It is with sadness of heart that I make the statement contained in the above title. I have followed the writings, the work, and the debates of Charles Holt with great interest for the past 10 years I was privileged to hear Brother Holt in the debate he had with Roy Deaver in Jacksonville, Florida. I thought then, and I still think today, that he did an outstanding job in defending the truth against Brother Deaver. But, Brother Holt has gone the way of the liberal, the modernist, and for the most part the sectarian -- HE WILL NOT DEFEND HIS DOCTRINE.

In May, 1968 it was my privilege to be engaged in a series of meetings with the North Hixon church in Hixon, Tennessee, a suburb of Chattanooga, Tennessee. Brother Holt now resides in the Chattanooga area. No sooner had I arrived in Chattanooga than a brother began to tell me about some of the teachings of Charles Holt. He then told me that Brother Holt had been employed by them to preach for them regularly, but even before he began, the brethren at North Hixon learned of some of the modernistic teaching that he was doing and asked him to come and talk with them -- and he refused. Of course they did not allow him to come and preach for them after this incident.

While I was in the meeting, several of the brethren asked me if I would be willing to meet Brother Holt in a public discussion. I was hesitant to do so; but the last night of the meeting, I made up my mind that I would and called a meeting of the brethren there and asked them if they would be willing to endorse me to meet him and provide their facilities. They said they would be happy to do so, and if their facilities were not adequate they would provide larger facilities to accommodate the crowds. Having this assurance and vote of confidence from them, I home the next day and soon wrote came home the next day and soon wrote Brother Holt telling him of the request that was made by several brethren in that area for a public discussion on his views. I suggested that he defend the positions that he and others had been setting forth in the Sentinel of Truth (a paper of which he is the editor) and urged him to write propositions that he would be willing to defend and send them to me. Until this good day I have not heard one word from him. Recently I called one of the members of the North Hixon congregation in Chattanooga inquiring of any progress that was being made; and he told me he had seen Charles recently and had asked him about the discussion. Brother Holt's reply was, "I don't intend to fool with even answering Brother Smith." That is exactly what I have received from every liberal preacher and modernist I have challenged in the past few years -- not even a reply.

After I finally decided that Brother Holt was not going to answer my letter and send propositions, I sent him the following signed propositions.

"Every essential feature that marks a local church of Christ as a distinct church, organization or institution, is from man and not from God."

Affirm _______________________

Charles A. Holt

Deny ________________________

J. T. Smith

"The New Testament teaches that the local ekklesia of Christ is an organized functional entity."

Affirm ______________________

J. T. Smith

Deny _______________________

Charles A. Holt

"Elders (overseers, bishops) are to be appointed in every congregation to oversee the flock which is among them"

Affirm ______________________

J. T. Smith

Deny _______________________

Charles A. Holt

"The New Testament teaches that the word "elder" is only a word of comparison and is never used to show that one must meet qualifications in order to be ordained or appointed -- exalted to a position of oversight."

Affirm ______________________

Charles A. Holt

Deny _______________________

J. T. Smith

These propositions that I asked Brother Holt to affirm were taken from the Sentinel of Truth. The one on the church was taken word for word from a statement he made in his paper with the exception of the word "local." The other one on the eldership is a summary of several statements that he made in the S. O. T. He has REFUSED not only to sign the propositions, but even to answer the letters I have written to him. I contend this is NOT the Charles Holt we have known before that was a defender of the faith. He probably has had fifty debates. Brother Holt has become soft in his defense of what he believes the Bible teaches. He is not willing to defend his false teachings. Surely those who had been led to believe that the doctrines mentioned above have some merit will now begin to wonder, seeing that the "great defender" is no longer willing to defend. Look long and hard, brethren, for they cannot be defended. If you think they can, get Brother Holt to sign his name to the propositions. He has a standing invitation with me to debate the above propositions in Chattanooga (with no travel expense, because he lives there; with no expense for facilities, for the North Hixon congregation will provide them; and I will even let him use my overhead projector to show his charts and provide him with the pens and plastic sheets to make them on) anytime he will sign the propositions and dates can mutually be agreed on.

I predict that in view of this development, his teaching and the Sentinel of Truth will soon "fall by the wayside." Things usually work that way when you have a doctrine you do not think enough of to defend.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XIII: 6, pp. 4-5
March 1969