Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Virginia: “Certainly we have to admire Daniel’s courage in praying to God after the edict not to pray for 30 days, but why did he have to do it before an open window, just because the command had not yet been given not to pray to be seen of men?”

Reply:

If you are not familiar with the story of Daniel in the lions’ den, read the sixth chapter of Daniel. The question above is based on the events described in that passage.

Even in the Old Testament, praying to be seen of men was wrong. The consideration of Daniel’s deeds does not involve that particular point. Suffice it to say that Daniel did not pray to be seen of men. If he had, he would have been censored. It is not indicated in the sacred narrative that Daniel acted improperly in any manner. His conduct was vindicated by his miraculous deliverance. The fact that neither Daniel’s behavior nor his judgment were questioned is tacit proof of the propriety of his actions in every respect.

Matthew Henry answers the major portion of our querist’s question; so, we shall let him conclude this column.

“When he knew that the writing was signed he continued to do as he did aforetime, and altered not one circumstance of the performance. Many a man, yea, and many a good man, would have thought it prudence to omit it for these thirty days, when he could not do it without hazard of his life; he might have prayed so much the oftener when those days had expired and danger was over, or he might have performed the duty at another time, and in another place, so secretly that it should not be possible for his enemies to discover it; and so he might both satisfy his conscience and keep up his communion with God, and yet avoid the law, and continue in his’ usefulness. But, if he had done so, it would have been thought, both by his friends and by his enemies, that he had thrown up the duty for this time, through cowardice and base fear, which would have tended very much to the dishonor of God and the discouragement of his friends. Others who moved in a lower sphere might well enough act with caution; but Daniel, who had so many eyes upon him, must act with courage; and the rather because he knew that the law, when it was made, was particularly leveled against him. Note, we must not omit duty for fear of suffering, no, nor so much as seem to come short of it. In trying times great stress is laid upon our confessing Christ before men (Matt. x. 32), and we must take heed lest, under pretense of discretion, we be found guilty of cowardice in the cause of God.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 20, p. 322
May 18, 1978

By Donald P. Ames

In Heb. 11:1 we find, “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” There are things we must accept by faith, as there is no other way we can explain them. We cannot examine them scientifically, nor are we eyewitnesses of them. Thus, our only source of information is that which is found in the word of God itself. To illustrate, even the Bible tells us, “No man has seen God at any time” (Jn. 1:18). What is He like? Does He have a body? Where did he come from? Is He masculine or a female, as some today claim? Our only source for answers is that which is found in the Bible (Jn. 4:24, Gen. 1:1).

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible” (Heb. 11:3). What do we know about the creation? Was it six actual days or billions of years? Did it come at the spoken word of God, or by some other means? How did man get here? Our only reply, again, is what the word of God reveals to us (Gen. 1-2).

How do we know there is a heaven? Has anyone ever actually seen it? Have we walked its street? Taken pictures of it? Do we have any tangible evidence it exists? Does man have a soul? Can we scientifically calculate its existence? Is it eternal or does it cease when we die? And, are our sins really removed when we obey the gospel of Christ? What proof do we have that they have been? These, and many more questions, are only able to be answered by going to the word of God (Matt. 5:12, 10:28, 25:46; Mk. 16:16; etc.). Again our reply is- basely solely upon faith in the word of God that these things are so.

Because of this faith in the Bible as the source of our convictions, some today would accuse us of following a “blind faith,” of believing in a faith that is “groundless” and “without support.” They mock our belief in God and in the Bible as His inspired word (2 Tim. 3:16-17). They denounce it as “unreasonable,” “unscientific,” and “foolishness.”

Of course it is true we accept only by faith in the word of God that God has always existed. But by the same token, evolutionists must also accept by faith the eternal existence of energy and matter. Thus the question that must be answered is: Which system of faith (creation with God or evolution without God) is the more logical and consistent? Is Christianity a defensible religion? I believe that it is, and that our faith is based on valid and solid evidences.

Paul was not afraid nor ashamed to profess a belief in the Bible as the inspired word of God (Rom. 1:16). He went amongst the heathen (Gentiles) and “in almost all of Asia… persuaded and turned away a considerable number of people, saying that gods made with hands are no gods at all” (Acts 19:26). This he could not do by pronouncing a blindly accepted faith and merely asking them to accept it because he liked that idea better than the idea of their idols. Instead, he challenged their idols, reasoned with them, presented evidence for the existence of one true God, and convinced them of the validity of the revealed word of God. So did the others who carried the word of God forth amongst the heathen. Their logic and reasoning had to be valid and effective or they would have made no converts.

God has given us testimony of Himself in the creation, the universe and the marvelous creation of man (Rom. 1:20; Acts 14:17; Job 37-38; Psa. 19:1-2, 139:14). The Bible also bears testimony that it is the product of a Divine Mind in the consistency of its account, the prophecies and their fulfillment, the accuracy of their records, and the simplicity with which it treats its great themes and men-without claiming sinless perfection for its heros. Indeed it is the inspired word of that “Divine Mind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:21; 1 Thess. 2:13). Thus, our faith is not “groundless,” and “without support” but based on solid, reasonable and reliable evidence. We can know it is sound because the basis has been demonstrated, and from this clear proof, we need not fear to base our faith on its promises, nor to stand ready to declare its defense (1 Pet. 3:15). Thank God for the evidences He has given us, that we might have faith in the accuracy of His word on those things we must accept by faith (Titus 1:2).

Truth Magazine XXII: 19, pp. 317-318
May 11, 1978

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