Truth Magazine

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Question: Is the English word body ever used in any other sense than the universal or aggregate, saints of all ages, living and dead, per Hebrews 12:23? (literally the firstborn ones).

Reply: Yes, the English word body is used in sense other than the aggregate of all the saved of all ages. Soma, the Greek term translated body, is used approximately 86 times in the English New Testament to mean the human body. At least two times it is used to mean the body of beasts or lower animals (Heb. 13:11; Jas. 3:3). It is used also to refer to terrestrial and celestial entities (1 Cor. 15:40).

Sometimes body is used in connection with the Lord’s supper, in which the bread refers to the body with which one communes when he partakes (1 Cor. 10:16). By the very nature of the term itself, body refers to an aggregate of members. The context lets one know what body is under consideration. If the body of Christ is under consideration and the context refers to the saved, the aggregate is the sense. One could have in view a local group of Christians as constituting the body of Christ in that particular locale. Paul wrote to the Corinthians about their relation in that local body of Christ (1 Cor. 1:2; 12:14-31).

Certainly, sometimes all the saved are in view as in Ephesians 5:23 where it is stated that Jesus is the savior of the body. Christ is the head of the body, the church (Col. 1:18; see also Eph. 1:23; 2:16; 3:15).

Question: What is the teaching of Hebrews 8:12? Is that teaching that God is no longer cognizant of sin, or does it simply means that one is not held accountable of sin, after it is pardoned?

Reply: The term remember is from mimnesko which means to be recalled or to return to one’s mind. God says that sins (in this context) will be remembered no more. The sense is that he will forgive and they will not be called to mind as being still on the person. They will have been remitted and having been loosed or sent away will not be brought back to mind. God’s ability to remember or whether he can call to mind is not the issue. Whether man’s sins once loosed are loosed or sent away forever never again to be an issue between the ones forgiven and God is the issue. God will not still remember their sins as if they had not been forgiven (Heb. 10:17).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 20, p. 613
October 18, 1990

By Larry Ray Hafley

In August, brother Kevin Campbell met Cecil Patterson, a Missionary Baptist, in debate in Gulfport, MS. The subjects debated concerned the place of water baptism in the gospel plan of salvation. Mr. Patterson affirmed that one is saved “before and without water baptism.” Brother Campbell argued for the plain teaching of Acts 2:38; 22:16; Mark 16:16; Romans 6:3,4; Colossians 2:11-13; Galatians 3:26,27; 1 Peter 3:21.

Cecil Patterson is an experienced Baptist preacher, aged 50. Mr. Patterson is a sincere and capable advocate of Baptist doctrine. He conducted himself as a gentleman.

This was brother Campbell’s first debate. Kevin is only 22 years old (I have spots on some of my neckties that are older than he is). Several brethren, myself included, had misgivings about Kevin’s age and lack of experience and of his ability to handle the truth against an opponent who was preaching before he was born. But those fears and doubts were totally unfounded. Brother Campbell is a quiet, reserved young man, but he has a keen, analytical mind and is a tireless student. His humble demeanor is a tremendous asset. Kevin speaks with great force, power and authority (Tit. 2:15). He knows how to punch, pinch and pierce an argument while maintaining his poise. Frankly, I was surprised at his talents as a speaker and debater. God has richly blessed him, and he has developed those abilities. Our prayer is that Kevin will continue to grow in the Lord and in the front lines of the good fight of faith. May God grant us others of like precious faith and raise them up as good soldiers of Jesus the Christ.

It is refreshing, in these days of soft, vague preaching, in these days when preaching is often reduced to general, topical principles, to hear young men who will sound out the form of sound words without fear or favor and do so with fervor, boldness and “great plainness of speech” (2 Cor. 3:12; 5:11).

Mr. Hoyt Chastain, a veteran war horse (I use that term with respect and affection) for Missionary Baptist schools and churches, moderated for Mr. Patterson. Mr. Chastain met the late and lamented W. Curtis Porter in debate four times. Chastain’s mentor was Ben M. Bogard, perhaps the most famous Baptist debater who ever lived. Mr. Chastain is almost without peer as a defender of Missionary Baptist doctrine. So, Mr. Patterson had the ablest help he could have had.

It was my pleasure to moderate for brother Campbell. Actually, I did not truly “moderate.” I made a few announcements and poured water for Kevin to drink, but other than that I simply sat and enjoyed hearing the truth. I was completely useless as a moderator, and it is all brother Campbell’s fault, but I have forgiven him. The only time I ever felt more unnecessary was when I tried to teach a duck how to swim.

Kevin had numerous charts which answered Mr. Patterson’s efforts to deny what the New Testament teaches (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38). He was thoroughly prepared, and it showed. A Baptist was “baptized into Christ” (Gal. 3:26, 27) during the debate. (Who says, “Debates don’t do any good”?) Campbell preached to more Baptists in two nights than he will preach to in a year of gospel meetings. The attendance was moderately good. Brethren attended from six different states. Several liberal preachers were present as were a few Missionary Baptist preachers.

Baptist Argumentation – Bible Refutation

Mr. Patterson followed the typical route of Baptist preachers. He cited many passages dealing with salvation by faith. Brother Campbell did not deny that salvation is by faith; rather, he showed that salvation by grace, faith and blood does not exclude water baptism.

Cecil Patterson was inconsistent and illogical regarding Mark 16:16. He argued:

(1) There is only one condition of salvation in Mark 16:16; namely, faith.

(2) “Shall be saved” refers to salvation in heaven, not to past or alien sins. This, of course, made baptism essential, for if “saved” is heaven, then baptism is necessary to go there. Secondly, if “saved” equals heaven and not the removal or remission of past sins, then faith in Mark 16:16 is not a condition for the forgiveness of past sins. Mr. Patterson could not clear up his confusion on these points as Kevin pressed him, so he resorted to point number three.

(3) Mark 16:16 is not a part of the Bible. It is not Scripture. This nullified his two previous arguments, for if the passage is not the word of God, it is the word of men and teaches us nothing.

(4) The most obvious failure Cecil made was his argument regarding salvation and how to get to St. Louis. Said Cecil: “He that entereth a train and is seated shall reach St. Louis.” From this he argued that entering the train was essential to get to St. Louis, but whether a man sat or not was immaterial. He had to enter the train, but being seated was not essential. He that entereth the train shall reach St. Louis whether or not he ever sits down. Hence, he that believeth is saved whether or not he is ever baptized.

Kevin answered thusly:

Enter Train + Seated = St. Louis

Believe + Baptism = Salvation

Brother Campbell reminded Mr. Patterson that since he believed that salvation occurred instantly, the very moment one believes, then one is saved before he has an opportunity to be baptized. So, since entering the train is equivalent to belief, then one arrives in St. Louis before he has time to be seated! The audience, both Baptists and Christians, chuckled aloud at this. But Kevin was not through. He told Cecil that one could fly or drive to St. Louis and that entering a train was not the only way to get there. Since faith was the same as entering the train, and one can get to St. Louis without it, then one could also get to salvation without faith. Therefore, neither faith nor baptism is essential!

In response to 1 Peter 3:21 (“baptism doth also now save us”), Mr. Patterson said, “This is the passage they use to teach that baptism saves us. I don’t believe that.” Need I say more?

Kevin asked Cecil if he had ever told a penitent believer to “Arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Cecil said, “I have not.” Ananias was not a Missionary Baptist preacher, for he told Saul to do something that Cecil Patterson will not tell anyone to do.

Mr. Patterson argued that Saul was called “brother” before his baptism, so he was a brother in Christ before baptism. But Kevin blunted this Baptist blunder by pointing out that unbelievers were called brethren several times in the Bible (Acts 2:29; 13:26; 22:1). If calling one a “brother” before he is baptized means one is saved before baptism, then calling one “brother” before he believes means one is saved before faith.

Thanks to the Morris Rd. church in Gulfport for their support during the debate. They all worked hard in preparing for the discussion. It is good to see a church that actively and aggressively encourages controversy and contends openly for the faith once delivered. Some churches may not desire debates against error and may prefer a pseudo positive, non-combatant gospel, but not these brethren.

Some Baptist Advice

Prior to the debate, brother Campbell sent advertisements to scores of denominational churches. Two Baptists preachers responded thusly:

I am forced to say that I cannot post your bulletin about your debate over water baptism.

. . . if you will read the Scriptures, we are told very clearly . . . that debate is dangerous. 2 Timothy 2:14, “words without profit but to subverting of the hearers or (NKJ) ruin of hearers.” We both know that nothing will be settled by such a debate and the world will have one more reason to believe Christians are the crazy ones who cannot get along even with one another. . .

I believe what you are proposing is destined to cause only more confusion among believers. Read 2 Timothy 2:23.

I would urge you to cancel the debate to avoid more confusion in the world about the function of the church.

Yes, debate is “dangerous,” especially to Baptist doctrine. In the context of 2 Timothy 2:14, Paul refuted the doctrine of Hymanaeus and Philetus (2:14-18), showed that Scripture is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (3:16,17 – the very nature, purpose and function of debate), and told Timothy to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:24). Does that sound like a condemnation of open, honorable Bible study?

Indeed, Paul condemned, as do we, contentious, wrangling, strifes and quarrels, but he did not condemn orderly sessions wherein disputants are given equal amounts of time to declare their views before a respectful audience. Paul engaged in debate (Acts 9:29; 17:2,3,17-32; 18:4; 19:8,9; 28:23). Several of his debates ended in madness and mayhem (Acts 9:29; 13:44-46; 17:2-10; 19:8,9,23-29), but he was still “bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention” (1 Thess. 2:2). Editors, papers and Baptist preachers who avoid controversy and debate are unlike the apostles and prophets. Jesus and Stephen debated and their audiences killed them (Acts 7:51-60). Ungodly audience reaction is not a detraction against Bible teaching and debate. Did Paul cause the world to believe Christians “are the crazy ones” (Acts 17:4-10)?

“But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes” (2 Tim. 2:23). Is salvation by grace through faith a “foolish and unlearned question”? If so, pitch out the Romans and Galatians letters. If not, then the passage does not apply.

It is precisely because of “confusion among believers” that debates must be held. There would not be so much “confusion,” though, if Baptist preachers would not tell people that you do not have to do what the Lord said do in Mark 1

6:16 and Acts 2:38. When Jesus says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” and Baptist preachers say, “He that believeth is saved and shall be baptized,” there is confusion. Debates help clarify that confusion.

Certainly, the “world” is confused “about the function of the church.” The world is also “confused about the function of the Christ. ” Should we, then, cease “to teach and preach Jesus Christ,” lest we add to their “confusion” about him? But the world would not be so confused “about the function of the church” if Baptists would cease parading their churches before the world with their human names, titles, organizations, doctrines and practices which are foreign to the New Testament.

Campbell and Patterson are to debate the general church question in the near future. This debate will help clarify whatever confusion that may exist.

Something was “settled by” the debate. As mentioned earlier, a Baptist was “baptized into Christ.” Confusion abounds where controversy is squelched and stifled. Preachers or papers who refuse discussion end up being a shelter to error and a haven to heretics. This may occur with the noblest of intentions, but it is the result of refusing rebuke and reproof nonetheless. Those that will not engage in controversy cannot refute error effectively. Whether they mean to or not, they become a harbor for every teacher of error who needs cover from the fire of the gospel. Efforts to avoid discussion end up as critics of teachers of truth and as apologetic sympathizers for the preachers of error. This happens when men enter the war zone with a shield but without a sword.

The second letter brother Campbell received appears below.

After reading your letter and seeing your flyer the only conclusion I can come to is that you and Mr. Patterson will make a mockery of the Christian life and bring reproach to the body of Christ. No where in the Scripture are we commanded to debate baptism! Also, seeing the position you take on baptism, I can see that you know nothing of the Greek language, in which the Bible was written or else you would understand what Acts 2:38 is saying. Baptism is the evidence of salvation. It does not bring salvation. If it could, then all the people before Christ would be saved, for we know that they were baptizing before the Lord died on the cross. Here’s a question you need to ask yourself, “If water could bring salvation, then why did Jesus have to die and shed his blood?” (Heb. 9:22-28) However, from the statements you made in your letter, I don’t think you will believe the Word. You seem to me to be a self-proclaimed, know-it-all-theologian who has all the answers. May God help you! The sad thing in all of this is that the majority of the people in our area are dying and going to hell, and you are more interested in debating than getting the Gospel out. It’s my prayer that you will forget this silliness and do what will honor and glorify the Lord Jesus. “Preach the Gospel! “

If this Baptist preacher had attended the debate, he would have seen how well brother Campbell knew “the Greek language,” especially that of Acts 2:38. But any man who reads Acts 2:38 and says “Baptism is the evidence of salvation,” needs more help in the English language than anything else. Jesus shed his blood “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Wonder if that means his blood is “the evidence of salvation”?

“No where in the Scripture are we commanded to debate baptism.” How about Jude 3; Philippians 1:17; 2 Timothy 3:16; 4:4? Would this Baptist preacher refuse to discuss faith, grace or salvation by the blood of Christ with a Jew because

“we are not commanded to debate” those topics? Note a parallel and paraphrase of the letter above:

No where in the Scriptures are we commanded to debate repentance! Also, seeing you know nothing of the Greek language . . . or else you would understand what Act 2:38 is saying. Repentance is the evidence of salvation. It does not bring salvation. If it could, then all the people before Christ would be saved, for we know that they were repenting before the Lord died on the cross. Here’s a question you need to ask yourself, “If repentance could bring salvation, then why did Jesus have to shed his blood?” It is not blood and repentance, it’s just blood (Heb. 9:22-28) . . . The sad thing in all of this is that the majority of the people in our area are dying and going to hell, and you are more interested in writing against debating than in getting the gospel out . . . . .. Preach the Gospel!”

The letters above are characteristic of those who argue that it is wrong to argue. I wonder if it is wrong to argue that it is wrong to argue? Further, note the “loving” words and phrases in the latter letter – “make a mockery . . . bring reproach . . . you know nothing . . . I don’t think you will believe the Word. You seem to be a self-proclaimed, know-it-all-theologian who has all the answers . . . you are more interested in debating than getting the Gospel out . . . forget this silliness. . .”

Whew! All of these “sweet, loving” words in one paragraph from a man who likely deplores “unloving, judgmental” preaching and debating! Those who rail against sharp rebuke (Tit, 1:13), often do so quite sharply. It is typical of those spiritual sweeties who disdain “negative” preaching as an affront and as an insult to their urbane, dignified, sophisticated, above-the-battle posture. They spit accusations and use harsh words against those who use harsh words. From ambush that will not allow a reply, they smile and let you know that they are above such things I Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he condemneth.

Conclusion

Brother Campbell wishes to thank all of those who helped him prepare for the debate. We anxiously await the next Campbell – Patterson debate on the general church question. Both men will affirm: The Scriptures teach that the church of which I am a member is scriptural in origin, name and doctrine. Let us pray for our young brother Campbell as he continues to contend for the faith.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 20, pp. 616-618
October 18, 1990

By Max E. Tice

Since the late 60’s, the Crossroads heresy which was hatched by Chuck Lucas in Gainesville, Florida has aroused concerns, protests, and intense controversy among brethren of the “institutional” persuasion. While some who investigate the movement concluded that all the clamor was a false alarm, others found serious violations of the Scriptures. Objections to the system included: legislating precise conduct for Christians in matters where the Bible is silent, developing a prayer-partner system in which junior prayer-partners are placed in subjection to senior prayer partners, the inflicting of guilt for any infraction of Crossroads’ rules, the whipping of members with information received from confessionals, etc. In spite of any good intentions that some may have had in promoting this discipling plan, it had clearly altered God’s organization of the local church and bound traditions of men as commandments of God. In fact, some of the tactics were similar to those found in popular cults, such as Hare Krishna and the Moonies.

All of this brings us to recent developments in the Crossroads controversy. A few weeks ago at one of the workshops held by our institutional brethren, the elders of the Crossroads church issued a public statement renouncing their past conduct and asking for forgiveness. A transcript of this repentance is duplicated below:

Transcript of statement made by Crossroads church of Christ elders:

Our hearts are really full. The elders of the Concord Street Church have been so gracious and so helpful. Brother Bill and I really appreciate that and want to thank them, and from the bottom of our heart.

Most people who know me understand that I don’t do many things without referring to God’s word. So that’s where I want to begin.

God’s word teaches that we are to have a sincere love for our brothers, that we are to love one another deeply, with all our hearts (1 Pet. 1:22). This love is not only to individuals, but also must extend to the brotherhood of believers (1 Pet. 2:17). If we do not love our brothers, we cannot love God. The elders of the Crossroads congregation have a statement on their hearts which we want to share with everyone in this conference.

The elders of the Concord Street congregation support our making this statement. We all hope that this will bring about the love, and restore the fellowship and the unity for which Christ prayed in John 17.

Over the years many things have been attributed to the Crossroads congregation as a body, which grew out of the abuse by some Christians which caused others to hurt. And though we did not approve of these abuses, we are sorry they occurred and ask your forgiveness for these sins. Some examples of these abuses involved one Christian trying to control another Christian, or one congregation exercising control over another congregation. We do not believe that any Christian has the right to control another Christian (Eph. 5:21). We do not believe that . . . excuse me, we do believe that every Christian should practice all the one-another relationships passages in the Scriptures. We do not believe that any congregation has the right to control another congregation. We do believe that the elders of each congregation are to direct the affairs of their congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; and 1 Pet. 5:2). We hope these examples will illustrate our hearts and our desire to repent of every abuse. We are sorry for them and pray for your forgiveness. This is signed by my bishop, brother Hogle, and myself. God bless you. Richard Whitehead, Elder Bill Hogle, Elder

Naturally, we receive this news with mixed emotions. How far back these brethren intend to step is not specified. We do know that other brethren in institutional churches are calling for a restoration of fellowship with these brethren. This certainly implies that Crossroads is not renouncing sponsoring church arrangements, church-supported recreation, etc. Therefore, it will not be coming back as far as it needs to come. At the same time, it is always somewhat encouraging to hear of any retreat from error. What effort this reversal will have upon “daughter churches” of the movement remains to be seen. Stay tuned.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 20, p. 620
October 18, 1990

By Harry Pickup, Jr.

It is not easy for me to write about Dad – for a number of reasons. Some of them are too personal to mention. A main reason is that a public writing extolling his virtues is something that he honestly would not have preferred. Such would be out of character of the man. Therefore, what I hope to do is to concentrate on a few things about him that are interesting and, hopefully, encouraging to others.

He passed away June 4, 1990. If he had lived until August 9, 1990 he would have been 90 years old. He began life in Brooklyn, New York, a fact that was always amusing to him since he considered himself essentially a “good southern boy.” He spent most of his life in cities; but, contrastingly, some of his fondest memories were of preaching in remote, rural areas during depression days in middle Tennessee and in the villages of North Carolina in World War II days.

While not a retiring personality Dad was never the “first,” “chief” or “president” of anything. He was a partner to all who were engaged in doing right. When volunteers were needed from the rank and file one could always “count him in.” He was a helper to all brethren who were seeking to please God. His aim was to glorify God; his ambition was to help the people. He was a “partner” to all truth preaching preachers. He was a “helper” of L.R. Wilson, James R. Cope and Bob Owen, all presidents of Florida College, in their work of establishing and maintaining the College.

Dad was a “common” man among many “common” people. The word “common” here is used in the New Testament sense of the word. Remember: it was the “common people who heard Jesus gladly.” Dad preached to the “common” people – and they both enjoyed and benefitted from his preaching. He viewed himself as “made like unto his brethren in all things.” And, he was viewed by the people in this manner. He experienced life in the manner of the “common” man. Folks from all walks of life felt comfortable with him. In his early adulthood he supported himself and his family by working with his hands; his latter working days were spent in the same manner. He could preach with his brain but he could also build with his hands. He preached and lived the “common faith.” He understood the needs of ordinary people because he lived as they did sharing in the anxieties and difficulties, as well as the joys from life’s common ventures. He never viewed himself as unique or different in the secular sense and the “common” people respected and loved him greatly. Perhaps the moral in this point is that it is good to be as fine an “average man” as one can be.

Dad was experience oriented – things happened to him. He generated reaction. Dogs and other animals couldn’t leave him alone. Children turned to him. Ordinary folks responded to him. Successful people took note of him. He made things happen by his natural interest in people and their affairs.

Life was interesting to him. He was never bored; he was never boring. His early preaching days at the Tennessee State Penitentiary furnished him with many entertaining and instructive stories. He helped quell public unrests in LaGrange, Georgia in the early ’30s due to the cotton mill strike. The entire church was composed of Calloway Mill workers. The church building had been purchased inexpensively from the Mill; his family lived in a house furnished by the Mill. Of the three elders, two were supervisors and remained loyal to the company; the other was the president of the union, the man who called the strike. The “Park Avenue church of Christ had its greatest growth,” he said, during those trying days and was the only religious group in the Mill section not suffering extreme adverse effects from the strike. He liked to tell the story of the Ministerial Alliance inviting him to address them to explain why the church of Christ was not divided as were the denominations. His explanation was to preach a sermon from Ephesians 4 and thoroughly explain “the unity of the Spirit.” When he moved from the town, the community was almost as sorry to see him go as the church.

While preaching in Gainesville, Florida he held many meetings in Alachua, Levy and Gilchrist counties. The meetings were mostly with brethren who were few in number and limited in strength. He preached the longest meeting of which I know in modern times. The tent meeting lasted one day short of seven weeks. He baptized more than 50 people. The meeting ended because the Gainesville church could no longer spare him.

The University church in Gainesville, Florida was thrilled that their preacher was invited by the University of Florida to give the baccalaureate sermon to the prestigious University of Florida Development Junior High School. He amused the academic audience by stories which poked harmless fun at superficial culture and stuffy formality. This embarrassed the brethren but the “common folks” enjoyed it. Most importantly, he got everyone’s attention by preaching plainly and distinctly the saving gospel, including a critique of denominationalism.

I never heard a more pointed preacher than Dad – including the few times he had opportunity to preach to his own mother. Strangely to many, few folks were offended by him; everyone understood that they had heard what the preacher believed was the truth of Almighty God in clear and understandable language. He was impartial in wielding the “sword of the Spirit” against what he thought was untrue, unrighteous or unwise. I felt his impartial handling of the truth when in Phoenix, Arizona he publicly rebuked me for playing the card game, Canasta. What made it worse to me was that he was so convincing in his interpretation that he convinced my card partners who also became my critics! That was my Dad.

He was among a group of preachers who arranged to present a Bible to President Harry S. Truman when he lived in Arlington, Virginia. The children of a famous Georgia black preacher grew up calling him “the milk man” because each Monday, after he deposited his check and had seen to his own family’s needs, he brought that family their weekly milk supply. He purchased a lot and a house on a handshake; neither person ever had a reason to regret the sale. He could discuss finances with a banker friend, medicine with a physician friend or the need to be saved from sins with a hitchhiker, many of whom he gave rides.

Throughout his life he had one overriding “aim”; “we make it our aim . . . to be well pleasing unto Him.” There are three shades of meaning to the Greek word translated by “aim”: (1) Goal, (2) Ambition, (3) Point of honor. His eyes were set straight for the target of obeying God’s will. For him personal success was measured according to whether or not he fulfilled God’s purpose and helped the people. It was a point of honor with him to carry out his duty toward God.

It gave him great pleasure to know that he served God as a partner among such “common people” as Paul, Peter, John, Dorcas, Hardeman, Wallace, Hailey, Puckett, Evans, Cravens and a host of Christians with whom most of the church are not familiar.

I have not intended to give a personal evaluation of the character of the man whom I called “Father” but in closing I would like to suggest this: like Abraham he was totally unconcerned about the carnal world and thoroughly concerned with seeking “the heavenly city whose builder and maker is God.” The honor of being a Christian was the only honor he cared about. The riches of the grace of Christ Jesus was the only wealth he sought – the only acclaim he ever sought was the approval of God, the trust of his brethren, and the good will of his fellow man. He was absolutely void of personal pride and human ambition; he was completely indifferent to human achievement. He was the friend of God, a son of Abraham, the child of the king, completely happy to wear the clothes of a servant.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 20, pp. 626-627
October 18, 1990