Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Elsewhere in this issue, you will find an article from my brother, Cecil Willis, in which he announces his resignation as Editor of Truth Magazine. It is with saddened countenance that I write these comments about his resignation inasmuch as his departure from this paper leaves a void which simply cannot be filled. Cecil assumed the job of editing Truth Magazine in August, 1962; he gives it up with this issue. He has served well in the fifteen years he has edited this paper.

Through these years, Cecil has frequently had to take the lead in fighting the thrusts of Satan against the church. He has been in the vanguard of the forces which worked to counteract the advances of institutionalism, the sponsoring church and, more recently, the “unity in diversity” movement. Each time, he has taken a firm position against the false doctrines being promoted by false brethren and has stood without wavering. Many people have not agreed with where Cecil stood, but they have never had to wonder where he stood! Sometimes, his editorials offended a good many brethren and some have questioned his judgment regarding whether certain articles should be printed. In none of his writings, however, have I seen anything in Cecil but that I was convinced that he wrote what he wrote to advance the cause of Christ. I have never seen in him the sinister motives which many brethren have attributed to him. Frankly, I feel that I know my brother well enough to have seen any such motives were they there. Although there have been times when I questioned his judgment, I have never questioned his motives.

But, now, Cecil has laid down the work of editing this paper. Truth Magazine will not be the same because of this great loss. Those of us who are associated with the paper wish that the things which caused Cecil to have to resign were not present. Yet, they are there and simply must now be faced. For two years, Cecil has been incapacitated to such an extent that he has been unable to exercise the editorial oversight which a paper needs. During this period, Truth Magazine has become a rather bland publication. Continuing as it has been for these two years would eventually be the death of the paper. Hence, a new editor had to be appointed.

The Board of Directors of Cogdill Foundation has asked me to edit this paper. After much consideration and thought, I have consented to accept the job. With fear and trembling, I am assuming the job of editing this paper. I have no conception of the Editor of any paper being the official spokesman for the acceptable doctrine of the Lord’s church. Hence, I shall not try to act in that fashion. I shall, however, have no scruples about commenting concerning things which I feel to be a departure from the faith.

The policy of this paper will continue as it has been in the past, namely, the “open forum” style. This simply means that the editor has not taken upon himself the shocking responsibility of becoming a brotherhood censor. This paper has rather freely permitted articles to be printed which expressed sentiments with which the editor did not agree. We shall continue to do likewise. Therefore, each writer shall be responsible only for those articles bearing his name. The simple fact that I shall insert an article in the paper shall not alone be taken as indication that I concur with every point expressed therein.

While we shall accept articles with which we are not in agreement, this is not to be taken to imply that Truth Magazine shall constitute a medium through which every “crackpot” or chronic “rabble-rouser” in the brotherhood shall have opportunity to let off steam. There is such a thing as editorial responsibility! I know that this policy will not please everyone but I think that it is fair.

New Plans for The Future

Whereas there are a number of things which will stay the same with this paper, there are some planned changes ahead for Truth Magazine. One of the things which has happened with this paper is that it has become a “preacher-paper,” as have several others among us. We desire to change the format of this paper sufficiently to make it useful to a greater number of brethren. Hence, we shall try to write articles pertaining to first principles, denominationalism, Christian living, etc. to try to make it more useful in the propagation of God’s word than it has been in the past. As a result of this change, we hope to build a larger subscription list as brethren begin to recommend this paper to a greater number of their friends.

One of the things which I personally have enjoyed most in the papers which are being printed are the special issues. For several years, I have been instrumental in getting together some special issues for publication in Truth Magazine. As Editor, I plan to make arrangements to have several specials in the works at all times with the intention of making them appear quarterly in the paper. The different subjects covered will vary; if you have a suggestion of a particular topic which you would like to see covered in one of these specials, feel free to suggest it to me.

Let me add that I shall do my very best to be sure that Truth Magazine does not lose the positive things which it has going for it. We have a good staff of writers who say what they intend to say very clearly; they call sin by its name and are not afraid to expose those who are propagating it. Through the help of this capable staff of writers, I shall be sure that Truth Magazine does not lose its punch. Too, I shall do my best to keep the appearance of the magazine up to par. The mechanics of this paper are my responsibility; I intend to be sure that our printers do the job which they are paid to do. (Lest anyone should misunderstand me, let me say that I cannot imagine a more capable staff or a more congenial working arrangement than we presently have with Economy Printing Concern of Berne, Indiana. This statement is not intended to reflect dissatisfaction with the job which they have done in the past but only to reassure our readers that it will continue in the future as it has been in the past.)

I solicit the contribution of good articles for publication in this paper and the support of Truth Magazine through subscriptions. You could be a lot of help to us by encouraging your friends to begin subscribing to this paper or by purchasing ten subscriptions per month and mailing them to your friends. As you observe the quality of material that appears in this paper each week, will you consider helping us to promote the paper?

Truth Magazine XXI: 20, pp. 307-308
May 19, 1977

By Donald P. Ames

It has long been the claim of the Catholic Church that it is “an infallible teaching authority” (The Apostles’ Creed, p. 27-their booklet and their emphasis-DPA). They claim that both Christ and the Holy Spirit are with it and guiding it so that “it could make no error” (Ibid, p. 26) and that such a claim is “not an arrogant assumption of righteousness on the part of the hierarchy, but a gift of God” (Ibid). However, as we see this “infallible” tradition beginning-to crumble on every hand today, one is made to wonder just how much longer people are going to be able to be blindly led to continue such a belief in this “infallibility.”

Perhaps no greater inconsistency disproving their claim to “infallibility” is evident than one that is currently under consideration. According to an article that appeared in the Gary, Indiana Post-Tribune (12-476), the Roman Catholic Church is taking another look at Martin Luther and the Augsburg Confession of 1530-the founding creed of Lutheranism. At that time Martin Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church and, with the exception of a brief consideration in 1963, that ban has continued to exist until today. However, according to “The Rev. Dr. Daniel Martensen” of the Lutheran World Federation, who was returning from a visit to the Vatican, “the question of it affirming the Augsburg Confession is under active discussion in the Vatican Christian Unity Secretariat.” The article went on to say that two noted Catholic theologians, “the Rev. Drs.” Hans Kung and Walter Kaspar of Tuebingen University have expressed hope in an international Catholic theological journal Concilium that `Rome may at last pronounce the word of `reconciliation’ by lifting the ban on Luther.”

Now would not that be equal to saying they were wrong in banning Luther in the first place? And if they are wrong in this and can now correct it by lifting the ban, then how can they contend that they are “infallible” and “infallibly guided”? If a man can be excommunicated as a teacher of heresy and 450 years after he is dead-with no change on his part-be placed back within the graces of this great “mother church” then somebody goofed! It ought to be interesting to hear Catholicism explain this one while defending traditionalism.

Truth Magazine XXI: 20, p. 306
May 19, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

For the truth’s sake, let us consider the blood of Christ. Religious Liberalism says Jesus died as a hero of martyr — He is a great “inspiration” in his uncomplaining death — that is all there is to it. The Bible teaches differently.

The death of Christ was not accidental or incidental, but was a matter of prophecy. “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities . . . an offering for sin . . . he hath poured out his soul unto death . . . and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (Isa. 53). Isaiah said the death of Jesus Christ would “justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.”

Before His death, Jesus appointed the keeping of the Lord’s Supper. “Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:26-28). After His resurrection, Jesus explained to His disciples that His death, burial, and resurrection had been foretold in the Old Testament. Now that it had all been fulfilled, “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations” (Lk. 24:47).

When the apostle Peter preached the death of Christ, he explained its meaning: “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:14-47). He also said men are redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:19). The apostle Paul said that in Christ “we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace” (Eph. 1:7). Under the New Covenant, “we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10).

While the world lieth in wickedness and death, many churches talk of “urban renewal” and “social renovation.” Preachers spend their time drumming up support or opposition on civil rights, Federal rights, States’ rights, neighborhood rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, etc., etc. SHAME!!! Whatever happened to the “right” and duty of gospel preachers declaring “the precious blood of Christ” which was shed for the remission of sins?

Many who claim to believe in the blood of Christ will not preach what the Bible says on how to reach that cleansing blood. False teachers say we are saved by “grace only” or “faith only” or “Christ only” or “the Bible only.” All of these are involved. And another: obedience to the Gospel. Jesus Christ is “the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb. 5:9). He Himself said, “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 . . : ” (Matt. 7:21). How do we reach the blood?-“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”-“Repent and be baptized every one of you .in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” -“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16).

Truth Magazine XXI: 20, p. 306
May 19, 1977

By Mike T. Rogacs

When the Lord established His covenant with the people called Israel, He built into that covenant several precepts which were meant to insure the continuance of truth and justice among His people. One such precept was found applied in several instances in the law of Moses. The basic structure of this principle was as follows: all matters involving the necessity of testimony should be established at the mouth of two or three witnesses (or more). This was to become the general principle by which several commandments were formulated. The Israelites were told, “a murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die” (Num. 35:30). Again, anyone committing any transgression worthy of death had to be accused by two or more witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In fact, the law stated that no iniquity was to be laid to the account of any person unless it had been established by the mouth of two or more witnesses (Deut. 19:15). And so it was that bearing false witness was so strongly spoken against in the ten commandments and later in the covenant as a whole (Ex. 20:16; Deut.19:16).

It is clear to the student of the scriptures that the Lord was herein setting a precedent upon which He would function when later He would deal with this Israelite nation and then all of humanity. That is, the Lord intended to continue in the spirit of this principle and would establish anything between Himself and man by two or more witnesses. (Even before this time, it was by Moses and Aaron and the works God gave them that the message of “let my people go” was established to indeed be from God.) And so as the scriptures were written, the Lord did indeed continue in application of this principle.

To my knowledge Jesus never once during His earthly ministry directly stated that He was the Messiah. The reason for such conduct was explained in John 5:30-39. Jesus said that if He alone bore witness of Himself, His witness would be false. But He reminded those to whom he was speaking that at least three had been giving witness of His position and authority as Messiah all along. One had been John, who had baptized in the Jordan. Another, God the Father, affirmed the fact through the works He gave His Son to finish. And the scriptures, which those Jews should search, were given by the Holy Spirit unto men of old who proclaimed the Messiah. The witness of one was not to be relied upon to establish Jesus as being the Christ. Again, it was by the witness of two or more (John 1:15; 3:1-2; 20:30-31).

We are even to understand that, as Christians, the evidence of our sonship with the Father is proven not by the witness of men but by the witness of three in heaven (1 John 5:5-10). Man’s wisdom may teach many differing doctrines in the name of religion and thereby deceive many into believing that they are part of God’s family when they are not. But this is only false witnessing and is of no validity since it contradicts the witness given in heaven. It is like the denominations which encourage so-called personal witnessing of salvation. An individual stands before many and “testifies” concerning an event in his or her life which was proof to him that he had been saved. Not only is this witness of man, but it is an attempt to bear witness by the mouth of one. This violates the principle God took long pains to establish, and it is therefore to be considered “false witness” (Ex. 20:16). Our obedience of God’s patterns must be pure and all evidence of salvation which we might need is given us in the scriptures (2 John 810; 1 Peter 4:11; etc.). This is how the three in heaven bear witness that we are sons of God. If we believe we have achieved redemption through any other testimony, we have been deceived.Another Example-Misapplied

In the discussion of the principle of establishing a fact by witnesses, there is yet one more example which seems expedient to examine. But with this example, it is deemed expedient to say that it is located in a passage which brethren have sometimes misapplied. Have you even heard someone speak concerning what constitutes an assembly of Christians (worship assembly, local assembly, etc.)? We are usually instructed that Jesus said, “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Is it truth that Jesus was here giving a criteria by which we can define an assembly or even speaking of something else but is a passage which we can take out of context and apply it as such criteria?

With all due respect given all who have used this line of reasoning in the past (myself included), it seems that such an application of Matthew 18:20 is in error. I have heard the verse used to define assembly as mentioned above and as a proof text defining the meaning of “assembly” in James 2:2 and of “churches” in 1 Cor. 14:34. It is my understanding from a study of the words involved in these two verses that the local assembly of the saints in worship is truly meant by the two examples. But frankly, I have always had misgivings about using Matthew 18:20 as additional proof of what an assembly is. If I understand scripture correctly, anytime two or more people get together to do anything of a religious nature (sing, study, etc.) it is supposed to be in the “name of Jesus” (Col. 3:17). Yet surely we are not trying to say that every occasion is an assembly when two or more gat kler (an assembly such as James 2:2 and 1 Cor. 14:34). Hoping to clarify one step further, I do believe in an assembly such as that found in James 2:2 as being a group assembled in the name of Christ and even that Christ is among them (by faith-Eph. 3:17). But so is it also true outside of the worship assembly of the local congregation. It cannot be that Matthew 18:20 is teaching what might constitute an assembly.

In truth, what Matthew 18:20 is is another example of the witness of God for the purpose of establishing a religious fact. Read the context of verses fifteen through twenty. First, Jesus reminds the twelve apostles-the only ones to whom he is presently speaking-of the principle of establishing a fact by two or more witnesses. After drawing upon their memory of this, our Lord went on to say: “Verily I say unto you (the 12 apostles, mtr), Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be (or have been, mtr) bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be (or have been, mtr) loosed in heaven.” Here Jesus was preparing them for a change of laws: from that of the Old Covenant to the New Testament of Christ. It was to be by the work of these twelve men that this loosing of the old law and the binding of the new law of Christ would be accomplished. For such a radical change in religious emphasis, certainly the world should have a basis upon which to determine whether to believe or disbelieve any given message these men delivered. So, referring to the principle of witnessing, whenever two or three of these men—the twelve apostles–were gathered together in Jesus’ name, the world was to rest assured that Jesus was with them. That is, these men were going to do and speak only what Jesus would have them do.

Remember now, the authority of the twelve apostles was established by the testimony of the works they did by God’s power (Mark 16:16-20; John 3:2). The world must first accept this fact. But when this is established, the formula of Matthew 18:15-20 was to insure the validity of every message these men would give the world. When we examine the actions of the apostles as the years went on, the principle becomes clear. For example, Peter, by his actions, supported a false principle (Gal. 2:9-14) and caused others to follow his example. But he acted alone and was rebuked before all. On the other hand, when the subject of circumcision was discussed in Jerusalem, various people were heard, but it was by the witness of Peter and James that the truth of the matter was established (Acts 15:6-32). And so it was, whenever two or three of the apostles gathered together to bind and loose what had been determined in heaven, the Lord was with them.

So it was on this basis that the great commission was given to these men (Mark 16:15-16). It was on this basis that the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was given to these twelve men (Acts 1:2-8; 1:26-2:4). The binding and loosing was through these men as the Holy Spirit was leading them into all truth (John 16:13-15). The instruction of two or three gathering together and the Lord being with them in Matthew 18:20 was refering only to the two or three of the apostles establishing truth. An additional observation is that it was here where God affirmed to all following ages that Christianity was established consistent with divine principles. This assurance was necessary because if such was not so, room for rejection of the new testament would exist.

We have presented these comments not only to correct an apparent misuse of a passage, but to present the profound import of the message of Jesus. We find that if we properly used the passage it is an important point to bring to light in a discussion with one from a Pentecostal denomination. And it is important when the inspiration of the scriptures, especially the New Testament, is being attacked by the modernist of today’s religious circles. And so, we do pray that what has been written herein will be of benefit and is correct. We invite your comments on the matter.

Truth Magazine XXI: 19, pp. 300-301
May 12, 1977