Truth Magazine

By Bill Dodd

The young man Elihu rightly asserts that great men (men of renown) and aged men are not always wise (Job 32:9). That charge was so in that ancient time, and that charge is still true today.

Some Applications

First, great men of the world, for the most part, are not wise when it comes to reckoning with spiritual things. Paul describes the great man: “For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many mighty, not many noble are called” (1 Cor. 1:26). Paul’s charge to the Corinthians is that they will not stake their immortal souls based upon “who’s who” in the church. Brethren sorely need to learn this lesson when the dark clouds of division loom and threaten to wreak havoc among God’s people. “Great” men often take the side of error. Speaking of being misled by great men, this writer received some invaluable counsel from brother C.C. Nichols back in 1966. Brother Nichols was the only preacher that took a stand for truth on -the institutional question in our home county of Fayette, Alabama. He told me that he would get this kind of reaction from sermons preached on the local radio station, “Carey, do you actually think that your brother Gus could be wrong?” His stated reply was, “Certainly he can.” He also said, “It is not the cornfield preachers who lead God’s people astray.” He considered himself a cornfield preacher and his brother Gus a “big-timer.” Truly, “Great men are not always wise.”

Secondly, great men are not always wise when it comes to adjudicating the affairs of divided congregations. Suppose, for instance, a congregation is beset with a veritable Diotrephes. There is no way that an outsider can in a short time plumb the depth of this odious problem. Preachers holding meetings need to give heed lest they lend support to an ungodly situation. Preachers and all outsiders need to encourage truth and right attitude and practice what they preach about congregational autonomy (Phil. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:2).

Thirdly, preachers need to steer clear of giving the notion of “expertise” in all affairs of life. Preachers should stick out a “shingle” that advertises to uphold all things “that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). On a lighter note, let me tell you something about the beloved and venerable Homer Hailey during my student days. My room-mate asked me to help him look for a used car. He found a 1955 Pontiac. Sammy said, “Let’s take it to brother Hailey to see what he thinks about the matter.” I don’t recall brother Hailey claiming to know a great deal about mechanical things, but he did tell Sammy that he guessed thecar would be alright. The car turned out to be a twenty-fpur carat lemon. It has occurred to me that brother Hailey knew the prophets, but he did not know a thing about Pontiacs.

Conclusion

Let all greatness be measured based upon compliance with the message of the “great I am” (Exod. 3:14).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 9, p. 263, 265
May 4, 1989

By Jimmy Tuten

As we view the unusual things that are taking place in the Lord’s church, we are apt to conclude that they are new features. The fact is that the various phenomena have been around a long, long time. The numerous denominational trends that are popping up among God’s people can be traced back to the early apostasies of the first century church. The expressions of those trends can be found in the period known as the Reformation. What is taking place in the church today is simply history repeating itself. We simply have not learned its lessons. We have not listened to what history was telling us.

But there is more. National trends have made inroads within the brotherhood. One of them is the social emphasis which has weakened our appeal to Scripture for faith and practice. More and more brethren are heaping unto themselves “teachers, having itching ears” (2 Tim. 4:3) and like a raging flood many “turn away their ears from the truth.” The desire to please the listening car is taking the distinctiveness out of our preaching. In its place.is the “don’t tell them who you are, you might scare them” philosophy. The result is a new language whose vocabulary is void of book, chapter, and verse. The blind lead the blind (Matt. 15:14).

The “eliminate the negative” approach to preaching “the man and not the plan” has already resulted in what some call the “church preacher” vs. the “Christ preacher.” In 1970, Go Magazine reported that one of the fifteen things changing emphasis was “church emphasis to Christ emphasis” (“Campus Evangelism”). No wonder, as one brother put it: “There is a denominational aura hovering like a lowering cloud over many of our congregations clamoring for appeasement rather than atonement, for self-satisfaction rather than for self-sacrifice” and where the order of the day “is to be served rather than be used in service to others.” The nothing is to focus upon the sin in one’s life has given way to feel good about yourself. Its no wonder that so few today know so little about the necessity of the church in the salvation of man. We are witnessing the fruit of “our preachers” departing from biblically oriented, unadulterated doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 9). It’s time we preachers started “shelling corn” instead of throwing out husks as we step into the pulpits. If one is not a “for hire” preacher then he had better start “firing from the hip” (Hos. 4:6; 2 Tim. 4:2). Denominationalism is getting the draw on us. Many in the body of Christ now believe that our high “mortality rate” is due to over-emphasis of indoctrination on such things as the one church, etc.

Too much emphasis on the church? Not as long as brethren apologize to the religious world for being sectarian (Restoration Review, February 1984), or publications among our brethren like The Worldly Church (Allen, Hughes and Week, Abilene Christian University Press), The Examiner (Charles Holt), Free in Christ, (Cecil Hook), etc. send forth their venomous slander against God’s people today, and not as long as brethren continue to believe that the New Testament church is a “dissenting, or schismatic religious body.” We must keep stressing that:

The Church Is Not a Sect

The church is undenominational and is not sect because it is made up of all the saved (Acts 2:47). It is not a fraction df the body, for it is the body. It’s not a part of the kingdom; it is the kingdom. It is wrong to refer to the primitive church as a sect and its members as sectarian. This must be stressed again and again. It is not a time for silence on the matter.

Salvation Is in the Church

We must continue to emphasize that salvation is in the church. The shedding of the blood of Christ confirmed and ratified the New Testament (Heb. 9:15-22; Gal. 3:15). In it we are told that salvation is in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:10). What does this have to do with salvation in the church? Simply this: the church is the body of Christ (Col. 1:18,24; Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23). When one is in Christ, he is in the body. If not, why? Can one be in Christ and not be in the body? Christ purchased the church with his blood (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5). If one is saved out of the church, he is saved out of the body and without the blood of Christ. Those saved by the blood are in the church (Acts 2:47; 1 Cor. 12:13). Here’s why:

(1) Sinners are redeemed and saved by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; 1 Pet. 1:18-19).

(2) That which justifies lost sinners (the blood) also sanctifies the church (Eph. 5:26-27).

(3) Therefore people saved are in the church (Acts 2:47). They were added to it. How can one be saved outside of something that the Bible says the “Lord adds him to” when he saves him? Furthermore, since Christ and the church are one (Eph. 5:31-32), can we be “in Christ and not be in that which is one with Christ?” Apparently we have not stressed this enough.

The Church Is the Family of God

The church you read about in the New Testament is the family of God (Eph. 3:14-15). The inspired apostle referred to it as “the house of God, which is the church of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:15). A man’s house is his family (Acts 16:31). Noah’s “house” was his family (Heb. 11:7). Since the church is God’s family, how can one be a child of God and not be in his family? Does God have illegitimate children, children outside of his family?

The “It” of Ephesians 5

We need to emphasize that the “it” referred to in Ephesians 5 is the same “it” that we need to belong to. The “it” of the context is the church. Hence, Jesus:

(1) Loved the church (v. 25).

(2) Sanctified and cleansed the church (v. 26).

(3) Presented it to himself a glorious church (v. 27).

Now if we want to be a part of that described in Ephesians 5:22-32, we will have to be in the church so described. If not, why not? Do you belong to it? – The “it” that was loved, sanctified, etc.?

Conclusion

We need more stress and emphasis on all the features of the church. When we do, we can expect two charges from those who “are ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7).

(1) “You are preaching churchianity instead of Christianity because you are saying the church saves.” The charge is false for the simple reason that the church does not save, but rather it is the body to which we are added when the Lord saves us. We are added to the church because it is the body (Col. 1:18) and it is into this body that we are baptized (I Cor. 12:13). It is baptism that saves the sinner (1 Pet. 3:21) through the blood of Christ.

(2) “Your primary concern is what you call ‘the church,’ and its reproduction and maintenance. You are a preacher and defender of ‘the church,’ not Christ, not the preaching of the gospel . . . not the truth” (The Messenger, Charles Holt, February 21, 1979). While it is admitted that some do abuse the word “church,” this too, is a false charge. A more complete discussion does not fall within the purview of this writing. But it should be noted that one cannot speak of Christ and not speak of his body, the church (they are the same, Col. 1:18). His body of saved people, in its universal sense, includes all the redeemed in Christ who jointly share all the blessings that are in him (Eph. 1:3,22-23). Sometimes it, i.e., church, refers to the redeemed within a limited designation such as Corinth, etc. (1 Cor. 12:27; 1:1-2). Improper emphasis of this scriptural use of the word “church” can result in denominationalizing it. But it should be remembered that ekkiesia, regardless of how it is translated, always means “a body of people.” In the context of this writing it is a body of saved people who are in Christ and because they are in Christ, they are saved. I preach Christ and the fact that the obedient are added to his body, the church, when saved in him. The charge under consideration is a false accusation, pure and simple! It is false because a person can be a member of the New Testament church without being a member of something other than the church (“now you are the body of Christ, and members in particular,” i.e., individually, 1 Cor. 12:27). The church cannot exist apart from its members (body of Christ). Too, one disciple is not the church. All the members together are the church!

Has the fear of such charges caused us to back off from stressing the church? Brethren, this is not a time for silence. God’s purpose is not served when we remain silent regarding the church. These are great times of danger for the kingdom and we can offset the spirit of sectarianism therein only by speaking out boldly. Fulfilling the desire for “smooth things” (Isa. 30:8-13) among God’s people today can only result in drinking from “broken cisterns” (Jer. 2:13), as in days of old. “Preach the word. ” This includes what the Word says about the New Testament church. Let’s get back to emphasizing the church.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 9, pp. 259-260
May 4, 1989

By Steve Wolfgang

World War II

In truth, although there were such previews of what was to come, World War 11 can be seen as a chronological line of demarcation. First, as one generation passed from the earth, another was coming to prominence. In one eighteen month period during 1940-41, as the nation prepared for war, a number of well-known older preachers (Daniel Sommer, J.D. Tant, Joe Warlick, F.B. Srygley – household names in many places in the brotherhood) passed away, and were “replaced” in positions of editorial responsibility by much younger men such as B.C. Goodpasture.(1)

Reactions to the war itself, and the discussion of the “carnal warfare” question revealed that an interesting shift of opinion had occurred between the wars as this new generation had come to prominence. As late as World War 1, David Lipscomb’s strong non-participatory stance still held sway among a strong and vocal minority in the church. Objections to Christians serving in war resulted in such incidents as the closing of Cordell Christian College by the local “defense council,” and the arrest and threatened execution of two young Christians who were shipped to, Leavenworth Prison, and lined up before a firing squad to be shot.(2) The Gospel Advocate ceased the re-publication of David Lipscomb’s old articles on “Civil Government” and no-participation in warfare only under threat from federal government either to cease and desist the publication of such anti-war propaganda or be shut down altogether.(3)

By World War II, however, shifting sentiment, the emergence of a new generation, and, to be sure, the surge of patriotic opinion following the attack on Pearl Harbor, produced a strikingly different environment. B.C. Goodpasture needed no government intervention to persuade him to close the columns of the Gospel Advocate to further discussion; by 1943 he did it voluntarily. Indeed, a close examination of some of the early criticisms of the cooperative efforts in preaching in Italy and Germany stemmed from the fact that some of the “missionaries” seemed to their critics much too quick to “apologize” for the devastation inflicted on Europe by American armed forces.(4)

The Post-World War II Era

Even before the army of GI’s returned home in 1945 to marry, continue their education, or launch careers (or all of the above), a new consciousness regarding evangelism and a seeming willingness to try whatever sounded good in spreading the gospel had overtaken many of the churches and those who preached or served as elders over them. The educational boon of the GI Bill also swelled the ranks of colleges across the country – and “Christian colleges” seemed determined not to be a whit behind the chiefest.

Spurred in most cases, no doubt, by well-intentioned impulses to spread the gospel as widely as possible, churches were inundated after the war with numerous appeals: to support cooperative works in Germany, Italy, and Japan (“overseen” by churches in Texas and Tennessee who assumed a centralizing role in such support); or the proliferation of institutions soon swelled to more than thirty);(5) and not least by the “Christian colleges, whose swelling enrollments of returning GI’s helped create a seemingly insatiable appetite for funds to sustain their growth.

That there had been some “historical precedent” for centralized support of city-wide evangelistic endeavors cannot be successfully disputed. The cooperative efforts of the Hardeman “Tabernacle Meetings” of the Twenties and Thirties were reflected in other such post-World II endeavors as the Houston Music Hall meetings, in which the Norhill church undertook to oversee funds from Houston-area churches so that Foy E. Wallace, Jr., could p reach lessons which, transcribed and later published as God’s Prophetic Word and Bulwarks of the Faith, would provide sermon material on which an entire generation of preachers would “cut their teeth.” The local preachers at Norhill at that time were Luther Blackmon and Wallace’s close friend, Roy E. Cogdill, who before long would launch his own printing company largely to be able to publish Wallace’s books as well as his paper, the Bible Banner Oater, the Gospel Guardian – in which Cogdill would later renounce the centralized arrangement of the Music Hall meeting).(6)

Cogdill, Blackmon, Guardian editor Yater Tant, and others who initially supported such efforts were forced by conviction of conscience, and, as they saw it, consistency, to withdraw their support for such collective endeavors in much the same way as men like Tolbert Fanning and Benjamin Franklin, initial supporters and defenders of nineteenth-century missionary society endeavors, eventually withdrew their support for such efforts and indeed became vocal opponents of such works.(7)

For those who began to think twice about centralized foreign evangelistic efforts “under the oversight” of a single large American church, an additional concern was the message preached (or, in the eyes of many, not preached) by the “missionaries” receiving such support. David Filbeck has ably, demonstrated that much of the opposition to the centralized missionary society of the Christian Church was due to the diluted (even modernistic) message of those so supported, and some of the same concerns – as much about message as about methods – are, I believe, reflected in some of the writing in opposition to centralized evangelistic support, where many smaller churches contributed to support preachers in the countries devastated by World War II by sending their contributions to a large, prosperous, “overseeing” church.(8)

What Were “The Issues”?

The proliferation of humanly-arranged institutions seeking church contributions (particularly the increasing volume of educational institutions openly soliciting money from churches) and the growing numbers of congregations assuming the right to “oversee” the work of other churches with the financial support of many more were only a part of the scenario. Combined with the upward socio-economic mobility of members of the church, many of whom experienced the shift from the day-to-day, hand-to-mouth existence of Depression-era poverty to the disposable income and consumerism of the post-war boom which moved the South toward parity with the nation, these factors and more provided a complex scenario fraught with possibilities for differences, disagreement, and division.

By the time a national radio (and later, television) program, the “Herald of Truth,” was added to the list of orphanages, homes for the aged and for unwed mothers, schools, colleges, publishing ventures (Gospel Press, for example) and intermittent appeals for increasing numbers of projects centralized under a few large, prosperous churches, an increasing number of brethren began to question various aspects of these endeavors. The study of “the current issues” (as they were often generically labeled) produced a tension between the boosters of the new projects and those who raised pesky questions about their scriptural validity. That tension was reflected in the increasing vehemence with which both sides pressed their positions in various “brotherhood journals.” Roy Cogdill’s Banner Publishing Company was created in large part to allow Foy E. Wallace, Jr., to continue in the Banner/Guardian his opposition to the increasingly open appeals for church support of colleges, orphanages and other parachurch enterprises which surfaced with increasing frequency in B.C. Goodpasture’s Gospel Advocate and in Texas Firrn Foundation after G.H.P. Showalter was succeeded in 1954 by Reuel Lemmons.(9)

Other papers were begun as well, often for the expressed purpose of examining these issues. The Preceptor, begun in 1951 by several brethren affiliated with Florida Christian College was followed almost a decade later by another Tampa journal, Searching the Scriptures. Halfway between the launching of these journals, and half a continent away, TRUTH Magazine was begun in the Chicago area. None of these upstart journals, however, enjoyed the extended longevity and familiarity (to say nothing of the large subscription lists) ‘ of the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation, which were joined by new journals such as the Spiritual Sword in the flight against the “antis.”(10)

The discussion of these “issues” was perhaps most vocally expressed in a series of formal debates in the half-decade beginning about. 1954. From Indianapolis (Holt-Totty, October 1954; Woods-Porter, January 1956) to Texas (Harper-Tant, Lufkin, April 1955 and Abilene, November 1955) to Alabama (Cogdill-Woods, Birmingham, November 1957; Wallace-Holt, Florence, December 1959), men who had once stood shoulder to shoulder and made common cause against all enemies did battle with each other. These debates, published and re-published for wider consumption by various brotherhood printing concerns, reflected hundreds of other unpublished public discussions and thousands of private conversations and arguments which spread to nearly every hamlet in the land where there was a church of Christ. Together with the written discussions in various “brotherhood journals,” they provided an arsenal for anyone who sought to do battle on either side.

The Arguments

In debates, sermons, and various articles in religious journals, non-institutional preachers have normally advanced the following propositions:

1. That God has revealed in Scripture certain patterns for believers to follow in executing their collective duties in congregational work and worship (Heb. 8:5).

2. That these “binding” patterns are expressed in terms of (a) “generic” or “specific” statements or commands; (b) specific accounts of action, and (c) necessary conclusions or inferences drawn from Scripture (Acts 15).(11)

3. That the “general” or more “generic” statements or commands allow differing optional or expedient ways of obeying those requirements, while specific statements or examples provide more restrictive instructions and do not authorize alternative procedures.

4. That the differences between “general and specific” can be detected, and distinguished from incidentals, or from a variety of expedient ways, by correctly following common sense hermeneutical principles.(12)

5. That the Scriptures enjoin upon Christians a broad range of individual duties, obligations and privileges which can be carried out in a variety of optional and expedient ways, that God may be glorified.

6. That, by contrast, the collective duties enjoined upon Christians in their collective congregational capacity, are fairly limited and consist of worshiping God through prayer, vocal music, proclamation of the gospel, and the first day of the week observance of the Lord’s Supper and financial collection to enable the congregation to carry out its collective responsibilities in discharging its own edificational and teaching duties, assisting needy sanits, and supporting preachers in their work of proclamation and teaching.

7. That, while some collective duties may overlap individual obligations (teaching, singing, prayer, for example), individual and collective (congregational) activity are not identical and can be easily and clearly distinguished one from the other.

8. That since collective activity, which requires a common mind, acceptance and agreement to common supervision (by elders, if qualified), and the pooling of financial resources is inherently fraught with possibilities of disagreement in matters of detail, it should be limited to those activities clearly enjoined upon Christians in acting together as a congregation, allowing room to respect the conscience of others, even of weak or untaught brethren (Romans 14).

9. That, in regard to preaching the gospel, Scripture reveals only that evangelism was accomplished by individual preachers, self-supported or remunerated by congregations (by example, directly, without the aid of some itermediary or “sponsoring” church, or “missionary society,” whether called by that name or identified as a “steering committee” or other terminology – 2 Cor. 11:8-9; Phil. 4:15-18).

10. That Scripture several times records that churches assisted their own needy saints, or sent funds for the temporary relief of congregations in “want,” – but that such relief was temporary, not sent from one prosperous church to another, and never for purposes of evangelism in which each congregation has equal obligations to the limit of its ability. Most conservatives have stressed the independence and autonomy of each local congregation, insisting that twentieth-century “sponsoring-church” conglomerates or other centralizing tendencies, no less than a missionary society or the Baptist associations and conventions, compromise New Testament principles regarding the nature of Christ’s church.(13)

11. That the church Jesus died to purchase is a spiritual institution with a uniquely spiritual function, and is therefore not to be remade into a hybrid welfare organization-country club responsible for alleviating social ills or for the entertainment of its members.

12. That human societies and institutions (colleges, orphanages, publishing companies, hospitals, etc.) which may be utilized as expedient means on a fee-for-service basis, am not be appended to the church and maintain their livelihood by church donations, and that all such attempts to make them parachurch or church-related institutions is foreign to the New Testament.

Endnotes

1. Ed Harrell, “B.C. Goodpasture: Leader of Institutional Thought, in They Being Dead Yet Speak. Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981 (Tampa: Florida College, 1981). Note Harrell’s observations that “Foy Wallace scorched heretics; Goodpasture warned them that they would lose their position in the brotherhood” (p. 250). See also J.C. Choate, The Anchor That Holds: The Life of Benton Cordell Goodpasture (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1971).

2. Sears, For Freedom, pp. 156-157.

3. Earl West, “World War I and the Decline of David Lipscomb’s Civil Government” (unpublished ms., Harding Graduate School of Religion Library, 1976, p. 11); see West, III, chapter 13. For background on Lipscomb and nineteenth century pacifism. See David Edwin Harrell, Jr., “Disciples of Christ Pacifism in Nineteenth Century Tennessee,” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 21:3 (September, 1962), pp. 263-274.

4. Cled Wallace, “That Rock Fight in Italy,” Gospel Guardian 1:36 (January 19,1950), pp. 1,5; Foy E. Wallace, Jr., “Going Off Half-Cocked, ” Gospel Guardian 1:44 (March 16, 1950), pp. 1,5; Roy E. Cogdill, “We Are Not Anti-Foreign Evangelism,” Gospel Guardian 1:47 (April 6, 1950), pp. 1,5. See Willis, W. W. Otey, pp. 306f.

5. Willis, W. W. Otey, p. 312. In 1949 there were 14 “Orphan Homes and Homes for the Ages” listed in G.H. P. Showalter and Leslie G. Thomas, comps., Church Directory and List of Preachers of Churches of Christ (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1949), p. 212).

6. See Cogdill-Woods Debate. A Discussion on what constitutes scriptural cooperation between churches of Christ (Lufkin, TX: Gospel Guardian Company, n.d. [1958?1, pp. 204-208, 214-215.

7. See James R. Wilburn, The Hazard of the Die: Tolbert Fanning and the Restoration Movement (Austin, TX Sweet Publishing Company, 1969, chapters 10-12, especially pp. 176-181, 187-188, 193-195; Earl West, Elder Den Franklin: Eye of the Storm (Indianapolis: Religious Book Service, 1983), pp. 158-160, 211, 222ff.; Joseph Franklin and J.A. Headington, The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin (St. Louis: John Burns, Publisher, 1879), pp. 304-305.

The discussion of “historical precedent” is an interesting one which one or both sides often adduce to bolster claims, but which is ultimately meaningless since, even if uniform, what the “pioneers” did provides no validity for doctrine or practice unless one accepts an “authority of tradition” viewpoint akin to that of Roman Catholicism. In this context, it simply demonstrates that sincere, intelligent, and honorable persons can and do change their minds and actions for a variety of reasons; or, that people sometimes do contradictory things and are not always self-consistent.

8. David Filbeck, The First Fifty Years: A Brief History of the Direct-Support Missionary Movement (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 1980), pp. 36-59. While the objections of some of the opponents of centralized missionary work among churches of Christ did not center around traditional “modernism,” the heavy emphasis on the social gospel aspects of much “mission work” was a definite factor. See the articles cited in note 23 above, as well as Otis Gatewood, Preaching in the Footsteps of Hitler (Nashville: Williams Printing company, 1960), pp. 72-75. Though defending his “relief works” in Germany, Gatewood acknowledged that “Problems arose as a result of such work, it is true. Some wanted to be baptized only to get food and clothing.” Furthermore, “all this [distribution of food and clothing] took much time that could have been spent teaching the Bible” (pp. 70, 72).

9. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Fanning Yater Tant, and Roy E. Cogdill, mimeographed letter, March 21, 1949; Foy E. Wallace, Jr., “The New Gospel Guardian,” Fanning Yater Tant, “Policy of the Gospel Guardian,” and Roy E. Cogdill, “Publisher’s Statement,” Bible Banner 12:3 (April 1949), 1-2.

10. Harrell reports that “by the early 1950’s the Advocate’s circulation had grown to over 20,000; during the centennial drive of 1954 and 1955, the number of subscribers rose to an inflated figure of over 100,000; by the time of Goodpasture’s death in 1977, the circulation had stabilized at just over 30,000.” Furthermore, he observes: “The Gospel Advocate was the most powerful single center of influence among the churches of Christ of the 1950s. Goodpasture formed strong alliances with other institutions, particularly David Lipscomb College. He was the outspoken friend of all the institutions supported by churches; . . . in return the leaders of those institutions promoted the Advocate” (“B.C. Goodpasture,” in Florida College Annual Lectures, 198 1, pp. 243, 249).

11. See David Koltenbah, “The Three Methods of Argument to Establish Divine Authority and the Three Arguments in Acts 15 (Parts I-III)” TRUTH Magazine 11:10-12 (July, August, September, 1967), pp. 234ff., 255ff., 275ff.; “The Apostles’ Appeal to Scriptural Authority,” in Biblical Authority., It’s Meaning and Application: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1974 (Fairmount, IN: Cogdill Foundation, 1974), pp. 80-94. A M.A. thesis by Milo, Hadwin at Abilene Christian College which assails the idea that apostolic examples provide any basis of New Testament authority was published as The Role of New Testament Examples as Related to Biblical Authority (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1974). A conclusion, subtly stated on p. 53, is that there is no way to authorize observance of the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week from the New Testament evidence (cf. pp. 39, 53). For alternate viewpoints, see Thomas B. Warren, When Is An Example Binding? (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian of Christ: Why Are We at an Impasse?” Restoration Quarterly 30 (First Quarter 1988), pp. 17-42.

12. See Roy E. Cogdill, Walking By Faith (Lufkin: Gospel Guardian Company, 1957; 6th Ed., 1967), especially pp. 13-28; Earl West, “Learning a Lesson from History (no. 1-3),” Gospel Guardian 1:40, 41, 42 (February 16, 23 and March 2, 1950); and “Congregational Cooperation,” Gospel Guardian 13:18 (September 7, 1961, pp. 273ff. [reprint)). For contrasting views, see Athens Clay Pullias, “Where There Is No Pattern,” Lipscomb Spring Lectures: Volume I (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 19″, pp. 90-102 (see Cecil N. Wright a lecture in the same volume [pp. 103-11.2], “Principles of New Testament congregational Cooperation,” a summary of his series in the 1951 Gospel Advocate).

13. See Robert F. Turner, “Cooperation of Churches, in The Arlington Meeting (Orlando, FL: Cogdill Foundation, n.d. 11969]), pp. 252ff. This work is probably the most extensive and best discussion of the institutional “issues.” See also Gaston D. Cogdell and Robert F. Turner, The Cogdell- Turner Discussion (Fairmount, IN: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1983). On congregational independence, perhaps the clearest statement is Turner, “Restoration of Congregational Independence,” in The Restoration Heritage in America. A Biblical Appeal for Today. Florida College Annual Lectures, 1976 (Marion, IN: Cogdill Foundation, 1976), pp. 213-229.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, pp. 240-243
April 20, 1989

By Mike Willis

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that be were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! (Matt. 18:6-7)

A church is privileged to have newborn Christians. They are babes in Christ (1 Pet. 2:2) who are weak and need to grow spiritually (Eph. 4:14). Watching them grow is encouraging to other Christians (1 Tim. 4:12). Having baptized my son Corey last year, perhaps I am more conscious of the spiritual growth of young Christians.

We have a burden of responsibility toward these young Christians to so conduct ourselves that we not be an occasion of stumbling to their soul. We should do nothing to discourage them or otherwise hamper their spiritual growth. We certainly should not place a stone of stumbling in their paths.

Little Ones Can Stumble

The word “offend” (Greek: skandalizo) means “to put a stumbling block or impediment in the way, upon which another may trip and fall; to cause a person to begin to distrust and desert one whom he ought to trust and obey; to cause to fall away” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, p. 576). The warning that we should not “offend” emphasizes the possibility of a Christian’s falling from grace (Gal. 5:4). There is a world of temptation into which many Christians fall. Their fall into sin brings them into condemnation.

The Calvinist doctrine of “once in grace, always in grace” is false. There would be no reason to warn of the danger of becoming an occasion of someone stumbling were stumbling into sin not possible.

Responsibility for Sin

The fact that one can become an occasion for another person falling into sin does not excuse that person from the guilt of his sin. Should I become an occasion for another person stumbling, he still would be accountable for his sin. Nevertheless, I would be held accountable for my sin – my sin of causing him to stumble.

Things Which Cause People to Stumble

As we witness the growth and sometimes the apostasy of little ones who have recently been baptized into Christ, we are able to identify some of the stumbling blocks which threaten their souls. Here are some of them:

1. Evil companions. The wicked are not content to be involved in sin; they must pull someone down with them. “For they sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some one to fall” (Prov. 4:16; cf. 1:10ff). Unfortunately, some of the wicked who induce young Christians to commit sin have been baptized and attend the services regularly. Sometimes the social activities of “Christians” are the very occasions for worldly “Christians” to cause younger Christians to stumble.

I have witnessed this in different local congregations. A group of worldly “Christians” begin sitting on the back seat, obviously uninterested in the worship and service of God. A new convert begins to sit with them and learns their ways. When he goes with them to recreational outings, he learns to swear, smoke, and any other things in which they are involved. These worldly “Christians” will be held responsible for leading these newborn Christians into sin. Jesus said, “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” than to be an occasion of causing these little ones to stumble.

2. Indifferent church members (Rev. 3:14-15). Another cause of young people falling away from the Lord is indifferent church members. Have you noticed what becomes of the children of indifferent parents? The parents go through the motions of coming to church (at least once a week). They do not prepare for their Bible classes, half attend gospel meetings, seek every excuse imaginable for missing, etc. Sometimes their children obey the gospel. Soon they understand the lack of commitment of their parents and begin walking in their footsteps. When they turn 18 and are allowed to make their own decisions, they walk away from the church never to return. “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” than that an indifferent church member become the occasion of someone falling away from the Lord.

3. Church squabbles. Fussing and fighting among the members causes weak and newborn souls to fall away from their Lord. Paul warned, “But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another” (Gal. 5:15). When church fights occur, the members scatter. Some will stay where they are; some will attend another nearby congregation. Unfortunately, some members will quit altogether. “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” than for a person to participate in a church squabble and become the cause of a young Christian falling away from his Lord.

4. False doctrine. Young Christians are especially vulnerable to false doctrine. Unlearned in the word of God, they are tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of false doctrine (Eph. 4:15). When a false teacher assaults a church, the young members are his prey. We have witnessed a number of young preachers fall into the grace-unity apostasy. We see the vulnerability of young members to the loose teachings on divorce and remarriage. “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” than a man be the bearer of false doctrine which causes a Christian to stumble into sin.

5. Hypocrites in the church. Anyone who has visited members who have fallen away has heard them explain their absence by pointing to the hypocrites in the church. Unfortunately there are some hypocrites in the church – men who serve at the Lord’s table but curse like a sailor, elders who are involved with women other than their wives, preachers who do not pay their bills and lie about it. Young Christians who witness this hypocrisy sometimes quit coming to worship. “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” than to be a hypocrite who causes a Christian to stumble into sin.

6. Weak Christians. None of us is perfect. We all fall into sin from time to time. Peter was just such a man. When he fell into sin at Antioch, other Jews (including Barnabas) followed his example (Gal. 2:11-14). He was an occasion for many stumbling at Antioch. A private confession of sin would not correct that situation. A public rebuke of the sin and a public correction were necessary that the truth of the gospel could be preserved (Gal. 2:5).

Conclusion

Becoming the occasion of someone else sinning is a serious offence. Therefore, Jesus said, “Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire” (Matt. 18:8). Jesus was emphasizing the necessity of giving up anything which might cause us to be lost because we become the occasion of someone else stumbling into sin.

Occasionally our weaknesses cause others to fall into sin. When we recognize that is the case, we need to correct the sin in order that we can be forgiven. However, we need then to become concerned about the impact of that sin on others, making correction to lead them to repentance as well.

There are some Christians who are constantly kicking against the boundaries of God’s word, seeing just how close to sin they can come without actually committing it. They want to go mixed swimming, social drink, attend dances, and other things which they place in a “gray” area. What impact will they have on the young Christian? He will not stop where they stop. He will step further across the boundary, doing things which even they disapprove. Then, he wilHI defend his conduct on the grounds of what he sees in their lives. Would you want to enter judgment bearing the responsibility of leading these newborn Christians into sin by your participation in, at the best, questionable activities? “Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” (Matt. 18:7)

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 9, pp. 258, 278
May 4, 1989