Truth Magazine

By Ronny Milliner

The week of August 14-18 was a busy one, but it was spiritually encouraging. Brother John Welch of Indianapolis met Mr. Jack Langford of Fort Worth, Texas in a religious debate in the Richmond-Petersburg, Virginia area. At 10:00 in the morning these two men discussed whether Peter and Paul preached the same gospel. At 6:00 in the evening the question concerning the impossibility of apostasy was considered. This portion was broadcast live over a radio station in Indianapolis by way of a phone line. Finally at 7:30 p.m. the debate focused on baptism. Brother Welch defended the truth on water baptism against Mr. Langford’s view that we are saved by a spiritual baptism.

It will not be our purpose in this article to review the arguments of the speakers. We will leave that to one more qualified. Instead we would like to point out some side observations we noticed during the week of the debate.

The Aim of the Debate

Why have such a discussion? One reason was to defend the truth. Such a duty has been imposed upon all Christians. We have been exhorted “to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). We should be like Paul and be “appointed for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1: 17). Stephen debated with those of the Synagogue of the Freedmen “and they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke” (Acts 6:9-10).

A related reason to debate is to rebuke error. Some say, “Yes, preach the gospel, but don’t condemn others.” But the Bible is clear regarding our responsibility to rebuke error. For example, Ephesians 5:11 says, “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.” It is not enough to not be a part of denominational error, we must also expose it for what it is. Those who teach false doctrine need to be noted and avoided (Rom. 16:17-18).

Of course the ultimate end of all of these efforts is to save a lost soul. There is nothing more precious than a soul (Matt. 16:26). As we look about and see many caught up in religious error, let us be busy “pulling them out of the fire” (Jude 23).

The Atmosphere at the Debate

The followers of Mr. Langford hosted the first two nights of the debate in the West End Community Center in Richmond. I have attended several debates, but I don’t recall such fine hospitality being extended as was done by these individuals. One member invited us all over to his house for lunch after one of the morning sessions. On Tuesday night after the debate was over they provided donuts with coffee or milk for all who wanted some. These folks certainly did not “forget to entertain strangers” (Heb. 13:2), and their example certainly is noteworthy.

Not only was there an atmosphere of hospitality, there was also an air of zeal among Mr. Langford’s followers. After each session we would be swamped with them coming up to us to discuss the subjects further. We would usually spend one to two hours a night talking about the Bible with these well-studied people. Unfortunately this zeal was like that had by the Jews. Paul spoke of their “zeal for God, but not according to knowledge” in Romans 10:2.

The Attendance at the Debate

Another expression of their zeal was in their attendance at each session of the debate. Many of these individuals had taken off from work to be at the debate. Most of the debates which I have attended saw a gradual decline among those present as the week went on. But this decline was not true of the Langford-Welch Debate. The attendance was consistent during the whole discussion.

Of course we were pleased also to have several brethren visiting with us who had come from some distance. The Bill Whitaker family and the Duane Washburn family had come from Indianapolis to attend the debate. Brother and sister Robert Welch, brother and sister Harry Lewis, Rick Hubbard, and the Wayne Greeson family all had come to assist John in the debate. We also had brother and sister James Walker of Louisville, Kentucky to join us for the last two nights of the debate. The sacrifice of time and expense on the part of these Christians is certainly commendable. But such is how it should be among those who “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33).

The Adversary at the Debate

While we could see many good traits in Mr. Langford’s followers, they were still under the influence of a false teacher. To watch Mr. Langford during the debate was to be reminded of the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:15. He warned, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.” While Mr. Langford promised liberty, he was really bringing people into bondage (2 Pet. 2:19).

The great tragedy of the week was to see the blind being led by the blind and realizing “both will fall into a ditch” (Matt. 15:14). In discussing the Bible with some it became apparent that “they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thess. 2:10-12).

The Association During the Debate

One good thing which came as a result of the debate was the encouragement of being in the company of God’s people. Opportunities abounded for us to just sit around and talk about the Bible with good Christians.

The Bible encourages as to this end. “Therefore comfort each other and edify one another, just as you also are doing” (1 Thess. 5:11). “Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another” (Rom. 14:19). This type of association is what is truly meant by the word fellowship.

The Apathy During the Debate

While there were many good things about this debate, the apathy manifested by most of the Christians of central Virginia was shameful. There were more out-of-town visitors at this discussion than there were visitors from local congregations in the area. Of 8 congregations within an hour’s drive of the debate only about 5 percent of the members in these congregations attended the debate. Elders and preachers did not attend the debate like they should have. Brother Harry Lewis commented that there should have been a Christian there for every one of Mr. Langford’s people present.

Yet this type of apathy is not just characteristic of central Virginia. Many other debates and gospel meetings throughout the country are not attended and supported by Christians like they should be. Such indifference can be discouraging to a preacher who is trying to defend the truth. Can you imagine how Paul felt in his defense before Nero? He said in 2 Timothy 4:16, “At my first defense no one stood with me, but all forsook me. May it not be charged against them.”

Paul exhorted in Galatians 4:18, “But it is good to be zealous in a good thing always, and not only when I am present with you.” Christ died for us that we might be a “people zealous for good works” (Tit. 2:13-14). Christians should “be ready for every good work” (Tit. 3:1).

The Aftermath of the Debate

Not only did we have many of Mr. Langford’s followers attend the debate, we also had individuals present from the Pentecostal Church, the Christian Church, and the liberal church. Thus we have several contacts to be following up on in the coming weeks. Who knows what opportunities for further study might come from this discussion. We must do our very best to sow the seed and water it. Surely God will give the increase (1 Cor. 3:6). “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58).

Let us thank God for the good that has been done, and continue to seek his blessings in our future efforts for his glorification.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 20, pp. 626-627
October 19, 1989

By Fred A. Shewmaker

In the solar system of which the earth upon which we live is a part, there are 9 known planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. Are there other planets in the cosmos?

In his book: Gemink A Personal Account of Man’s Venture Into Space, Virgil “Gus” Grissom wrote, “There is a clarity, a brilliance to space that simply doesn’t exist on earth, even on a cloudless summer’s day in the Rockies, and from nowhere else can you realize so fully the majesty of our earth and be so awed at the thought that it’s only one of untold thousands of planets” (p. 108). Grissom was not alone in his belief that there are planets scattered all through the cosmos. This concept is taught, as fact, in many high school science courses and in most institutions of higher education.

In volume 18 of our 1979 World Book Encyclopedia along with the article: “Solar System” by A.G.W. Cameron, professor of Astronomy at the Howard College Observatory of Harvard University, there is an illustration to depict the shape of “The Milky Way.” The caption under that illustration reads, “Many stars have their own solar systems.” The truth is that neither professor Cameron nor any other astronomer in 1979 could point to a single planet outside our own solar system. If the caption was: Many scientists believe there are many other solar systems in the cosmos, it would have been true. As it stands, it merely passes off an opinion as being a solid fact.

The reason I know astronomers could not point to a planet outside of our solar system in 1979 is the fact that only recently have astronomers found an object outside our solar system which may be a planet. An Associated Press release carried in the Dover-New Philadelphia, Ohio Times Reporter (Nov. 11, 1987) reports: “Astronomers say they have found the most direct evidence yet of a planet-like object that orbits a star other than the sun.” It is described as: “a gaseous object, twice as hot as Venus and bigger than Jupiter.” It “is believed to orbit the white dwarf star Giclas 29-38, considered a nearby star at 270 trillion miles from earth, said Ben Zuckerman of the University of California, Los Angeles.” The release also suggested the object “could be the first discovery of a brown dwarf, a hypothesized body that is midway between a planet and a star.” This is, of course, if such things as “brown dwarfs” exist.

Knowing how many planets there are, really is not important, but for our children to know that college and university professors not always are careful to “tell it like it is” is important. Faith in God should not be discarded for the unfounded speculations of atheists, who have acquired a professorship in some educational institution, rejected God and made a god of science. According to Romans 1:18ff, they are not the first to reject God and make for themselves a god who is no God.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, p. 598
October 5, 1989

By H.E. Phillips

Various attitudes characterize the preaching of the gospel of Christ. These various attitudes within the pale of the church of our Lord attest to our many failures in carrying out that great commission of Christ. Many of this age “have a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof,” as was in the apostolic days, from such we should turn away (2 Tim. 3:5). Our attitude toward obedience is just as important as the obedience itself. We should be cautious that our motive in obedience be pure, for the secrets of men will be made manifest in the last day.

In suggesting some of the various attitudes that disrupt the preaching of the gospel, permit me to read a verse or two from the Philippian letter. “Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: the one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: but the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:15-17).

Now for some of the attitudes of the church toward preaching the gospel of Christ.

1. Some suppose the gospel to be a philosophical system of teaching to support any religious organization. In this anything that cannot be explained by man’s reason is not considered a part of the gospel. But Paul assures us that the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God (1 Cor. 1:25-27). Certainly, the world’s greatest philosophers were Christ and his apostles, but the gospel of Christ contains much more than just philosophy by which men glory.

The weakness of this attitude is shown in many congregations who insist that “their minister” be a great philosopher. They seem to think that makes a great gospel preacher, but it doesn’t.

2. The attitude that the gospel doesn’t criticize anyone, but only deals with the “love of God. ” These people cry aloud: “Don’t say anything to hurt the feelings of my neighbors and friends.” Brethren, it is virtually impossible for a sound gospel preacher to stay long with a congregation with this attitude. Christ nor his apostles could have preached to them. Stephen would have suffered the same fate with them as he did at the hands of those wicked Jews. We will have something to say about the preachers who soothe such people later in this study. Paul told of such attitudes in his letters to Timothy. “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:3,4). The sad part is there are too many preachers and elders who will gratify this desire. This attitude is destructive both to the church and the community.

3. To the opposite extreme is that group whose attitude toward the gospel is that one must be feuding with his brethren to be sound and faithful. To those of this group the gospel is a very harsh and abusive system of teaching. These churches do not want a preacher unless he is able to “cuss and fight” in a scriptural (?) way. I have yet to find an example in the Bible where any gospel preacher so abused his charge as to wrangle his brethren in the church continually by abusive language. When Christ was reviled, he reviled not again. The gospel does not necessitate abusive and unkind language.

Do not get the wrong impression in this, the gospel is not a soft compromising system. There is much “fight” in the gospel, and to preach it requires a fight to the end. But this fight is not of a personal nature, but between the powers of darkness and the King of glory. Christ died and gave the gospel because he loved men even though they were in sin. A Christ-like spirit in preaching the gospel is to do so in love for the souls of men, but with not the least idea of compromising with error. The proper attitude of the church should be to preach the gospel in kindness and love, but in a firm, steadfast and uncompromising manner. Denounce sin without partiality or favor, but do not become so arrogant and selfrighteousness as to forget the spirit of Christ.

4. Another attitude is that the gospel is only for the popular and important in a community. So many churches today strive to convert the rich and elite to the neglect of the poor and humble of the community. Surely we should strive to convert all men who will listen to the good news of Christ, but the attitude that some are more important than others in the sight of God is a grave mistake. God, is no respecter of persons, neither should we be. The gospel is of universal application, and the attitude that is limited to a few is wrong. Let us put away this disposition from among us.

5. Some people look at the gospel as a scheme to make money. This attitude has grown out of the emphasis placed upon money in denominational institutions. Many Christians are so much like Israel of old. They want to be like the nations around them. There is a continual effort to copy the attitudes of various denominations.

But I do not believe this is the only or most outstanding reason for this attitude. There are so many tightfisted, selfish and covetous members of the church that there is needed much preaching on this subject. A faithful gospel preacher will preach on that which is lacking in a congregation more than on that part which is well established, as Nehemiah of old did in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem (Neh. 1-6). These money-loving church members hate to hear the truth preached regarding giving to the Lord so much that they have cultivated the attitude mentioned here.

Friends, the gospel of Christ is not a money raising scheme, but the power of God unto salvation. However, the gospel demands every Christian to give of his prosperity willingly and regularly, and no one can worship God pleasingly without obeying this requirement.

5. Another attitude – the gopel is negative only. “Thou shalt not” do this or that. Many feel that if they don’t steal, murder, lie, commit adultery, etc., they are all right. Brethren, the gospel is as much positive as it is negative. Jesus said: “Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). This is enough to include all that the Father has commanded us to do and also refrain from that which is evil. It is not enough not to do this or that. We must do positively what the Father commands of us.

Many churches have rocked themselves to sleep spiritually by assuring one another that “we do not do this or that. ” As Christ sent word to the church in Sardis: “I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead” (Rev. 3:1), so we might have a name of being alive, but be dead. Let us awake and begin to do the will of the Father. No one will be saved by what he did not do only. This is a very dangerous attitude and should be denounced strongly.

6. Some think the gospel changes with the ages, that is, we today are not obligated to obey as in the early days of the church. Few will admit this, but evidence is too strong to deny it even in the church of the Lord. A few things will illustrate the truth of this statement.

a. The all-sufficiency of the church to do the Lord’s work. In apostolic days the church was the Lord’s only organization to do his work. Now many must have various organizations both within and without the church to do the work of the Lord. The only remedy for this is to forsake every organization that attempts to facilitate the work of the Lord and return to the ancient order, not to continue to blindfold ourselves and make excuses that we are living in a different age. The gospel is a system of teaching to deliver from sin. It is heaven born and cannot be improved upon. Sin is the same, so the gospel must, be the same.

b. The tendency to overlook sin and worldliness in the church. In the days of the apostles the church was taught to put away all who persist to live in sin. Today the church tries to overlook certain sins and even condone it in the eldership and among preachers. If this isn’t an example of the attitude that the gospel must be changed with the change of times, what is it?

7. Many within the precinct of the church have the attitude that the gospel is not complete. Certain things must accompany it to be effective. To this class the gospel does not have the power to attract and convert sinners. All sorts of entertainment conceivable have been added to make the gospel attractive to young people. When they come into the church what have they been converted to, Christ or entertainment? If you want to know, take away the entertainment and see how long they remain. The gospel of Christ doesn’t need one thing to assist it in converting souls to Christ. Just faithfully proclaim it and the results will be conversion to Christ.

8. Another attitude is that much of the gospel is unnecessary. Many congregations over the country are satisfied with first principles of the gospel, and grow weary when the meat is presented. The disposition of many today is “believe, repent, confess and be baptized for the remission of sins and sit down and wait for the Lord to come.” Paul plainly taught us that there is more to the gospel of Christ in its comprehensive sense than first principles. “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat” (Heb. 5:12). Also read verses 13,14. Obedience to the first principles is the beginning, not the finish of Christian service. The gospel is complete to serve the purpose of God. It is not lacking in a single point. Let us contend faithfully for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 19, pp. 589-590
October 5, 1989

By Robert F. Turner

Many churches that claim to believe in congregational independence, plan “their work” (?) on the basis of funding from a number of contributing churches. As sponsoring churches they plan to exercise oversight of some project on behalf of contributing churches (who also claim to be independent). We believe the principles of congregational independence are being violated by both the sponsoring and the sending churches. An “independent” church is “not dependent” on oversight or contributions from outside sources to carry out its divinely assigned functions. It “has a competency” as the dictionary says. But to understand “independence” (meaning “not dependent”) we must know the means of determining when a church is “dependent,” and to this we turn our attention.

If some family should claim to be “in want” and ask assistance, how would you determine the validity of this claim? If they had adequate housing, food, clothing, necessary medical attention, etc., would you say they were dependent? To illustrate let us use a simple dollar basis (not necessarily geared to the present economy). If the basic needs for the family were $50 per day, and the family had an income of $150 per day, would they be “in want”? Of course not. On the other hand, if the family income was only $25 per day, they would clearly be “dependent” on outside assistance to maintain themselves. Note, a condition fo “want” (do not confuse with the verb “desire”) is determined in relation to needs for the essentials of life and maintenance, the means of sustenance. And what is true regarding a family, is true in principle regarding a church.

In 2 Corinthians 8:13-14 Paul says, “For I say not this that others may be eased and ye distressed; but by equality your abundance being a supply at this present time for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want; (should these conditions be reversed at some future time, rft) that there may be equality.” The two terms “want” and “abundance” are obvious extremes. The “equality” that is between these terms is freedom from want, or sufficiency, adequacy, or the like. Paul evidently had in mind the condition of want that existed in Jerusalem, the “poor saints” of Romans 15:26; and he had urged the collection of “alms” (Acts 24:17) by which this “want” could be relieved. To put this in terms of our dollar illustration, a church that needed $500 for self maintenance, but had only $300, would be an object of charity or alms. If the church had $500 it would have a sufficiency and would not be in want. If it had $700 it would have an abundance. It is just that simple.

Of course the next step is to determine the basic needs of a local church. It must have a sufficiency for what? The answer requires a clear distinction in self maintenance (that which is essential to its existence), and those things it does to meet its world obligations. Under “self maintenance” would be its worship, self edification, and the physical needs of its own members; and under “world obligations,” its duty to preach the word to every creature, and assist needy saints and churches elsewhere. This separation of functions is necessary because only self maintenance needs can be used to determine if a church has a “sufficiency” to function. No church can meet all world needs: do the total world teaching job or relieve all needy churches and saints. In this field no local church can be adequate, all would be sadly lacking. World obligations can only be met to the extent of the ability of an independent church. This is an extremely important point.

There is divine approval for churches sending to another church to relieve its condition of want. We can see from Acts 2:44-45, 4:34-37, and 6:1-4 that the early church in Jerusalem had difficulty in caring for its own needy saints. This initial condition may have resulted from conversion of many who had come for the Jewish Passover and Pentecost (2:5-11). A famine added to their need (Acts 11:27-30) and brethren in Antioch sent relief in care of the elders of Judea, including Jerusalem (12:25). The condition continued (Rom. 15:25-27) and Paul urged churches to supply this need (1 Cor. 16:1-3), ministering to the saints (2 Cor. 8:9). Alms were sent, to a church or churches, who were dependent unable to meet their own needs for self maintenance. We must not confuse alms with ante. Evidence does not warrant the assumption that these churches pooled their funds in an independent church, under sponsoring elders, for some “brotherhood” (churchhood) project.

Saints pool their funds in a local church treasury. To play a bit on words, they “ante up,” each putting his part into a common fund. In so doing they give up independent use of the funds contributed and that money is now one means by which the collectivity functions. Legally, I believe it belongs to the purpose for which it was given, and church overseers hold it in trust. When money is given for divinely authorized work it must be used as nearly as possible (cy pres) in conformity with that intent. It is administered by the team’s overseers for the team’s work. God has authorized team activity on the part of saints (Phil. 4:15; 2 Cor. 11:8; 1 Tim. 5:16; etc.), but this is the extent of church organization. There is no divine authority for churches to pool their funds, and no authority for overseers of such a conglomeration.

Alms giving is the work of the giver, done under the giver’s oversight. In alms giving the end or purpose is achieved in relief of the dependent recipient. But in the pooling of funds (ante) the givers form a means of acting collectively toward an end or purpose yet to be achieved. When contributing churches put this means at the disposal of a “sponsoring church,” they give up their independent use of those funds, and entrust the “sponsoring elders” with the oversight of achieving some future purpose. Clearly alms and ante are distinctly different, and Scriptures that warrant churches giving alms to a dependent church can not justify churches “anteing up” (pooling) funds in the treasury of an independent church.

When churches become units in something larger that one church, they approach the organizational essence of denominationalism. One definition of “denomination” given in Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary is: “. . . 3; a religious organization uniting in a single legal and administrative body a number of congregations.” Methodists have their “Conference,” Lutherans their “Synod,” Baptists, their “Association. ” While all differ, they have one thing in common: they provide the means for collective action of churches. Funds from many churches are pooled under some form of executive board, and used on behalf of the “team” of churches. We know that few institutional brethren acknowledge a denominational status, but the problem is more than “what this may lead to. ” Brotherhood (churchhood) benevolent, evangelistic and edifying projects violate the principle of congregational sufficiency, and embrace the essence of denominational organization. Brethren, it is later than you think.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 20, pp. 613-614
October 19, 1989