divine revelation and are planting and watering by preaching the gospel of Christ in its purity and simplicity. It is evident through men like Stan Adams that the torch of truth will be passed to a new generation. If all of us will resolve to preach the Word of God, God will indeed continue to give the increase.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 18, pp. 562-564
September 19, 1991