Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

“Now in the very beginning of my part of this service . . .” With booming voice, twinkling eyes, and those familiar words, he would begin. Like a fine race horse anxiously awaiting a signal to start the running, he showed an eagerness to start to work on his audience. Usually he would be speaking before he reached the pulpit stand.

He knew how to move an audience. Never did he lack for a good story to illustrate his point. His hearers would laugh heartily at his old Kentucky anecdotes, but when he preached about the price of redemption, the love of God for sinners, or the blood-bought church, and these were his favorite themes, his voice would break with emotion and tears would come to the eyes of his hearers.

Born in Hazel, Kentucky, July 1, 1915, he was one of two sons of J. R. and Mattie Parker Miller. His mother had a degree in Elocution and Oratory, and from early childhood James Parker was put on the platform and coached and trained by her. His old-style oratory, used with great effect in preaching and debating, was as natural with him as eating and breathing. His father instilled in him a love for good poetry.

His education included college work at Murray State, only seven miles from his native town. He attended Freed-Hardeman College at Henderson, Tennessee, for one quarter, then enrolled in Union University at Jackson, Tennessee, for his junior and senior years. Debating was his principal interest during those college years.

Preacher

It was in 1936 at Murray, Kentucky, that James Parker preached his first sermon. Soon he made a reputation as an energetic young preacher in Western Kentucky and Western Tennessee. Many brethren knew him only as James Parker or Brother Parker.

The Thayer St. Church in Akron, Ohio, one of the largest congregations north of the Ohio River at that time, invited him to work with them on a temporary basis in the fall of 1937. He stayed two and one-half years and baptized 187 people.

For five years, 1940-45, he worked with the 56th St. and Warrington Ave. Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This was one of several churches of Christ started in North America by British brethren. Most of its members had come to the United States from Birmingham, England, where they were members of the Old Gate St. Church of Christ. They brought with them certain British customs and peculiarities. For example, they believed in the mutual ministry system. Strangely, they let Miller preach week after week but never admitted that he was them located preacher. Each Sunday, he would be introduced as James P. Miller, an evangelist from Akron, Ohio, or as James P. Miller, an evangelist from Hazel, Kentucky.

During the Philadelphia years, he would go home to Kentucky to hold meetings. At Williams Chapel in Galloway County he met Robbie Nell Myers. They were soon married. Their only child, Rodney, was born in Philadelphia, in 1943 while the father was in Detroit, Michigan, peaching in a meeting. Miller did extensive radio work while in Philadelphia. His first book was Philadelphia Radio Sermons.

The family moved from Philadelphia to Evansville, Indiana, in 1945, and for two years James preached for the Bellemeade Ave. Church. In 1947, they moved to their own little place called “Hideaway,” between Hazel and Murray, but soon James was preaching at Clements St. in Paducah. Wherever they lived, he always spent a lot of time away from home in gospel meetings.

In the fall of 1949, this writer first crossed paths with the subject of this sketch. I came to Florida Christian College, then a four-year school, as a junior. In August of that year, the Millers had moved to Florida from Kentucky, and Bobbie was employed by the college to teach home economics. James preached here and there and held meetings. I first heard him preach in a meeting with the old Howard Ave. church in Tampa. A few weeks before his death I asked him if he remembered a sermon that he preached at Howard Ave. on “The Last Days.” He had completely forgotten it. I told him that it was the only sermon I ever heard him preach that I could outline it, and I still have the outline. He put the references on the blackboard, showing that Isa. 2, Dan. 2, and Joel 2 were fulfilled in Acts 2.

For about 21 months in 1952-53 the Millers lived in Orlando, Florida. James worked with the Jefferson St. Church and did an exceptionally effective radio broadcast on WORZ. I lived in nearby DeLand during Bart of that time and was among his early morning listeners via radio.

The Miller family returned to Tampa in 1953 where they remained until 1969. Bobbie returned to her work in the classroom at Florida College, and her devoted husband preached for the Seminole Church. During these years the Seminole brethren relocated and erected a spacious new building. Jim Miller gave his heart and soul to building up the Seminole Congregation, although he was away for extended preiods preaching in meetings.

The first time I saw Miller after moving to Temple Terrace in 1968, he blurted out, “Now I want to tell you one thing. We are glad to have you in the Tampa area, but I want you to understand that I am going to cut your throat every chance I get!” He knew that I knew he was joking. James P. Miller was not one to build up a congregation at the expense of taking members from a neighboring congregation. He deplored such a practice and called it “sheepstealing.”

For nearly five years, 1969-73, Bobbie and James P. were back in their native Kentucky. He preached for the 12th St. Church in Bowling Green.

The next four years were spent on the east coast of Florida. Following this period of labor with the Merritt Island Church, it was back to Tampa. Declining health curtailed his activities, but the Del Rio Church was blessed with his preaching in the last few months of 1977. He kept on trying to hold meetings when he was not really able to go. He wore himself out doing what he loved — preaching the gospel.

Debater

Having made the debate team at Hazel when ten years old and in the seventh grade, James P. debated while in high school and won many honors on debate teams in college. This gave him experience that he put to good use in later years.

While preaching in Philadelphia, he had a two-night skirmish with Bishop S. C. Johnson, founder of the “Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith, Inc.” He engaged Paul Mackey in a Sunday afternoon discussion at Pottstown, Pennsylvania, on the subject of cups and classes. In 1946 while living at Evansville, he met “Red” Bingham, a Missionary Baptist, in a fournight clash. Not long after coming to Florida in 1949, he was defending the truth in this area. In Feb., 1950, at Zephyrhills, he had a three-night debate with Clarence C. Hamm, a Landmark Baptist. Clinton D. Hamilton moderated for him, and later reported in the Gospel Advocate, “Brother Miller is one of the most convincing and forceful debaters in his generation.”

In the summer of 1950 he had a four-night discussion with L. R. Riley, Missionary Baptist, at Mayfield, Kentucky. It was reported that five to eight thousand people jammed the fairgrounds grandstand to hear the debate. Pat Hardeman was Miller’s moderator.

Nashville, Georgia, was the arena for a four-night debate with W. T. Cook in October, 1954. Cook was a Progressive Primitive Baptist. Telling about this debate later, Miller would say, “That is a contradiction in terms if ever there was such. Progressive means going forward. Primitives requires going backward. Mr. Cook was a going-forward going-backward Baptist!”

Orlando, Florida, was the scene of a three-night debate in May, 1955. Morris Butler Book of the “Christian Church” affirmed the use of instrumental music in worship. Franklin T. Puckett moderated for Miller. About a thousand people heard each session and the entire debate was published.

In the fall of 1955, he had a four-night debate with Thomas O. Dennis of the “Church of God” at Charleston, South Carolina. This was followed in the spring of 1956 with another four-night battle with Billy Sunday Myers at Lancaster, South Carolina. Myers and Dennis took the “holiness” positions.

A five-night discussion was conducted with L. Chester Guinn, Baptist, at Clute, Texas, in December, 1959. _W. Curtis Porter was scheduled for this debate, but an injury made it necessary for someone to take his place. Earlier, Miller had debated another Baptist, Albert Garner, for four nights in Miami, Florida.

In August, 1965, Miller debated G. K. Wallace in Tampa for four nights on church support of human institutions and the Herald of Truth type of cooperation. The same issues were debated with Guy N. Woods in Montgomery, Alabama, in the summer of 1966. It was my privilege to hear this debate from beginning to end. Another Montgomery debate with Woods was conducted in February, 1972. In the first encounter with Woods, James P.’s brother, Bob Miller, moderated for most of the discussion.

James P. was highly effective as a debater. When the esteemed W. Curtis Porter passed away, Miller wrote, “Brethren who want the blood-bought church to do her work through human institutions could not answer his arguments in his life and they can not answer them in his death.” The same may be said now of Miller’s arguments.

Editor

While living in Evansville, James P. became editor of the Christian Leader. That journal was in its 60th year and the aging F. L. Rowe could carry the burden no longer. Realizing that the men associated with the Leader were too liberal for him, James P. terminated his work as editor in a relatively short time.

In 1957, H. E. Phillips and James P. began publishing the Florida Newsletter which soon became the Southeastern Newsletter. They launched a full-size periodical in January, 1960, and called it Searching the Scriptures. For a full decade their names appeared as co-editors. They made a good team. Phillips had the skill, patience, and determination to edit and write. Miller had the brass and steam to interest brethren in subscribing. Today, that publication, capably edited by Connie W. Adams, enjoys the largest circulation of any conservative subscription-type periodical. It was started to fight institutionalism but developed into more general use.

Man

James P. Miller had the courage of a lion and the gentleness of a lamb. His words were sometimes blunt but he was bighearted and full of humor. He was not the most logical man ever born, but he had a ready answer, He gave no appearance of being a scholar, but he loved the Bible and preached it well.

There was an earnestness about him despite a lot of foolishness. He was cheerful and optimistic. He could inspire and encourage when others saw only gloom.

I remember riding back to the college campus with him one night after hearing him preach at old Howard Ave. That was in about 1950 or 1951. I asked him a question about the fight over institutionalism which was then gaining momentum. He replied that years before he had come under the influence of Foy E. Wallace, Jr., who had taught him well, and he therefore had no problem in deciding on the issues. When division came, he stood firmly for the all-sufficiency of the church to do its God-given work.

On October 14, 1977, I talked with him and heard him speak for the last time. It was a social meeting of the Tampa -Bay Chapter of Florida College Alumni. James P. quoted poetry to entertain the group. When quoting a poem with some lines about being true to oneself, he paused in sober reflection. “You know,” he said, “when the issues arose that divided the church, we had to be true to ourselves.” Looking directly at the aging Harry Pickup, St., he remarked, “I don’t know what other course we could have taken and still have been true to ourselves, Harry.” Then he added, “I am willing to go to judgment on it.”

The sun set on his earthly day, Saturday, January 7, 1978. The following Tuesday afternoon a large crowd of Christians’ gathered at the Seminole meeting house for his funeral. His longtime friend and brother in the Lord, James R. Cope, delivered a moving tribute. Everett Mann read a section of Scripture that James P. had chosen previously.

In 1971, Rodney M. Miller published an interesting little book about his father. The title is Pap -The Broken Mold. If you knew James P., you will enjoy reading the book.

Brother Miller loved poetry. The following lines from William Cullen Bryant seem appropriate here:

“So live, that when thy summons comes to join

The innumerable caravan which moves

To that mysterious realm, where each shall take

His chamber in the silent halls of death,

Thou go not, like the quarry-slave at night,

Scourged to his dungeon, but, sustained and soothed

By an unfaltering trust, approach thy grave

Like one who wraps the drapery of his couch

About him, and lies down to pleasant dreams.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 10, pp. 167-169
March 9, 1978

By Morris W. R. Bailey

In this, my final article in the series under the above heading, I propose to point out that handling aright the word of truth requires that we

Respect The Silence of the Bible

The gospel system of redemption is the great theme of the Bible. Existing in promise in the partriarchal age (Gen. 3:15; 12:3), and in prophecy during the Mosaic age (1 Peter 1:10, ,11), it reached perfection in Christ (Eph. 1:10). Concerning the great salvation, the writer of Hebrews said: “. . . which having at the first been spoken by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard” (Heb. 2:3). The allusion to “them that heard” refers to the apostles and other inspired men through whom the New Testament revelation was given.

Revelation having reached its culmination in “. those things which now been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel .unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven . . . .” (1 Peter 1:12), it follows that no new truth has been revealed since the death of the last inspired writer. While there have been various claims of modern day revelations, all such are proved false when weighed in the light of Jude 3, where the writer tells us that “the faith was once for all delivered to the saints.” We, know the force of the expression, “once for all.” It means, for all time.

From the foregoing observations we conclude that whatever the New Testament revealed in the first century is all that it reveals now. What therefore it authorized then in the matter of the work and worship of the church is all that it authorizes now. What it left out of the work and worship of the church then, is excluded now, and for the same reason. For if God did not want it then, He does not want it now.

The Attitude Of The Reformers

While the reformers of the sixteenth century dealt the “man of sin” (2 Thess. 2:3) a devastating blow, from which he never fully recovered and did much toward removing the theological rubbish that had accumulated during the dark ages, it is now obvious that few of them had a clear conception of the boundaries of scriptural authority.

It was a difference in attitudes toward authority that led to a parting of the ways between Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, the great Swiss reformer. Luther’s attitude toward scriptural authority for a practice may be paraphrased in these words: “We may practice in religion, anything that is not specifically forbidden.” On the other hand, Zwingli’s attitude was: “We may practice only that which is specifically authorized.” Unfortunately Luther’s influence overshadowed that of Zwingli, with the result that Luther’s concept gained wider acceptance, and to a greater or lesser degree influences Protestantism today.

The Restoration Movement And Its Slogan

When the Campbells, Thomas and his son Alexander, with Barton W. Stone and others appeared upon the scene early in the nineteenth century, they found a sadly divided religious world of denominations subscribing to differing creeds, and ruled by different forms of government; and those denominations, in turn, divided into a number of branches. They recognized that this was a far call from the unity for which Christ prayed (John 17:20, 21) and the plea of the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 1:10). Thus they began an appeal for a return to the ancient order as taught by the apostles of Christ and practiced by the disciples of the first century. Their observations led them to conclude that much of the cause of division was not over what the Bible teaches but over matters concerning which the Bible is silent. It was under those circumstances that Thomas Campbell delivered the famous Declaration and Address, in the course of which he announced what has come to be known as the slogan of the restoration movement.

A slogan is a concise, yet comprehensive, statement of the aims or purposes of an organization, or movement. The statement of Mr. Campbell that reveals the aim of the restoration movement is this: “We will speak where the Bible speaks. We will be silent where the Bible is silent.”

Since the inception of this slogan, much has been said and written about it, as to its implications, and how literally its author intended for it to be construed and applied. Some who claim to be a part of the restoration movement have adopted a silence-gives-consent attitude and see no inconsistency in their use of instrumental music in worship, even though the New Testament is silent about it. Their position is that it is permissible since the Bible does not forbid it. Others have carried the matter further and maintain that the silence of the New Testament on instrumental music in the worship forbids any voice being raised in opposition to it.

It is obvious that even Campbell himself did not immediately realize the implications of the slogan, nor where it would lead him. But, step by step, as he came to see that some of the things which he practiced were things concerning which the Bible is silent, he abandoned them. One of these was infant baptism. Thus, it is obvious that Campbell construed the slogan to mean that we are at liberty to practice only what the scriptures authorize by command, approved example, or necessary inference.

Some have objected to the use of the word, slogan, on the ground of “worldly” connotations. While it is true that slogans are often used to express worldly aims, I see no objection to using the word as expressive of a worthy aim, as is the aim of those who seek to return to the Christianity of the first century. I do suggest that for a slogan to have validity as the statement of aim of religious movement should meet some well defined criterion.

(1) It must be expressive of something that can be shown to be necessary.

(2) It must express that which is feasible-capable of being translated into practice.

(3) It must express a concept that can be shown to be unquestionably scriptural.

In the remainder of this article I shall point out that the concept of respect for the silence of the Bible is in harmony with the proposed standard.

It Is Necessary

The necessity of respect for the silence of the Bible becomes evident when we view the chaotic conditions that would accrue from a disregard for its silence. It has been a stock argument of gospel preachers, when discussing the subject of instrumental music in worship, to point out that if the instrument can be introduced because it is not forbidden, then, of course, the burning of incense could be introduced for the same reason. And that is not the end. For once the floodgate is open there is practically no limit to what can be introduced. On that basis, who could object to infant baptism, or apple pie and coffee on the Lord’s table? And of those of our brethren who have introduced benevolent societies built and supported by the church, and sponsoring churches, we ask: What objection can you have to the missionary society, seeing that it is found on the same blank page of the New Testament as those institutions you favor? The conclusion is irresistible. It is necessary that we respect the silence of the Bible. Otherwise religious chaos is the result.

It Is Feasible

The concept of respect for the silence of the Bible is feasible in that it harmonizes with well established rules that govern human behaviour. Observe the following examples:

(1) Highway traffic is controlled by our traffic laws, and our highways are marked by various signs. On some signs the maximum allowable speed is posted. If the sign allows for a speed of sixty miles per hour, we realize that its “silence” regarding a speed of seventy-five miles an hour is sufficient to constitute a prohibition. Some signs are directional in their purpose and point to a destination. But along that highway there may be many intersecting roads. Yet no one would leave the highway to travel some sideroad just because there was no sign forbidding it.

(2) We accept a prescription from a doctor. In that prescription the doctor “speaks” concerning the medicine he wants you to take. There are hundreds of other medicines concerning which the doctor is “silent” as far as that prescription is concerned. We recognize that silence as being prohibitive of any other medicine except that which he prescribed. Who of us would allow the dispensing drugist to give us a substitute on the ground that the doctor did not forbid it? Thus the concept of respect for the silence of the Bible is one that is practicible since it follows a well recognized pattern of human behavior.

It Is Scriptural

What is most important of all is the fact that the concept of respect for the silence of the Bible is scriptural. It is something that God has required in all ages:. This is evident from the following observations:

(1) Three times in the Bible, God has prohibited any addition to His word (Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18, 19).

(2) Early in the history of Israel, the nation was taught a startling lesson regarding God’s attitude toward any invasion of the area of his silence. Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, were struck dead as they prepared to offer incense. Their offense was not the doing of something that God had prohibited, but in that they “offered strange fire before Jehovah, which he had not commanded them” (Lev. 10:1).

(3) The writer of Hebrews, in the seventh chapter, recognized the prohibitive character of scripture silence. In verse 12, he pointed out that the fact of Christ’s having been made a high priest necessitated a change of law. In verse 14, he tells why: “For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests.” The law had spoken with regard to the priesthood of the Old Testament, and specifically required that the priests be chosen from the tribe of Levi (Num. 3:5-10). Concerning priests from any other tribe, however, the law was silent, and the writer of Hebrews recognized that silence as prohibiting Christ from being a priest without a change of the law.

(4) The apostle Peter said: “If any man speaketh, speaking as it were the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11). To speak as the oracles of God will require that we cease speaking-be silent-when the Bible ceases to speak.

(5) As Christians we walk by faith. (2 Cor. 5:7). That faith comes by hearing the word of Christ. (Rom. 10:17). Where the Bible is silent there can be no faith, since obviously one cannot believe what he does not hear.

(6) Paul warned the Corinthians “not to go beyond the things that are written” (1 Cor. 4:6). The apostle John said: “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God . . . .” (2 John 9). To abide not in the doctrine of Christ and to go beyond that which is written is to launch out into the area of that concerning which God has been silent. Concerning such, John said that they have not Christ, and warned his readers to have no fellowship with them (2 John 10, 11).

Conclusion

This ends our series which is, perhaps, much too long. I trust, however, that it has furnished us with a fresh approach to an old and much discussed subject.

Truth Magazine XXII: 10, p. 165-167
March 9, 1978

By Leslie Diestelkamp

From the very beginning God ordained that the husband should be the head of the house and, in that position, he should exercise responsibility in guiding the entire family. His duty in such does not include harsh, dictatorial rule but it does include diligent dedication to the tasks of oversight. Even Paul admonished, “Fathers provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Thus Paul established three principles of fatherhood:

1. Generally it is the father, not the mother, who should shoulder the responsibilities of oversight. Fathers are to set the course of action for the whole family. They are to chart the direction of family behavior. Fathers cannot please God if they relinquish their rights nor if they try to shift their obligations. Neither mothers, school teachers, preachers nor any others can replace the father as custodian of family life.

2. But fathers are to direct their families with discretion and wisdom, lest they be provoked to wrath. Decisions must be studied and wise, fair and just. The father’s conduct and character must be such that he deserves respect and that his word is honored in the family circle. With kindness and humility, yet with resolution and firmness he must exercise patient, loving leadership in the home that will inspire the children to follow and to obey without rebellion or malice.

3. The nurturing that children must receive is to be provided by the father-that is, he must conduct the family affairs in such a manner that the total impact of family life will be spiritually beneficial. Everything that relates to the development of the child is included in “nurturing,” and the emphasis is to be “in the Lord,” that is in learning, appreciating and applying the will of God. Over and above his duty as a provider for the physical necessities of the family, the father is to be the provider of spiritual nourishment and exercise.

Heb. 12:8, 9 (“We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence”) suggests proper action for the father and at the same time proper response by the children. But the “reverence” or respect that is suggested must be earned by the father through the integrity, honesty, justice and consistency of the correction he administers. And perhaps most failures in this regard are not from lack of ability but from lack of devotion to the duties of fatherhood.

Edgar A. Guest said, “There are fathers who are busy and so weighted down with cares, That they haven’t time to listen to a little child’s affairs.” Indeed, undoubtedly the greatest weakness of modern fatherhood is the unwillingness to look upon the responsibilities with sufficient seriousness and devotion. Parental neglect must rank as the blight of our society today, the greatest cause of delinquency, the source of rebellion and the cause of failure in the family circle. Fathers curse the times in which we live, blame the government, accuse the school system and look everywhere for an alibi for failure, yet, the cause of their parental failures lies in their own hearts, their own lives, and their own conduct.

We do not know what kind of life Enoch lived before he became a father, but afterward the Bible tells us “And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah. . . ” (Gen. 5:22). Joshua demonstrated the proper attitude and the determination to lead his family when he said to the people, “Choose you this day whom you will serve . . . . . but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:15). Likewise, Cornelius “. . . feared God with all his house” (Acts 10:2), showing that his duties as a Roman officer did not prevent fulfillment of his responsibility to his family.

The purpose of this chapter is not to try to list all the big and little things that are involved in proper fatherhood, nor to spell out every detail of specific obligations, for these vary from one family to another and even from one child to another, and none of us knows all the answers. But the purpose of this chapter is to try to get fathers to realize their God-given obligations. I believe such men will then be fully capable of discharging their duties-if they can just be challenged – to devote themselves to the task. Fathers who really want to guide, lead and nurture their children will find the right way! Sincerity of purpose is much more important than a familiarity with all the books men may write on the subject of parenthood.

As we look to the future of our country and especially to the future of the Lord’s church, we must look to the parents-not to the children as so many would have us believe. Indeed,

“The lambs will follow the sheep, you know,

Wherever the sheep may stray,

When the sheep go wrong, it will not be long,

Till the lambs are as wrong as they.

“And so for the sheep we earnestly plead,

For the sake of the lambs, today,

If the sheep are lost, what a terrible cost,

The lambs will have to pay” (Anonymous).

Say not, my friend, that our children hold the future in their hands. Rather let us acknowledge that we, the parents, do indeed hold in our hands the earthly and eternal destinies of our children. If they (the children) are the men and women of tomorrow, we (the parents) are determining what those men and women will be. Next: “Mother: The Heart of the Family.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 10, p. 162
March 9, 1978

By Larry Ray Hafley

“In years past when I thought of those departing from the faith I thought in terms of denominations, cults, and various religions. Today as I write my heart becomes almost unbearably heavy to hear of my own preacher brethren who have departed from what I know they have been taught and what they once wholeheartedly accepted as their faith. I am told of some who have begun preaching for the Methodists, others have turned charismatic and are influencing others to doubt their faith, some have fallen by the way-side having renounced their call. They have gone back into the secular world. In some cases these have dropped to low moral standards in their living.

“I am reminded of the scripture 1 Timothy 4. In this chapter Paul, by the Spirit of God, warns, `That in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.’

“Paul also instructed Timothy: `If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou has attained.’

“This teaches us that Satan has always been at the business of disturbing the faith of good men. Timothy had the responsibility of reminding men of the solemn truth of the danger of departing from the faith. Satan is still at work. He attacks men who have great potential in the Lord’s service.

“I therefore beg men who on the verge of changing their faith or have already made some commitments, to reconsider and re-study these matters. Please be warned of Satan’s methods. `For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places Jesus is.'”

Who Said That?

Sounds like a gospel preacher, does it not? Actually, the. above article was taken from the November 25, 1977, issue of the Missionary Baptist Searchlight, which “is owned by the Missionary Baptist Seminary in Little Rock, Arkansas.” The article was written by the editor of that paper, L. D. Capell. Why the emphasis on who said it? Well, Mr. Capell is a Landmark Missionary Baptist. As such, he believes that it is impossible for a child of God to so sin as to be eternally lost in hell. With that in mind, consider the import of his words.

Consequences And Conclusions

Mr. Capell paints a realistic picture. He doubtless knows of some who have left their Baptist faith and are now preaching Methodism and Pentecostalism. He knows of those who “have dropped to low moral standards in their living.” He says they “have fallen by the way-side.” A question for Mr. Capell, “Are these brethren of yours who have `departed’ still in a saved condition?” Further, “Should they die in their present conditon, would they be saved in heaven?”

Editor Capell cannot argue that they have never been saved, that they never have been truly “born again.” Why not? Because he stated in the article that he knew some of his preacher brethren who have departed from “what I know they have been taught and what they once whole-heartedly accepted as their faith.” He says they have departed from that which “they once wholeheartedly accepted.” Surely, those who “wholeheartedly accepted” were saved. Baptists have always contended that the Ethiopian eunuch was saved before baptism because he believed with all his heart that Jesus was the Son of God. So, these Baptist preachers were saved according to their view. Now, in their present state, will they be saved? The “once saved, always saved” doctrine of the Baptists says they will be. A man can depart from the faith and live in “low moral standards” -and still be saved, according to Baptist doctrine.

But what of those whom these “departed” Baptist preachers have baptized? According to Missionary Baptists, one’s baptism must be duly approved by a Missionary Baptist Church. If these Baptist preachers were never truly saved, what of the baptism of those whom they baptized? Again, though, these men- were saved as per Baptist doctrine. Else why would Mr. Capell have had an “almost unbearably heavy” heart? If they were not children of God in his view, he would have been glad to have them exposed as wolves in sheep’s clothing. However, he was saddened because he knew that these men of whom he wrote had “wholeheartedly accepted” what he believes. Now, will they be saved should they die in their present condition?

These questions require an answer. They are asked so that honest hearts may consider the consequences of their doctrine. Yes, the “danger of departing from the faith” is a “solemn truth.” But where is the danger if a man can do it and still be saved? “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (1 Tim. 4:16).

Truth Magazine XXII: 9, p. 157
March 2, 1978