Truth Magazine

By Ronny MillinerMiddlebourne

On March 10, I received a letter from Brother George T. Eldridge suggesting that I write an article on the Adams-Inman Debate which is to be held on May 30, 30, June 1, and 2 in Middlebourne, West Virginia. He suggested four questions. “1. Why is the debate occurring in Middlebourne, population about 1,000, and not in the city where the Ohio Valley College is located? 2. What events or circumstances led to the debate? 3. Why were these two able men selected? 4. I assume your work with the Fair View (should be Fair Avenue) congregation. What is the seating capacity of the building, and why is the debate only occurring in that building?” Most of this material in this article was in the December 11, 1977 issue of The Beacon (our local bulletin), but it may be that the larger audience of Truth Magazine may be interested in it.

The Beacon and Brother Inman

Back in the June 12, 1977, issue of The Beacon we had an article entitled `Debating.” In it, we spoke of some of our more liberal brethren’s action in regard to their willingness to debate the Baptist, Pentecostals, etc. but their lack of doing so in regard to things which have divided the church. We called upon some churches who practiced church support of man-made institutions, the sponsoring church arrangement, and / or church recreation to “open its door so as to have these things discussed.” We never did hear from any churches regarding such a discussion, but we did hear from Brother Clifton Inman.

I received a call from Brother Inman on July 3. He had come up to preach in Sistersville and said he wished to speak with me. As I had already made plans to do some visiting in the hospital in Sistersville, I told him I would meet him there. I had asked Brother Paul Fletcher (one of the elders here) to go with me, so I informed Brother Inman of such. We met in the building of the Sistersville Church of Christ. We spent a great deal of the afternoon discussing Ohio Valley College, church autonomy, and other things which had appeared in recent issues of The Beacon.

It was during this meeting that Brother Inman stated he would be willing to debate “anyone, anytime” regarding those items mentioned in The Beacon. However, he said he would only do so if the Middlebourne church would have the debate in our building or some place we would provide. He said he would not have it in Parkersburg. He would not agree to a discussion with two different congregations providing the place, that is, one congregation upholding his views providing accommodations two nights and another congregation- opposed to his views providing accommodations the other two nights. I mentioned that the size of our building would not be commodious to such a number who would desire to attend such a discussion. However, I told him I would report his comments to the elders at Middlebourne for their discussion.

The elders here, as well as myself, consider it would have been fairer for Brother Inman to have a congregation to back him and share in the provisions for such a discussion. But they decided they would provide a place for the whole discussion ands thus, began searching for a place large enough for the debate. Being unable to locate such a place in Tyler County the elders felt the best place to have the debate would have been in an exhibition building located on the Wetzel County 4-H Campgrounds. This site is about 15 miles from Middlebourne.

The elders also decided to ask Brother Connie W. Adams to meet Brother Inman in the debate. Brother Adams has had debating experience and they felt he would capably defend our beliefs in these matters. I then wrote to Brother Inman on August 16, 1977 stating we felt we had a suitable site and that he would need to contact Brother Adams regarding the propositions.

Inman’s Restrictions

I received a reply dated August 30, 1977 in which Brother Inman stated he would be willing to discuss the issues with Brother Adams. However, he added, “There are some restrictions which would place upon the place in which I will meet for the discussion. It should be in the immediate Middlebourne area, or in a place where the church in the area invites it. So before signing a proposition, I would have to know where the discussion is to be held.”

On September 3, 1977, I responded in a letter and sent him the information regarding the building and its location. I stated, “We certainly hope that this will be suitable for you, and that a small distance of 15 miles would not hinder a discussion which we feel would be profitable for all concerned.” His reply of September 21, 1977 stated, ‘It is my understanding that the Wetzel County 4H grounds are very near to New Martinsville and not very near to Middlebourne, comparatively speaking …. I see no reason for having the discussion in the area of the two congregations at New Martinsville and other surrounding congregations. Only if those congregations desired the discussion and desired me to be their representative would I consent to a discussion there.”

We answered in a letter dated September 27, 1977 expressing our disappointment in his attitude in this matter. I stated, I personally cannot see how this would pose any problem for the surrounding churches. After all, we do not have any dioceses. In fact, it would seem that the two congregations in New Martinsville should be willing to back you any way since you have the same convictions on these matters. Why not write them and see if they would be willing to stand behind you in this matter? They might consider such to be good.”

Brother Inman responded on September 28, 1977, “I do not believe that the church has any dioceses, yet there are elders who have oversight of congregations located in various vicinities. I believe in respecting those elders, their oversight, and the congregation’s autonomy …. There is a matter of courtesy and fair dealing involved which means something to me.”

We cannot help but wonder, if Brother Inman believes in church autonomy, why he is affirming a proposition that denies such. Now I suppose, according to his reasoning, we would need to tell all our radio listeners in the New Martinsville area to turn off their radios because they were not under our jurisdiction but rather that of the New Martinsville elders. I would guess it would also be wrong for us to run a teaching column in The Green Tab (local advertising paper) because a good number of the readers live in New Martinsville. A diocese is defined as “the territorial jurisdiction of a bishop.” Does Brother Inman believe in dioceses? We will let our readers decide for themselves.

We replied to Brother Inman on October 6, 1977, after the elders decided that they would go ahead and try to have the debate here in our building. We do so with regret knowing that there will be crowded conditions. We estimate that we will be able to get 375400 in our building by placing speakers in the basement and using it as well as the main auditorium. Thus, everyone may not be able to see the speakers, but we only hope that all who wish to hear the discussion will be able to do so.

Propositions

We learned in a telephone call to Brother Adams on November 10, that Brother Inman had signed the propositions. The propositions are basically those used in the Willis-Inman Debate with the exception that the radio program of the Central Church in Clarksburg, West Virginia as the sponsoring church has also been added along with the Herald of Truth. This debate is still in print and published by the Cogdill Foundation.

Final Word

It is indeed sad that some brethren seem to be afraid to defend what they believe. It seems to me that Brother Inman just wants to preach to the Middlebourne congregation. We wonder if he would debate a Baptist or Methodist under the same conditions. Is he afraid for some of his brethren to hear these things discussed? Did Jude say, “Contend for the faith only within, your own diocese”?

We of the Middlebourne congregation always stand ready to defend our practices and beliefs. (We do not, however, want to set a precedent of always having to provide the place and possibly the audience.) We feel this defense is our duty. We are shocked at the actions and attitudes of some of our brethren with regard to their lack of contending for the faith. But history has shown that this attitude is usually characteristic of those who depart from the word of God.

We extend an invitation to all who would be able to hear this discussion. Some of the brethren here have voluntered to open their homes to those visiting from afar. There are also a few motels in the area. Any one desiring further information can contact me at P.O. Box 371, Middlebourne, West Virginia 26149 or (304) 7584313. We look forward to a crowded but profitable debate.

Truth Magazine XXII: 19, pp. 316-317
May 11, 1978

By Guthrie Dean

“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come. And when I arrive, whomsoever ye shall approve, them will I send with letters to carry your bounty unto Jerusalem; and if it be meet for me to go also, they shall go with me.” This case of poverty in Jerusalem should not be confused with the famine which struck all of Judea in the days of Claudius Caesar which has already been discussed.

2 Corinthians 8:13-15

“For I say not this that others may be eased and ye distressed; but by equality; for your abundance being a supply at this present time for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want; that there may be equality: as it is written. He that gathered much had nothing over; and he that gathered little had no lack.” This passage also refers to the case of Jerusalem’s poverty, as mentioned in 1 Cor. 16:1-4 and 2 Cor. 8:16-24 (which follows).

2 Corinthians 8:16-24

“But thanks be to God, who putteth the same earnest care for you into the heart of Titus. For he accepted indeed our exhortation; but being himself very earnest, he went forth unto you of his own accord. And we have sent together with him the brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the churches; and not only so, but who was also appointed by the churches to travel with us in the matter of this grace, which is ministered by us to the glory of the Lord, and to show your readiness: avoiding this, that any man should blame us in the matter of this bounty which is ministered by us: for we take thought for things honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men. And we have sent with them our brother, whom we have many times proved earnest, by reason of the great confidence which he hath in you. Whether any inquire about Titus, he is my partner and my fellow-worker to you-ward; or our brethren, they are the messengers of the churches, they are the glory of Christ. Show ye therefore unto them in the face of the churches the proof of your love, and of our glorying on your behalf.” Some have tried to use this example of church cooperation to prove a sponsoring church arrangement, or to prove the formation of a board of directors to oversee and head up a work for a number of churches. But such is not the case. These messengers merely took the funds from the contributing churches and delivered them to the “poor among the saints” which were at Jerusalem (Rom 15:26, A.S.). And this should not be taken to mean that the Jerusalem elders were by-passed in the delivery of the funds. David Lipscomb makes a clear and concise comment on t hi se messengers. “These messengers of the churches were sent by the churches, and sustained the same relation to the churches sending them as the apostles sent by Christ sustained to him. The apostles of Christ were sent by Him to deliver a message. They had no authority except to deliver the message and perform the work Christ sent them to do. They had no authority as delegates. They had no right to confer one with another to determine how the Lord should act. They had no right to legislate for God. The messengers or the churches had no more right to assemble, confer, determine how or what Christ and God should do. The messengers of the churches were sent to carry the message and do the specific work the church sent them to do, without direction or power to change or otherwise direct the work of the churches. Messengers have no right to meet other messengers and organize a body, nor to consider or determine what is best, nor to form a new organization, nor to legislate. Scriptural messengers carried a message or gift, went to do a work and return. Their power was limited to this” (A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles, Vol. 3, p. 117-118).

2 Corinthians 11:8

“I robbed other churches, taking wages of them that I might minister unto you.” This is a case of churches cooperating through concurrent action, by sending wages directly to Paul as he labored in the gospel. No sponsoring church nor society stood between Paul and the support sent to him.

Philippians 4:15-16

“And ye yourselves also know, ye Philippians, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church had fellowship with me in the matter of giving and receiving but ye only; for even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my need.” This is another case of support being sent directly to the evangelist in the field.

None of the above verses authorize a missionary or benevolent society. And none of the verses authorize the sponsoring church type of cooperation. The sponsoring church idea is foreign to the teachings of the Bible. Elred M. Stevens had a good article in the Firm Foundation (August 3, 1965) that I shall quote from with regards to the “sponsoring craze” among us: “A local church alone cannot even have a great gospel meeting any more. It has been told that `the day of great meetings is over.’ However, if that church will find one or two more congregations to cooperate in a ‘campaign’ to be financed by the cooperation of many churches, the picture changes. This is particularly true if arrangements are made for a brotherhood public relations firm to do the ballyhoo and handle the promotion. This author was recently shocked (to put it mildly) to learn the cost of postage and promotional commissions involved in some well-known cooperative ‘campaigns.’ We are traveling rapidly toward the need for turning over some tables and driving some moneychangers out of the temple! The local congregation has lost its appeal to preachers. We cry about our preacher shortage. Local preaching no longer challenges. It is only for one who is too limited in talent and void of ambition to break in at the higher levels, particularly the promotion of projects that are too big for the local church. We speak much of the scripturalness of our congregational autonomy; however, let a congregation try to exercise it and see what happens. Watch how quickly it is labeled and gets into trouble.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 19, pp. 312-313
May 11, 1978

By O. C. Birdwell

Statements are often made which indicate a prevalent lack of knowledge about Bible teaching concerning the church. Some ask, “Do you mean that one has to be a member of the church to be saved?” Another may say, “The church is not the savior,” inferring by the statement that someone teaches that the church is the savior. Also, one might hear, “I believe one church is as good as another,” indicating that they believe Jesus built many and that they are all equal. To this list the reader may be able to add similar statements he has heard, or possibly some that he himself has uttered. With this problem before us, let us do some simple, but honest and revealing, study about the church in the New Testament, and try to see how that church relates to our salvation.

“Church” in the New Testament

The Greek word “ekklesia, ” in the Greek New Testament, has been translated in different places by the words “church,” “congregation,” and “assembly.” The word “church” is used when reference is made by Jesus to the universal body He would build (Matt. 16:18), and also, by the apostle Paul, when he addresses a local congregation (1 Cor. 1:2). The word “congregation” is used on occasions when the writer is speaking of the local church or assembly (Heb. 2:12, ASV, or Matt. 18:17, ASV, see footnote in ASIA. The word `ekklesia”was commonly used in the days of the apostles to refer to most any assembly of people. Such is its usage in Acts 19:39, where it is translated “assembly.” The word is used by Luke to refer to townspeople who were not Christians. The word is also used in our day to refer to bodies of people who obviously do not belong to Christ. Just because a group may be a church does not mean they are “of Christ.” The word, however, is the one used by our Lord in Matt. 16:18 when He spoke of the spiritual institution He would build. He also called it the kingdom and revealed that it would begin in Jerusalem, in the lifetime of the then present disciples, and with the coming of the Holy Spirit to guide them unto all the truth. The event took place in Jerusalem on the Pentecost following the ascension of Christ (Luke 24:46ff; Acts ch. 1 and 2). The facts of the gospel were preached. People believed the facts and asked “What shall we do?” They were told to “repent and be baptized.” The Lord added “to them day by day” (v. 47, ASS, or to “the church daily” (KJV), such as were being saved. Obviously, those who were saved from past sins were added by the Lord to His church. They did not “join the church” but became members through their obedience to the gospel. In our day, if one has forgiveness of past sins and enters the church, he will do so through this same process.

Are Denominations the Church?

It is popularly believed that the church is the sum of all the denominations in the world. Often John 15:5 is used for proof. Jesus said, “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” Many interpret this statement as they view modern denominationalism. They conclude that Jesus means that the different churches are branches. This is not the case. Jesus is speaking about His disciples, individually, being branches. He said, “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch”‘(v. 6). It is somewhat ridiculous to suppose that the denominational bodies, many of which teach diametrically opposed doctrines, could come together to make up the one body of Christ. The idea is surely not taught in the New Testament.

Why Do Many Churches Exist?

Many have asked, “From whence, then, came all the :denominations?” First, we can say assuredly, and without fear of successful contradiction, that they were not built by Jesus Christ. This should be enough. If this is not enough, in the second place, we can show that all of them came into existence through human invention and intervention. In the early centuries following the establishment of the church, there was a falling away from the truth of the New Testament. This was predicted by New Testament writers (Acts 20:28-31; 1 Tim. 4:1-4, and others), and began even before some of them died. The completeness of the falling away has been presented by historians. In the falling away from the truth, false religions were established upon false doctrines. Since that time there have been many efforts to reform existing false religious institutions. These efforts have, in the main, resulted in still other denominations being started because the reformers have not gone back to only the Bible. They have followed men and men’s creeds. Even as did Israel of old, people have trusted in their “multitude of mighty men,” instead of depending upon Jehovah’s revelation for their guidance (Hos. 10:13).

Some of Their False Teaching

For many years some preachers in denominational bodies have claimed a direct guidance by the Holy Spirit. They have claimed this for their teaching, and some even affirm the ability to perform miracles by the Spirit. Yet, they, as already shown, teach contradictory doctrines. Surely one ought to have the right to suppose that they do not affirm that the Holy Spirit verifies, by signs and wonders, one teaching by one man, and, at the same time, another altogether different teaching by someone else! This would place the blame for the existing religious divisions on the Holy Spirit. But such is the doctrine of denominationalism! It teaches that the Spirit operates in one church to teach a doctrine and operates in another church to contradict the same doctrine.

One radio preacher, who preaches for a United Pentecostal Church, recently severely criticized the denominational machinery of the national denominational group with which he is identified. He affirmed that his local church is independent; that this is right, and the others are wrong and violate scripture. Yet, he still believes the organizational preachers can speak in tongues and work miracles, which power he also claims for himself. So, he has the Holy Spirit verifying what he believes to be right, and at the same time, verifying what he believes to be false. The truth is, the Holy Spirit has already confirmed the word through signs and miracles. That word is written in the New Testament. He does not continue, through direct intervention, to verify it today. Denominationalists need to see that the Holy Spirit has never endorsed any false teaching by enabling the teacher to perform signs and miracles. It is mere folly to claim such endorsement today.

Conclusion

One plea that we make to you, our reader, and to all who hear us preach, is that people should not become members of any of these man-made churches. They are not essential to salvation. Membership in the church Jesus built, however, is essential. To say this is not to say that the church is the savior. Rather than being the savior, the church constitutes the saved. Those who repent and are baptized are, upon this obedience, added to the church (Acts 2:38-47). Paul affirms that Christ is the savior of the church (Eph. 5:23).

Jesus, in presenting a parable about the kingdom, said, “The seed is the word of God” (Luke 8:11). That which will produce the kingdom or church today in any community or nation is the pure and unadulterated word. Add to it the theology of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, or any other uninspired man, and something other than the church of the New Testament is produced. This is what has happened in our day. Jesus has not promised to save these bodies, but only the faithful in His own.

Truth Magazine XXII: 19, pp. 311-312
May 11, 1978

By David Harkrider

This is a story of how the church at Jerusalem provided transportation to its services. The story is based on supposition. However, you may not think this speculation farfetched when considered in the light of certain facts. Brethren in the twentieth century have devised a scheme for gathering crowds to church services called the Bus Ministry. This plan utilizes an appealing form of transportation, coupled with door prizes, as an inducement. Realizing that the Jerusalem brethren were no less brilliant and certainly as zealous to follow every scriptural means of gathering crowds to hear the gospel, gives us a good basis upon which to rest our supposition about the Jerusalem Mule Ministry. Add to this the fact that some among them were inspired with the mind of Christ, and we may be certain that no available and legitimate means of getting people to church services was overlooked. When brethren today question the Bus Ministry they are accused of being against getting people to hear the gospel. Surely we can not conclude that there was any such reluctance on the part of the Jerusalem brethren. Therefore, since the means were available, and the necessary zeal and wisdom were present, it seems inevitable that we must conclude that the Jerusalem brethren had a Mule Ministry. After all, do we not read in Acts that tremendous crowds assembled to hear the gospel preached? What further proof could we require to convince us that our supposition is well founded?

It is likely that the Pharisees had already established routes throughout Jerusalem transporting children to the synagogues. This seems apparent from the fact that they compassed land and sea to make one proselyte (Matt. 23:15). Not to be outdone by the Pharisees the Jerusalem brethren sent their mule trains on the same routes. They would get there earlier and offer bigger and better prizes to ride the Church of Christ Joy Mule Train. No doubt they even painted the mules bright colors and added some exotic forms of transportation. After all if twentieth century brethren can import buses from England, the Jerusalem brethren were wise enough to see the advantage of using camels from Egypt.

I can see that the Jerusalem brethren had a great advantage over the Pharisees. The apostles had the power to multiply loaves and fishes and there was no way the Pharisees could outdo them in offering prizes for coming to church. Multiplying loaves and fishes was proven to be an effective way to gather a multitude. In John 6:24 we read: “When the multitude therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they themselves got into the boats, and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.” Jesus identified that which prompted the multitude to assemble in verse 26: “Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye ate loaves and were filled.” So here we have positive proof that the apostles had the power to employ a gimmick that was a verified crowd getter. The rebuke spoken by Jesus in verse 27 offers some problem. But surely it was not an insurmountable obstacle. We judge this because twentieth century brethren seem to have no difficulty harmonizing this scripture with their Bus Ministry.

In all likelihood, the Jerusalem church had some problems controlling the crowds that rode their mule trains. Children attracted by the excitement of the transportation and the prizes, seem for some strange reason to lack interest in gospel preaching. They seem to react in much the same manner that a fish, drawn by an artificial lure, reacts when he feels the hook. But the fish who swallows the worm is hooked, and fight though he may, he still must submit to the will of him who fooled him with the worm.

Obviously though, humans cannot be controlled like fish and .such conflict of purposes inevitably will disrupt the services and distract those who came to worship God. No doubt the Jerusalem brethren experiencing such problems brought in Timothy, Titus and other young preachers and conducted special services for their Mule Ministry pupils. After all, who could expect children who have never been to church services to sit still and listen to an old head like Peter. Even promising them a picnic if they would sit quietly did not seem to help. The perfect solution was the Jerusalem youth church. Of course their limited attention span had to be accommodated and not much teaching could be done. But the whole program was considered worthwhile because it kept the children out of the synagogues of the Pharisees and gave the zealous Christians of Jerusalem a deep sense of personal satisfaction to work so diligently for the Lord by driving the mules.

It ought to be added that the parents of the Mule Ministry children didn’t seem to object to the indoctrination of their offspring. They seemed to welcome the free baby-sitting service and whatever teaching took place was not very apparent because all their children talked about was the fun they had riding the mules, attending the “fellowships” and getting the prizes. The brethren had so cunningly taught them, that even the children didn’t know that they had been indoctrinated.

The Mule Ministry was a tremendous success though it is somewhat strange that the Bible doesn’t mention it. Is it possible we have supposed too much?

Truth Magazine XXII: 19, pp. 310-311
May 11, 1978