Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Brother Jackson says my initial review proves “the old adage, ‘The hit dog yelps.”‘ If so, what do his “extensive comments” prove? If my review proved “the old adage,” does his reply also prove that “the hit dog yelps”?

Bill replies “through a series of numbered points.” We shall do likewise and blunt the tip of his points. If you have not done so, before reading further, see my first article in this exchange in the December 1, 1988 issue of Guardian of Truth.

“(1) Who caused the present liberalism?” Bill says that my logic is represented like this: “brethren taking a bite of food in a church building results in a Family Life Center, and ladies meeting in a class room to give a gift to a bride-elect has led to the craze for a gymnasium.”

No, brother Bill, that is not my logic or contention. Here it is; here is the basis for the liberalism that has “led to the craze for a gymnasium.” Brother Jackson and others have contended that the church may build dining rooms (“fellowship halls”) and similar rooms for the purpose of eating, drinking, hosting parties, wedding showers and boy scout troops. That has led to the gym “craze.” Certainly, at best, it has not deterred it. Bill, do not deceive yourself. The gyms were not caused by a brother taking a bite of food or by a bride receiving a gift in a classroom. They were spawned by the attitude that said churches can build special rooms and facilities for social and recreational purposes, even though the Scriptures do not authorize the church to engage in such works.

There may be, as Bill charges, some “liberalism” among my “own fellowship,” but it is despite what I teach, not because of it. Brother Jackson made the charge. He offered no proof. Bill, what do I teach that begets liberalism?

Thanks, Bill, for the reference to the “craze for a gymnasium.” Surely, Furman Kearley, Guy N. Woods and the rest of the Gospel Advocate crowd will be pleased that you view their gyms as a “craze.”

“(2) A straight line between two circles proves anything!” Bill ridiculed the charts with his comment about a “straight line between two circles,” but he did not deal with the arguments that were made. Would a “straight line between two circles” using, church support of David Lipscomb College and the missionary society prove anything? Suppose, Bill, that you showed the following charts:

Next, suppose a liberal preacher from the gym “craze” (perhaps the editor of the Gospel Advocate), ridiculed your charts by saying, “This was the first tactic I saw in these brethren,” i.e., “a straight line between two circles proves anything!” Would that constitute a reasoned response? Would that answer the arguments you made and that you attempted to demonstrate by means of lines and circles?

Yes, the church is “its own missionary” society. But it is not the means or methods of preaching and teaching. It, the church, must provide the various modes to teaching. Also, the church must provide facilities for benevolent care (1 Tim. 5:16). The church is not the means or methods it employs, but it is the organization that secures the care.

No, “The church is not a home!” Has anyone ever said that it was? We agree, then, the church is not a home. But neither is the church a meetinghouse. Still, it is able to build and maintain a meetinghouse. Though the church is not a meetinghouse, a material building, it is able to provide one. Likewise, the church is not a home; it is not a place to dwell, but the church is able to provide one.

Should churches establish building and construction companies and let those corporations choose the site, dimensions and facilities for the meetinghouses of brethren all over the country? No, each church selects its own location, hires a builder and determines the size and shape of its own facilities.

Even though the church is not a meetinghouse, it does not have to fund a separate organization in order to have a building in which to meet. Even though the church is not a home, it does not have to fund a separate organization in order to have a building in which the needy receive care.

Roy Lanier, Jr., one of Bill’s fellow laborers, recently answered Bill’s argument very concisely:

Some say the church is not a home and thus can contribute to something else to do the work of a home. That sounds right plausible, particularly when it is trumpeted, “elders cannot be elders over a home, only over a church.” Well, neither are elders considered principals over a school, but they do have schools and classes (most often on Sundays and Wednesdays) which teach the Bible! Would it be possible therefore to not oversee such classes, but contribute to some outside institution to see that such teaching is done (call it perhaps “Bible Classes Inc.”)?

Then some would reply, “The church is a school.” To which it is replied the church is just as much to be the home for the needy as it is to be the school for the members. The church can function as much as a home as it can a school. Just as elders do not do all the teaching, so they would not do all the child caring. Just as they would see that teaching is done, they would see that caring is done. If this be not true, then God gave the church a responsibility it is not equipped to do!” (Roy Lanier, Jr., “Relationship of Churches and Institutions,” manuscript of a speech delivered in Nashville, Tennessee, December 2, 1988).

Brother Jackson, I trust that you will respond to brother Lanier’s argument.

Note this somewhat awkward sentence from brother Jackson. “And, brother Hafley’s article proves they have not changed, and still cannot see that the church is commissioned by the Lord as its own missionary instrumentality, but that when it comes to child-care, and if the church had an orphan, when the church thus received such a child it would still have to provide for it a home! The church is not a home!” Conclusion: Churches may send funds to a benevolent society that it may provide care for the needy.

Now, note this somewhat awkward sentence, parallel to that of brother Jackson above. “And, brother Jackson’s article proves they have not changed, and still cannot see that the church is commissioned by the Lord as its own missionary instrumentality, but that when it comes to childeducation, and if the church had an uneducated child, when the church thus received such a child it would still have to provide for it a school! The church is not a school!” Conclusion: Churches may send funds to educational societies (schools, colleges) that they may provide education for the unlearned. What do you say to that, brother Jackson?

“Saints Only”

Brother Jackson is concerned about the “saints-only” doctrine that was, he says, developed “in our times.” Let us see some “saints-only” doctrine that truly has been “developing in our times.”

Bill believes churches cannot do their benevolent work. They must set up benevolent boards or societies which will do the work. The churches support these benevolent organizations. Now, Bill says a church can fund a society built and maintained by brethren, but he does not believe a church can send money to a Baptist or to a Catholic Orphan Home organization. Does that not smack of “saintsonly” societies? Bill’s position says:

Just when did this “saints-only” (benevolent board operated by brethren) versus non-saints (benevolent board operated by Baptists) begin? Did these “issues” begin “developing in our times”? Have Bill and his brethren “received this ‘revelation’ in these latter-times” that churches of Christ can send to organizations operated by brethren but not to those managed by Catholics?

“(3) The manufactured patterns.” See Acts 11:27-30. That is the pattern of cooperation to which I subscribe. My esteemed brother himself said that “the church in Antioch sent goods to the brethren in Judea, and that the funds went to the elders (Acts 11:27-30)” (Bill Jackson, The Southwesterner, Vol. XV, No. 47, September 14, 1988, pp. 1,2). So I believe and teach.

That the disciples in Antioch sent relief to the brethren in Judea, sending it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul is my contention, my Bible pattern (Heb. 8:5; 2 Jn, 9). That “the church in Antioch” sent funds to the Jerusalem elders who in turn dispersed the funds to other churches in Judea is Bill Jackson’s pattern. Which pattern is in the Bible? Which one of us has a “manufactured” pattern?

Foy E. Wallace said:

But every article of late with even an attempt to deal with this issue has referred to the case of Antioch in Acts 11:29-30 as a solid example for centralization practice. It is not an example of what is being done. . . .

The passage reads: “Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea: which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.” The first thing to observe is that the disciples in Antioch sent the relief to the elders where the brethren dwelt in Judea. . . . There were churches in Judea: “the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus” (1 Thess. 2:14). The passage in Acts states that the disciples in Antioch sent relief to the brethren that dwelt in Judea, and sent it to the elders, obviously where the brethren that needed the relief dwelt. There is not so much as an intimation in this passage that money was sent to the elders of the church at Jerusalem for all Judea. The passage does not even mention Jerusalem nor elders at Jerusalem. It merely states that relief was sent to the brethren that dwelt in “Judea,” and that it was sent to the “elders” by Barnabas and Saul. What elders? The elders in “Judea.” Wherein Judea? The elders where the brethren dwelt. So the passage certainly does specify what elders and where. Acts 11:29-30 is not a case in point for what some brethren are promoting in the way of a general eldership as a board of benevolence and missions for all the churches (Torch, Vol. 1, No. 2; pp. 25-27).

Bill mentions “the ‘anti’ rule” and “the ‘traveling dollar’ doctrine!” Wonder if he has an “anti rule” that permits fellowship halls but denies “the craze for a gymnasium”? Wonder if there is an “anti rule” that would permit a sponsoring church to collect funds from many churches to build fellowship halls:

But would Bill oppose “the ‘traveling dollar’ doctrine” if the sponsoring church were to build gyms and Family Life Centers (which are mutants from Bill’s “craze”)?

Now, Bill, would you “have each congregation to set its own policies in these areas” (building gyms), or would you manufacture patterns and “set them for all the saints”? I suspect brother Jackson has an “anti rule” or two that would put the brakes on some of his “‘traveling dollar’ doctrine!”

“(4) 1 Corinthians 16.1,2 double-talk. ” Brother Jacks ignored the argument I made on this passage in my initial review. Study it carefully in the December 1, 1988 issue of Guardian of Truth.

Brother Jackson is the man who says “that what is said in regard to benevolence monies cannot be true when it comes to evangelistic monies,” for he says “benevolence monies” and “evangelistic monies” can be sent to a benevolent society but not to a missionary society. He says “benevolence monies” can be sent to a benevolent society operated by brethren, but not to one run by Lutherans. He says “benevolence” and “evangelistic monies” can build a fellowship hall but not a gymnasium or a Family Life Center. Talk about “double-talk,” indeed! Perhaps brother Guy N. Woods or brother Furman Kearley, editor of the Gospel Advocate, would like to help brother Jackson clarify those matters.

The pattern of 1 Corinthians 16:1,2, involves, among other things, the time for brethren to lay by in store. The text does not authorize every use to be made of the money. Other texts do that. It is the sole text for the time that a church may take a collection for any of its activities. Again, see the argument made in my first review.

Yes, Bill, “the 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 contribution is the only one allowed by the Word.” Yes, Bill, churches may engage in evangelism and other appropriate (scriptural LRH) works.” No, Bill, I do not “come to 1 Corinthians 16:1,2” as the “basis” for “every legitimate church expenditure based on 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 authorization.”

The pattern as to when the church takes a collection is in 1 Corinthians 16.-1,2. The complete pattern for the use of the church’s funds is not found in 1 Corinthians 16:1,2. Parallel wise, the pattern as to when the disciples come together to break bread is in Acts 20:7. The complete pattern of the purpose of the Lord’s supper is not found in Acts 20:7. The passage that cites the purpose of the communion does not give a time (1 Cor. 10, 11). However, when we put those passages with Acts 20:7, we have the time, the frequency, and the purpose. Likewise, with the funds of 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 and the other authorized works of the church. Again, this argument is in my first review of brother Jackson.

“(5) Some of ‘brother Jackson’s brethren.”‘ Brother Jackson wishes to divorce himself from some of his brethren. He does not want to be lumped with them. (Bill, would the editor of the Gospel Advocate, Furman Kearley, be in that list, or in that lump, since he now advocates the gym “craze”?)

The brethren named and identified in this paper to whom Bill referred, are not promoting principles that I espouse. However, the brethren Bill wishes to deny are promoting liberalism based on the very principles that he accepts. As proof thereof, the editor of the Gospel Advocate recently endorsed “church camps,” gyms and Family Life Centers.

To do so, he drug out brother Woods’ old argument, in loco parentis, to justify church support of such things. Bill Jackson will not deny brother Woods’ argument, but he will deny Kearley’s use of it. Let Bill show us, then, how it applies to his case on the one hand with regard to benevolent societies but not to gyms and camps.

But when brother Charles Holt, for example, teaches his views, he goes against every principle for which I contend. He does not use my arguments to support his conclusions. But when brethren who Bill now wishes to repudiate contend for gyms, camp grounds and Family Life Centers, built and maintained by churches, they do so upon the very principles that he uses to justify his “fellowship halls” and church sponsored bridal showers and girl scout troops. This is the difference, Bill.

When some of Bill’s brethren say that church support of colleges is as scriptural as church support of benevolent societies, they are using his principles to establish their point. N.B. Hardeman and Batsell Barrett Baxter both contended that church support of colleges (like Abilene and Lipscomb) and church support of benevolent organizations (like Schultz-Lewis) “stand or fall together.” What Bill uses to justify church support of Childhaven, they use to justify support of Abilene Christian University. When brethren I do not agree with begin advocating their views, they do not use the principles of truth for which I contend to justify their stance. See the difference, brother Jackson?

Yes, Bill, you are correct, “what some brethren believe or practice is not the standard of right! ” I have never argued to the contrary. “Again, the Scriptures are the Standard, not the brethren! ” Recognizing that, may we not continue to study and debate our differences in light of that “Standard”?

“(6) The final appeal. ” Bill, I do know why you cannot endorse Herald of Truth. I have known that since the meeting with the Abilene elders at the Getwell Rd. church in the Spring of 1974. 1 have always known that the issue was over the type of “cooperation involved!” Let us continue to discuss, not whether churches may cooperate (they may -2 Cor. 8,9; Rom. 15:25,26; 1 Cor. 16:1-4), but whether one church may act as the agent for other churches, to oversee and direct a work for other churches (1 Pet. 5:2; Acts 14:23; 20:28).

Bill, Calvin Warpula and Furman Kearley, two men who support church sponsored gyms and Family Life Centers, could take your last two sentences and use them against you thusly: (1) “Let the liberals proceed in their liberalism, but let’s you and I know that manufactured patterns, rules on exercise equipment and gymnasiums, rules on church camp grounds and day care centers, rules on church support of colleges, and a dozen side issues that have come from your own ‘anti-ism’ are the things keeping us apart.”

Bill, if they did so, would you see that as an answer or as a means to heal your division with those brethren? Likewise, neither do I. You would insist that those issues be dealt with in light of the Scriptures. Similarly, so do I.

Again, suppose Warpula and Kearley appealed to you, saying, (2) “When you brethren will again let congregations handle their finances and let elders conduct the business in the congregations (translation, meaning – Bill, when you keep quiet about gyms, when you let churches support Abilene, ignoring evolution in the science department of the university, when you will not oppose an eldership deciding to send money to a joint relief effort with the Christian Church, when you cease opposition to Herald of Truth, even with its present format, when you let each church decide without your ‘manufactured patterns’), without your patterns being forced upon them, we can get somewhere in forming a unity whereupon we can stand and mount a powerful attack against liberalism that is real! “

Bill, such an appeal would be “begging the question” so far as you are concerned. It would assume that you and your “anti-ism” are the problem, not their liberal policies and practices. So, here.

What, then? I propose that we continue to study and reason together. Following such a course will result in unity and fellowship among all those who love the way of truth.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 4, pp. 113-117
February 16, 1989

By Bill Jackson

The December 1, 1988 issue of Guardian of Truth, brother Larry Hafley ran an article that had appeared in our bulletin, The Southwesterner, entitled Hobbyism Has Its Snares “Built-In. ” He made extensive comments about our article, proving the old adage, “The hit dog yelps!” We will now make reply to his nn] e . – L series of numbered points.

(1) Who caused the present liberalism? Brother Hafley mentions myself and other faithful men, now fighting liberalism, as originating the basis of liberalism: Loving the little kittens and puppies, but hating the now grown-up cats and dogs. But note his logic (?): brethren taking a bite of food in a church building results in a Family Life Center, and ladies meeting in a classroom to give a gift to a bride-elect has led to the craze for a gymnasium! Convoluted logic (?), indeed! Hafley conveniently overlooks the fact that liberalism is rampant among his own fellowship, and more, on the very last page carrying his remarks is found an article identifying some false prophets among their ranks, one of them being among their champions and chief debaters in the 50s and 60s! And he wishes to pretend that those opposing his “anti-cooperation” views are causing the liberalism of our time!

(2) A straight line between two circles proves anything! This was the first tactic I saw in these brethren, back in the mid-50’s in California. Two circles connected with a straight line proved the orphan home parallel to the missionary society! And, brother Hafley’s article proves they have not changed, and still cannot see that the church is commissioned by the Lord as its own missionary instrumentality, but that when it comes to child-care, and if the church had an orphan, when the church thus received such a child it would still have to provide for it a home! The church is not a home! To try and escape the charge of originating doctrine for God, brother Hafley labors to have me say that no one in history ever thought of uttering any warnings in this area until recent times. I merely pointed out that in the remembrance of many yet living, they recall these issues developing in our times, and they know that “saints-only” benevolence was not even a part of the doctrine at the time! These brethren received this “revelation” in these latter-times!

It is noticed that these men howl over the “anti-cooperation” label, yet virtually all of their arguments rest in that area, except as they adapt to their own advantage within their fellowship. It comes with poor grace to take offense at the label, when they have charged the rest of us as being “liberal” and “apostate” when we refused to abide by their manmade rules!

(3) The manufactured patterns. In his charts (remember the connected circles?), he has the Antioch brethren (Acts 11:27-30) sending to Jerusalem elders, Bethany elders, Joppa elders, etc., and also shows by chart that Jerusalem elders could not have received and then turned to pass a portion on to the Joppa elders. Yet the fact is that his pattern is not set forth in the word, and he cannot prove it! But it is only significant to him because he and his brethren have already fashioned a pattern regarding traveling money. The “anti” rule is: A dollar cannot be received by an eldership and in turn be passed to another eldership! Hafley invents the Bethany, Joppa and Lydda situation, as he and his brethren also invent the “traveling dollar” doctrine! But that has been at the heart of our difference. Rather than have each congregation to set its own policies in these areas, brother Hafley and his brethren set them for all the saints. No, brother Hafley, I cannot join you in this. As I would not be a liberal, neither would I be an “anti”! I’d lose my soul in either course!

(4) 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 double talk. Smarting over 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 being, very clearly, a benevolence passage, and having invented the “anti” rule that what is said in regard to benevolence monies cannot be true when it comes to evangelistic monies, these men came up with the brilliant (?) deduction that 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 is not the basis for evangelistic support! His view on 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 is such that, apparently, if any benevolence is in view for any of those funds, there must be a second contribution then for evangelism and other needs! But, let them talk! They labor to show that the 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 contribution is the only one allowed by the Word (and that is true), and that churches may engage in evangelism and other appropriate works. Back they come to 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 for their basis, which they believe could not have had other purposes in mind, and it all amounts to double-talk. It still has every legitimate church expenditure based on 1 Corinthians 16:1,2’s authorization, which was cited for benevolence! Again, these men have been busy manufacturing patterns for the rest of us!

(5) Some of “brother Jackson’s brethren. ” Brother Hafley ran through a list of what “brother Jackson’s brethren” have believed. May I assure him that what some brethren believe or practice is not the standard of right! Strange that he would thus attempt to use this, when (as I cited) his co-writer lists three of “his brethren” by name and identifies them as false prophets spreading blasphemy! If you won’t buy all “your brethren” are selling, brother Hafley, why try to bind upon me what some of “my brethren” are saying and doing? Again, the Scriptures, are the standard, not the brethren!

(5) The final appeal. Brother Halfley points to some liberal works that now none of us will support, stating that we “fathered, fostered and fought for” them. To this good day these brethren have been unable to see that in the debates in the past, we fought for, not a particular work, but for the cooperation involved! I am perfectly willing to see the death of any work that will not stand for the truth of God, and will rejoice in its demise! But can these men not see that faithful brethren now cannot support the Herald of Truth, for example, not because of the type cooperation it involved, but because of the content of the message!

We will indeed grant the good intention in his final appeal, delivered as though we had left home base! Brother Hafley, I am where I have always been, from the 1940s on. You brethren left the body of the faithful, simply because one segment of the saints were becoming liberal, split thousands of churches, with the divisions apparent in hundreds of communities across the land. Let the liberals proceed in their liberalism, but let’s you and I know that manufactured patterns, rules on food and buildings, rules on weddings and funerals, and a dozen side issues that have come from your “anti-ism” are the things keeping us apart. When you brethren will again let congregations handle their finances and let elders conduct the business in the congregations, without your patterns being forced upon them, we can get somewhere in forming a unity whereupon we can stand and mount a powerful attack against the liberalism that is real!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 4, pp. 112, 120
February 16, 1989

By Mike Willis

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they, are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or rigs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one 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. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Matt. 7:15-23).

In Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, he warned men of the danger of false prophets. In the Pulpit Commentary, W.F. Adeney observed, “It is not enough for Christ to spread his own wholesome teaching; he must warn against the dangerous influence of bad teachers” (p. 297). We will do well to listen to his advice about these false prophets and do what we can to avoid them and their influence.

The Danger of False Prophets

Obviously there is no conflict in Jesus’ statement in vv. 15-23 and 7:1 where he said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Whatever judgment is there condemned does not prohibit the kind of judging necessary to determine whether or not a man is a false teacher.

1. False prophets exist. Some people seem to think that all of the false prophets in the world perished in the first century. They did not. There are plenty of men who are false prophets and false teachers today whose doctrines will lead men to damnation.

2. The danger false teachers pose to the soul. Why do false teachers pose a threat to man’s soul? I confess that I do not know, if what some of my brethren have written is correct. They have taught that, so long as a Christian is good, honest, and sincere, his sins do not separate him from God. If a false teacher leads a good, honest, and sincere man into sin, according to these brethren’s doctrine, his sins would not be separate him from the grace of God and lead him to damnation. Hence, the false teacher would only pose a threat to the soul of a dishonest, insincere, and wicked man, who is already lost.

That is not what Jesus taught, however. He warned of “blind guides” of “blind men,” telling us that both would fall into the pit of damnation. He said, “They be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15:14). Hence, Jesus warned that false teachers (even good, honest, and sincere unintentional false teachers) lead men into the pits of hell. P.C. Barker warned, “Let intention be what it may, if the fruit is bad, the prophet is a false prophet” (Pulpit Commentary: Matthew, p. 306). He continued to warn,

He wears the clothing of the sheep, and did not don it for the conscious purpose of deceiving; but he is deceived himself, and in nothing would be more individually surprised and mortified, if that could be brought home to him – than which nothing is more certain – that he is doing the odious work of the ravening wolf. Who can count the number of these deceived and deceivers, and the number of grievous wounds and rendings of limbs which these have made in the body of Christ in this one current half-century. We are entitled to say it, we are compelled to bewail it – “because of their fruits.” And in the seething multitude of those who name the Name of Christ now, one warning, one merciful, gracious caution, needs to be uttered aloud and to be listened to, “Beware of false prophets” (Ibid.).

The false teachers discussed by Jesus in this text apparently were good, honest, and sincere. They called Jesus “Lord” (Matt. 7:21), prophesied, cast out devils, and did many wonderful works in Jesus’ name (Matt. 7:22). The text indicates that these false teachers expected to enter heaven. However, their iniquities (Greek: anomid, lawlessness) caused Jesus to reject them. A false teacher can be the blind guide of the blind (Matt. 15:14); the term is not reserved to describe dishonest and insincere men.

3. The appearance of false teachers. One may be tempted to think that a false teacher is going to walk in the doors of a church building and announce, “I am a false teacher. I am here to lead men to hell. I want to announce my intentions beforehand so that I will be honorable.” That is not the manner in which false teachers operate.

False teachers appear in sheep’s clothing. Hence, they will transform themselves into apostles of light (2 Cor. 11: 1315). They will look like good, righteous men. In our day, false teachers appear so sweet spirited (until one challenges what they teach); they are too spiritually-minded to engage in debates and discussions so that their teachings may be examined openly. They preach only positive lessons (unless they are knifing in the back those “keepers of the orthodoxy” and “guardians” of the party). They are as cunning as a snake, and just as venomous.

4. The test of false teachers. Jesus told us how to test false teachers – by their fruit. This implies that the following are not criteria for testing whether. or not a man is a false teacher:

Tests of a Teacher Are Not

1 . Appearance

2. Personality

3. Reputation

4. Claims

5. Miracles

6. Professions (Lord, Lord)

None of the things mentioned here is legitimate means of determining whether or not a man is a false teacher. Rather, Jesus stated that the test of whether or not a man is a false teacher is his fruit. Writing in the Pulpit Commentary, P.C. Beware of False Barker spoke concerning the fruit which men must judge about false teachers:

The “fruits” of “false prophets,” of false teachers, who invest themselves with the abused title of “religious,” are both those fruits which appear in their own manner of life, and those which appear in their work, their ill work, among and in others. The false prophet often denounces himself in the utter incoherence of his doctrines, and in the inconsistency and impurity of his life. But whereas he is also a “ravening wolf,” on the highest authority, it is because of the dissensions, divisions, malice, and schism that his path is strewed with; and because of the falseness of his creed -erring now by defect, now by invention and addition, and now by contradiction of the Word and the Spirit (p. 305).

Here are some fruit which need to be judged:

a. He will claim to receive revelation from God. Prophets are men who receive divine revelations from God; false prophets claim to receive revelations which they never received from God. They will say, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?” How many times have you heard tele-evangelists claim to have received revelations from God? When men begin claiming to receive messages from God, especially in an age when revelation has ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-10; Jude 3; 2 Pet. 1:34), you can detect that he is a false prophet.

b. He will preach a “wide gate. ” Jesus had just stated, “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matt. 7:13,14). When men begin preaching a “wide gate,” they are false prophets.

A “wide gate” is a gate which makes entrance into the kingdom of heaven easier and/or other than Jesus revealed. Jesus said that the entrance into the kingdom is a “strait gate.” When men preach manners of entering the kingdom which Jesus did not reveal, they are false teachers. The conditions for entrance in the kingdom of heaven are revealed by Jesus (hear, believe, repent, confess, and be baptized); when men start teaching that men are saved who have never complied with these conditions, they are false teachers.

c. He will preach a broad way. The false teacher will teach a “broad way.” The “broad way” implies that a man can live any manner he so chooses and still be approved of God. When men start releasing men from obligation to any of God’s law, they are false teachers. False teachers which preach a broad way include men who release men from responsibility to respect human life (abortion), sober-mindedness (allow social drinking), marriage (allowing divorce and remarriage for any reason), modest dress, and any other law which God has laid upon men.

d. He may lead an immoral life. He may be full of covetousness, preaching what he preaches as a means of obtaining financial gain (cf. 2 Pet. 2). Some have perceived godliness as a means of gain (1 Tim. 6:5-6), having become teachers who tickle the ears of those who pay them. Some have become involved with “silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts” (1 Tim. 6:6). This fruit exposes them as false teachers.

e. He will leave a path of destruction in the churches with which he labors. Paul wrote of the Judaizers in Galatia who “trouble you” (1:7). False teachers will have that impact. They will raise questions which undermine faith, leading disciples away from the truth. When they are opposed by those who stand fast for the gospel, schism, dissension, and division will result. Hence, false teachers will leave a trail of churches torn apart by their false teaching. This is a “fruit” which men can judge.

A word of caution needs to be added. A false teacher might not manifest all of these attributes (for example, he might teach a strait gate and a broad way, he may not be immoral, etc.). However, these are some fruit which men can test in judging whether or not a man is a false teacher.

It Is Your Soul

A person should never be intimidated from testing whether or not what a person is teaching is from God. The Lord himself charged, “Beware of false prophets.” Consequently, men should “believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 Jn. 4:1). God-fearing men will search the Scriptures daily to see if the things taught are so (Acts 17:11), regardless of how respected the man is who is teaching them.

Remember, I am responsible for my soul. If I allow some false teacher to deceive me, he will lead me into eternal damnation. Therefore, I am not going to trust my soul to some other’s imprimatur that what another is teaching is pleasing to God, regardless of how well intentioned he might be. Rather, I am going to exercise my God-given right to test every teacher to see if what he teaches is from heaven or from men (Mat. 21:25). Frankly, I do not care whether he likes being so examined or not. There is too much at stake for me to irresponsibly accept what he is teaching without testing whether or not it is from God.

Remember the words of Jesus, “Beware of false prophets.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 5, pp. 130, 149-150
March 2, 1989

By Steve Wolfgang

Kelly Ellis departed this life on Friday morning, December 2, 1988, at the age of 75. Kelly had cancer surgery in late August, and, despite a brief post-operative return home, developed complication’s and was hospitalized from September until his .death. Funeral services was conducted in Danville on Sunday, December 4, by Earl Robertson and this writer, with interment in the Buffalo Springs cemetery at Stanford, KY, next to his beloved Claudia, who preceded him in death by one year and two weeks.

Kelly is survived by his two daughters, Sue (Mrs. Richard H. Cooper, of Stanford, KY), and Betsy (Mrs. Mike Meadows, of Cleveland, Ohio), and by five grandchildren. Other survivors include a sister, Lee Hafley, and a brother Robert.

I doubt I shall see anyone like Kelly Ellis again on this earth. Though small in physical stature, he was truly a great man – partly because he did not realize how great he was. Totally unpretentious, he was knowledgeable about a multitude of things, ranging from mathematics to the Scriptures to antiques to poetry and many things in between. But Kelly was not only knowledgeable in some arcane sense; he possessed a rare, insightful ability to communicate that knowledge to others. I have said on many occasions that if anyone today had the “gift of teaching,” it was surely Kelly Ellis.

Perhaps his greatest quality, however, was not in what he knew or could teach to others, but in his willingness to “spend and be spent” for the kingdom of God (2 Cor. 12:15). When the Danville church suggested in 1976 that he take early retirement from the public school system in order to teach in their special classes for young men aspiring to preach, Kelly consented without batting an eye – even though it meant foregoing several of the best-paying years a teacher might expect. His agreeing so readily was simply an extension of the commitment he had expressed for more than two decades prior to that. During that time, he had repeatedly done essentially full-time local work for various churches for part-time pay, while spending his “vacation” time holding meetings all over Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio. Meanwhile, he taught school for a living.

In this, he was following the example set by his own father, Charles Ellis. Kelly was born on September 3, 1913, near Gravel Switch, Kentucky – “down on the Fork,” as he would say. ~Those of you who don’t know where that is ought to visit there during the second weekend of October any year.) Kelly’s father, a, farmer, often would take time from his occupation to tend to his vocation – preaching. Often, young Kelly would see his father take a train on Friday or Saturday and return the following Monday, sometimes barely making enough to pay his fare.

Partly at his father’s urging, Kelly left the Fork to pursue his college education at Western Kentucky State Teacher’s college at Bowling Green. Kelly paid his own way partly with funds earned teaching in one-room rural schools after he finished his second year. Shortly before graduation from Western, he married Claudia Leber on August 13, 1940. With the exception of one year in Annapolis, Maryland during World War II, Kelly and Claudia lived in their native Boyle County all their lives. Although Kelly left teaching for a few years in the early 1950s to serve as bookkeeper for the Ford dealership in Danville, he returned to teaching in the late 1950s as the furor over “Sputnik” and the “missile gap” focused attention on the need for qualified teachers. Awarded several NDEA grants and local scholarships for excellence in teaching, Kelly continued his education at the University of Louisville, the University of Kentucky and then at Eastern Kentucky University, from which he earned a master’s degree in guidance counseling in 1962. Kelly served as guidance counselor at Boyle County High School in Danville until his retirement in 1976.

Kelly struggled with health problems most of his life. A serious abdominal infection contracted while he was teaching in Maryland during World War II – before antibiotics and “wonder drugs” – held him near death for several days. Surgery at the Mayo Clinic in the early 1950s resulted in the loss of part of his stomach. In 1973 he suffered two heart attacks, with another in 1985 and bypass surgery in 1986. It was a measure of the man that he never complained about his physical maladies, even when he was in pain. If you were not around him very much, you would never know any of the above. Kelly was not a complainer, whether his health was failing him or even when, on occasion, brethren treated him shabbily.

In fact, those of us who knew him will remember just the opposite: his deeply-ingrained sense of humor, indicated by that twinkle in his eye and the sly grin which appeared as he told one of his many “stories” – about Kentucky basketball, his weight, a former student’s misdemeanors, the perils of golfing, or, always among his best, some “preacher story.” I shall miss Kelly’s stories about as much as anything – but I hope to hear him tell other, better, stories someday.

During the late 1940, Kelly had begun to preach on a sporadic basis, as the need arose. As more congregations heard him, he began to be widely used in meeting work, and also preached regularly for the churches in Harrodsburg and Danville, strengthening them measurably.

But Kelly himself would tell you his strength was his ability as a teacher. During the fifteen years in which the Danville church has helped young men in their attempts to preach, probably 75 students have studied with him in an intensive curriculum of Bible study which he helped design and execute. Of those men, perhaps three-fourths are now preaching in more than a dozen states, Canada, South America, and West Germany; one student, Efrain Perez, is moving to Spain early in 1989. (For a fuller explanation of the Danville “Special Classes,” see Guardian of Truth, January 21, 1988, pp. 48-49.) I wrote then, and will repeat it now: “This program would not have begun or continued to exist without the services and commitment of Kelly Ellis.”

But Kelly could not only hold his own in the pulpit or the classroom; he was as talented a writer as there is among the brethren. I wish he had written more. He did produce one full-length adult Bible class workbook, God’s Perfect Plan, which is not only an able exposition of the scheme of redemption, but also exposes many false doctrines which have been substituted for the divine plan. Adult Bible classes would do well to utilize this workbook for classroom study. Young preachers, not yet fully grounded in fundamentals of the faith, should read it.

Another sample of Kelly’s expositional writing, which I read at his funeral, is found in his comments on the familiar passages in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7. “Paul was simply seeking to comfort the troubled hearts of the saints by assuring them that their loved ones would not be left in their graves, forsaken and forgotten. . . . No greater comfort can be given, and no greater hope can be entertained than that hope which faith in these promises is able to sustain in the heart of the faithful child of God” (Kelly Ellis, “Thessalonica: Trouble and Rest,” in Centers of Faith and Faltering: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1977, pp. 129-130).

Again, “Nowhere in the New Testament does the hope of the Christian shine more brightly than in these words, ‘and to you who are troubled, rest. . .’ Their patient endurance of affliction would not go unrewarded. . . . The ‘rest’ here mentioned is that which awaits the faithful Christian, not in this life, but in the world to come. It is rest and release from all of the temptations, trials, and difficulties of this present world. It is that rest which remains for the people of God . . . it was the promise of this rest that brought comfort and encouragement to the troubled saints at Thessalonica, and this same promise has inspired all Christians in every generation to”a life of faithful service and dedication to Christ and His church.” Truly, Kelly Ellis had “served his own generation by the will of God,” and then, like David and others, “fell asleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption” (Acts 13:36).

But, also like others, “he being dead yet speaks” (Heb. 11:4) because of what he did and what he left behind – in the influence of his children and of his own writing. Kelly was also a poet; several of his works, published in various journals, had been read and recommended by Jesse Stuart, whom Kelly so admired. Several of Kelly’s poems serve fittingly not only as the conclusion to this article, but as an epitaph to his, own life as well, and I am glad to share them with you.

Knobland Farmer

This land is mine; I paid for all of it,

With axe and plow and hoe I made it mine,

This old log house, this shade tree where I sit

And count the stars and while away the time.

I cut the timber from these rugged hills

Where oak and beech and highland poplars wave

To sun and stars and cotton clouds and rills

That carry waters to their ocean grave.

I grubbed the stumps and briars from rocky clay

And raised my crops, tobacco, corn and wheat,

From daylight to the close of Summer day

To feed livestock and earn the bread I eat.

I’ve worked and skimped and saved to have a place

To lay my head when evening time should come,

I’ve paid dues -I’ve run the honest race,

Contented now, I face the setting sun.

For I can sit out here among my hills

And touch the wind and see the twilight sky,

And listen to the frogs and whippoorwills

And be content and unafraid to die.

Testament

When destiny has fitted me for dust,

And winds of time have blown my life away,

And all my words and deeds are held in trust

And judged of you, the keepers of the day,

Lay me in native earth where I belong,

Where I have lived and loved the fleeting days,

And let there be no weeping and no song

For one who loves the earth in all her ways.

Raise then no monument of polished stone,

Let wild wind-flowers mark my resting place.

The winds will speak in leafy monotone

Strange epitaphs that time cannot erase.

Let wild fern drip her morning dews above me,

Let wild birds sing a dirge in woodland mood,

The silent stars will keep their watch above me

The while I sleep in death’s still solitude.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 4, pp. 110-111
February 16, 1989