Truth Magazine

By Myke Morris

When every other argument has failed those who defend unscriptural practices and the truth has them pinned to the wall so that in their hearts they know their error, there is one last resort which they state with confidence and so salve their consciences. “Common sense tells me . . .”; and so ends the discussion. This fiiaal “argument” has solved their problems because it is indeed without a logical answer!

I say it is an “argurnent” because this is how it is used. In reality, it is no argument at all but a premise. Webster defines a premise as “a proposition antez;edently supposed or proved as a basis (emphasis mine, RMM) of argument or inference . . .” A premise, therefore, is something that need not be proven because it cannot be proven! It is the basis of proof for an argument.

An argument is the logical process of proving a point. Given a premise we make an argument to establish that our conclusion is the truth. There is nothing wrong with argumentation or logic if it is done correctly. It is nothing more than the reasoning process every thinking creature employs. Paul used it on Mars Hill (Acts 2:2223) and before Felix (Acts 24), and it is used in every instance the gospel is righteously proclaimed.

In reasoning from the Scripture, we must adopt a premise. Our faith in the Living God provides all that is needed in this regard. If we believe that God is, we do so because of the special revelation of His Word. That the Bible is the truth is not therefore a premise but a logical conclusion based on the premise of God’s existence. From this one premise we reason “all things that pertain to life and Godliness.” In any Scriptural argument we make on any subject, the “premises” that we begin with are in fact logical conclusions arising from this one. Isn’t this the reason Paul defined faith as he did in Hebrews 11:1?

What are some of the “‘premises” that are in fact proven horn the starting point of our faith? “The Bible is sufficient in all things” (cf, 2 Peter 1:3); “Speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent” (cf u 1 Peter 4:11); “There is only one way to be saved” (cf. John 14:6). ‘These statements, and others, that sectarians would refer to as “the basic premises of Campbellism” are really nothing more than conclusions that are demanded by the logical process. True, we accept them because they are found in the Bible, but remember, we look to the Bible for what to believe because of our faith (our only real premise).

Now where does “common sense” fall in the list of premises? Is it proven by that one basic premise that we all accept? Beloved, it is proven false! “Common sense” originates with man. Its flaws are proven in that the “common sense” of the Watchtower Society says that God could never condemn men to eternal punishment! That of the Roman Church says that the church of God must have a universal head on Earth; that of the Baptists says that immersion in water is because of the prior remission of sins. And on ad infinitum! “Common sense” cannot be one of the good and perfect gifts mentioned in James 1:17! Isn’t it what the prophet condemns in Jeremiah 10:23?

There is one other reason that “common sense” is cited by the defenders of sin. It enables them to fling one last barb at the faithful child of God. I implies, “If you don’t agree with me, you don’t even have common sense.” Such prejudicial innuendos have no place in sound reasoning from the Scriptures!

Are any brethren guilty of this resort when they are stuck for an answer? Are there any among us whose religion is based in the crude, human trap of “common sense” rather than in the sound reasoning of the Word of God? Let us always strive, as did the apostles, to use the good gift of reason rather than the reproachful barb of “common sense”.

Truth Magazine XXI: 6, pp. 93-94
February 10, 1977

By Jeffery Kingry

There is a phrase used among brethren that demonstrates contempt for some of their brethren. The word is almost a universal byword o# derision among saints. The most damning accusation that could conceivably be brought against any man’s motives is to say, “He is trying to be a Big-Name-Preacher.” Now, it is obvious that there are such men-preachers out to peddle themselves rather than giving away the Gospel. These men desire the acclaim of men and the prominence that it brings. They are those who look upon their brethren as a source of livelihood and other preachers as either competitors ox allies. These caricatures axe pitiful creatures, more to be pitied than hated but certainly to be avoided (2 Tim. 3).

Put this crushing accusation often keeps men o# high ability from striving for goals of higher service and excellence for the Lord. There seems to be a great deal o# what this writer calls “inverse snobbery” among God’s people. Many who have obeyed the Gospel are simple and modest personalities. But, this modesty should not extend to smother any ability ox zeal that is greater ox stronger than our own.. Rather, we should rejoice that every part of the body lass differing abilities–the total effect being a body which is strong and effective over all (1 Cox. 12).

“Seek that ye might excel to the edifying of the body of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:12). We can be justifiably proud of any effort we put forth to excel for the Lord by serving the church. Whether it be intellectually, spiritually, or in good works, our service to God is not in vain and it should give us as much pleasure to serve the Lord as it does for Him to receive it (Eccl. 2:26; Matt, 25:21; Luke 6:22, 23). Our rejoicing in service to God is not for the “name” we may garner among men, but for the joy we have in that our names axe written in heaven (Luke 1p:20). The brother who puts out the least amount of work he can get by with is cheating both himself and the Lord who gave him the talents to produce more. The brother who “cuts back” because of “Big-Preacher” criticism or because the grade inclines upward, mill never reach the top of anything.

This is not an idle admonition. Many are content to remain in stasis, making no effort to climb to greater service. There appears to be no sense of urgency or zeal that would prod the “soldier o# Christ” to arise and go out to join forces with God’s warriors to defeat the army o# Satan. Preachers who are giving two lessons a week, study infrequently, write little or not at all, and for all intents and purposes ignore the plight of the lost and erring are misusing their support and are prostituting their function. Many preachers seem to think that the church exists to provide them with a living, and if their fruit is unconverted souls it is because “The church does not provide me with any contacts-” “The work o# evangelism can be done, and is often accomplished independently of the local church. The Bible evangelist does not depend on the church to provide him with work to do. Any student of the life of Paul will testify to this. Our work is as a “servant of Christ” to “make all men complete in Christ.”

Sour Grapes

Did you ever wonder where the expression “Sour Grapes” comes from? It is derived from the fable of the hungry fox by Aesop, an ancient Greek philosopher. The tale is related that there was a hungry fox who happened to pace through a grape vineyard. He saw a particularly succulent cluster o# dew-washed grapes, and the saliva began to flay. He stretched and strained to reach the grapes, but they remained just out of his reach, tantalizing him with the promise of their sweetness. Finally, setting back in frustration and hunger, the fox declared heatedly, “Well, the grapes are probably sour anyway—who wants sour grapes?” Feeling somewhat less frustrated, but hardly lees hungry, the fox stalked off without ever tasting the grapes. Aesop’s moral wasp “There is always some comfort in pretending we rig not want the things we cannot get.”

The moral strikes close to the motivation behind most cxitici.sata of those men who “excel to the edifying of the body of the lord” (1 Cor. 14.12), It is much easier to live with our own lackadaisical character if we can write off those who work harder than we do as “glory-hounds.” Any maxi who has ever worked on an assembly line ox with a group in a common job knows the stigma the slow-moving and lazy attempt to put on the efforts o# the diligent. “In all labor there is profit, but the talk of the fops leads only to poverty” (Prov. 14:23). These critics seldom produce anything but criticism. They are always going to do something, at least they talk about it a lot, but when it comes to any worthwhile work they are obvious frauds. The slothful desire the respect and honor given to those who labor hard and well, “but his hands refuse to labor. He covets greedily all day long” (Prov. 21:25). Solomon said that he could always tell the farm of a sluggard, “Lo, it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles had covered the face thereof, and the stone wall thereof was broken down.” The wise king of Israel learned something from this scene. The result of “a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep” in the end brought only disorder, chaos, and final destruction (Prov. 24:30-34).

Look to the critic who is always down upon men of ability; look at his life and its fruits. Test his knowledge of the word, and the effect that it has upon his life, and then weigh his words against the labor of the one he is so contemptuous of. It is the height of hypocrisy to claim to have a knowledge of God and not be diligent in our service to him (Heb. 11:6; Phil. 3:13, 14; 1 Tim. 3:10; Gal. 6:9). God tells us that a man is a liar if he claims a right relationship with God and yet is slothful in his service and is contemptuous of his brother (1 Jn. 2;4,9). But the man who excels for the Lord will be known and honored by those who appreciate service to our King. “Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before the king; but he shall not stand before mean and obscure men” (Prov. 22:29).

Truth Magazine XXI: 6, pp. 92-93
February 10, 1977

By Don Potts

I have been asked to respond to Brother Walters’ reply to my article on “King Nicotine or King Jesus” which was published in the October 7, 1976 issue of Truth Magazine. If it were just a matter of responding to a preacher who wishes to serve as an advocate for the use of tobacco, I would not waste my time. However, I do feel a responsibility to Truth Magazine and to its good readers; for this reason I shall respond.

First, Brother Walters says, “Why should a writer waste his time defending tobacco?” That is what I would like to know. It is a shame that a preacher of the gospel would look at the use of tobacco as being on the same par with coffee drinking or gum chewing, much less offering a defense for it. He says that brother Potts is not trying to persuade brethren to use good judgment or to exercise moderation. He is absolutely right; I am not interested in the practice of sin in any kind of “good judgment or moderation.” Nor, am I interested in “personal convictions” as the sole reason for the divorcement of any sin. The sinfulness of “self destruction” is far more than just “personal convictions.” When Judas committed suicide, Luke said he went ” . . . to his own place” (Acts 1:25). In the Houston Press (July 21, 1959), Dr. Alton Ochsner, Director of Surgery at the Ochsner Cancer Clinic and Ochsner Foundation Hospital and Professor of Clinical Surgery at Tulane University, said, “A pistol would be easier . . . . Habitual cigaret smoking is suicidal. If one must commit suicide, it would be easier to put a pistol to the head and pull the trigger. It’s quicker, far less painful and far less expensive.” Like Judas, those who commit suicide with a cigarette will go to their own place regardless of what their “personal convictions” may be.

Brother Walters says that Jesus and the Apostles never gave such a commandment. Who was it that said, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Cor. 3:16)? I believe an apostle wrote that and said, “If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). Brother Walters declared that this is a terrible perversion of scripture to say that 1 Cor. 3:16 is the physical body. He says the temple of God is the Church of Christ. Really? He sounds like some of the liberal brethren in an effort to make James 1:27 and Gal. 6:10 church action rather than individual action. If Brother Walters does not agree with that interpretation, his controversy is not with Brother Potts, or “King Potts,” as he chose to refer to me, but with the apostle Paul. It was Paul that said, “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:19-20). No, Brother Walters, the major premise does not fall! Brother Walters seems to think that all he has to do is just jump up and down and scream `perversion” and, like the walls of Jericho, the major premise falls. Jump some more Brother Walters and when you are exhausted, sit down and see who perverted what.

Now to the minor premise, he says Brother Potts does not offer any scripture to prove that tobacco is harmful, and therefore it is just not so. Suppose I were to say that according to Isaac Newton there is a law of gravitation that says that everything that goes up must come down. If I did not give scripture to prove it, do you suppose that Brother Walters would think that it was false? If Brother Walters were to go to the doctor, assuming that he does consult doctors occasionally, and he were to give him his diagnosis, do you suppose he would demand Biblical, scriptural proof before he would believe him? He says that the same majority of doctors and scientists who say smoking is harmful also have concluded that man has evolved from an ape. How does Brother Walters know that? That sounds like a “Brigham Young Revelation!” The truth is, it is just an empty assertion. The fact is, you at least acknowledge that the majority of doctors and scientist do agree that smoking is harmful to your health. The majority of doctors, however, do not prescribe beer, wine and whiskey for their patients. I suppose doctors are much like preachers, there are some that might come up with anything. What Brother Walters needs, but cannot produce, is the evidence and proof that tobacco is not harmful to your health and until he does my minor premise continues to stand.

Again, he said, “Brother Potts does not say that the excessive use of tobacco is harmful . . . .” Right again, I am no more interested in discouraging excessive smoking or use of tobacco than I am discouraging excessive use of Alcohol. Different degrees of usage of tobacco may bring about lesser degrees of harm to the human body, but the fact is, to one degree or another it is harmful. Thus, the temple of the Holy Ghost is being defiled. He then brings up poor little Grandma and her nightly pinch of snuff which is one of her few sensual pleasures. And Brother Potts just will not make a distinction between cigarets, pipes, cigars, snuff or chewing tobacco, what a shame! I noticed he described Grandma’s pinch of snuff as a “sensual” pleasure. I wonder if that might be equal to what Paul describes as “hurtful lust” (1 Tim. 6:9)? Brother Walters needs to learn that there is no defense for the chewer, the lipper or the dipper! Any way you look at it, tobacco use is nasty and filthy to say the least. Paul commanded us to “. . . cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh . . .” (2 Cor. 7:1). Take a look at the man or woman with tobacco juice streaming down the corner of their mouth and, in many cases, splattered all over his clothes, and you tell me if this becomes godliness. It is a sheer filthiness of the flesh and sin before God. Try telling those who through its usage have been smitten by mouth or throat cancer that it is not harmful. Brother

Walters brings up white sugar, white bread, food additives, and fluoridation in our water, but what does all that have to do with disproving my minor premise? If these and a thousand other things are harmful to our health, my minor premise still states, “The use of tobacco is harmful to the physical body.” Brother Walters has made no effort to prove otherwise and yet he seems to think that all he has to do is just tell our readers that “. . . we conclude that our Brother’s minor premise falls flat . . . .” I cannot help but feel that Brother Walters underestimates the intelligence of our readers.

Then, he launches his attack on syllogism number two. He said, concerning the word sorcery, that it is well known that many of our English words have more than one meaning and that this is true with ancient Greek, to which no one disagrees. He then gives the three definitions of sorcery as given by Thayer (pg. 649): a. the use or the administering of drugs. b. poisoning: Rev. ix. 21. c. sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it: Gal. v. 20.” He complained that Thayer makes the meaning clear that the third meaning is the one used in Galatians and, therefore, Brother Walters ruled out the definition drugs or poisons. Adam Clark, in his Commentary on Galatians, says of witchcraft or sorcery in Gal. 5:20: Pharmakeia, from Pharmakon, a drug, or poison; because in all spells and enchantments, whether true or false, drugs were employed.” Both Thayer and George Ricker Berry say that drugs and poison are intended in the word sorcery in Rev. 9:21, and the Revelator says it is a thing that is to be repented of (Berry, pg. 104). A thing to be repented of is a sin and sin is the one thing, if not repented of, that will send your soul to hell. Sorcery falls into that category. Both definitions of sorcery in Rev. 9:21 are true of “King Nicotine. ” It is both a drug and a poison. Dr. Richard H. Overbolt, a Boston chest surgeon said, “The body of the long term smoker requires a replenished supply of nicotine for a feeling of well being. He is a victim of drug addiction. ” Dr. Alton Oschsner said, “Tobacco is a poison …. It is as harmful and addictive as any drug, perhaps even more so” (The National Insider, Vol. 7, No. 1, July 4, 1965). Some one has given us a list of some 49 known poisons in tobacco. For a fact, one does not need a “Brigham Young Revelation” to know the addictive powers of “King Nicotine.” Those who have tried to quit know its power (Rom. 6:16; 1 Cor. 6:12). Preachers have been fired, brethren alienated and churches split because some either cannot or will not forsake “King Nicotine.” As to my conclusions, according to Brother Walters, making all doctors and druggists guilty of sorcery is anything but the truth. While Brother Walters is looking all those words up with more than one meaning, he might look up the definition of the word “drug.” True, it carries the thought of any substance used as, or in a medicine, but it also carries the idea of narcotics, hallucinating and addictive drugs which faithful doctors and druggist are not administering. Brother Walters knows this, but muddy water helps his defense.

I am sorry our good brother has become so disturbed by my condemnation of the use of tobacco. His terminology tells us much about his attitude, for example his caption, “King Pans or King Jesus?” I do not intend to say anymore on the subject. I will leave yon, the reader, to act as judge and jury to decide where the truth lies. If Don Irons is in error, pray for him, but do not count him as an enemy. My only interest is in the truth and in the salvation of souls. Paul’s advice seems best to regulate such offensive and questionable habits; “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of G0d.. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God” (1 Con 10:31,32)

Truth Magazine XXI: 6, pp. 90-92
February 10, 1977

By Dan Welters

It is with a sense of reluctance that I reply to Brother Don Potts regarding his article, “King Nicotine or King Jesus,” (Truth Magazine, Oct. 7, 1976). Why should a writer waste his time defending tobacco in an age when the most basic moral virtues and, indeed, the right to life itself are in need of defense? I would as soon misuse the pages of this journal to defend drinking coffee or chewing gum. Nevertheless, a public exposure of Brother Potts’ type of thinking is unavoidable.

Brother Potts is not trying to persuade brethren to use good judgment or to exercise moderation. He is not merely offering for examination a strongly held personal conviction. He has usurped the authority of Christ, Himself, and has handed down an absolute law which states that anyone who uses, raises, or sells tobacco in any form or amount is lost and bound for hell! Jesus and His Apostles lived and died without giving us any such commandment. The church has existed for 2000 years without any such commandment. And now at long last Potts has received his latter day revelation and has issued his edict. So which will it be: King Jesus or King Potts?

Let us examine Brother Potts’ logic. His major premise is: “It is sinful to harm the physical body (1 Cor. 3:16-17).” This is a terrible perversion of scripture. There is nothing in the context to suggest abuse of the human body. The temple of God described in 1 Cor. 3:16-17 is the church of Christ. The old temple at Jerusalem was defiled when persons or things not sealed by blood were brought into it or when unauthorized practices were introduced. All items in the work and worship of the church have been sealed by the blood of Christ, and to bring in innovations of man’s wisdom is to defile the temple. So Brother Potts’ major premise falls, even though any reasonable person will admit that God intends us to take reasonable precautions about our health so as to sustain life.

His minor premise is: “The use of tobacco is harmful to the physical body.” Lacking any scripture on the subject, Brother Potts turns to the conclusions of modern medicine. According to this reasoning, our eternal salvation depends upon our acceptance of the conclusions of a majority of doctors and scientists who also have concluded that man has evolved from an ape. If one examines the medical profession from any unbiased viewpoint he will observe a bewildering confusion of opposing theories, and even more astounding, a colossal ignorance of proper human nutrition. He will observe drugs prescribed by doctors for minor problems which have caused deadly cancer as much as twenty years later either in the patient or his offspring. He will observe inoculations insisted upon by doctors and at times forced upon the population by law which kill more patients than would have ever died of the disease, and which may have horrible long-term side effects not yet fully understood by anyone. He will find doctors who prescribe beer, wine, and whiskey, and others who forbid their patients to touch coffee or tea. If my salvation depended in any way upon the medical profession, I would abandon all hope.

Note that Brother Potts does not say that the excessive use of tobacco is harmful, or even that the habitual inhalation of cigarette smoke is harmful. He says “the use of tobacco is harmful.” He takes the three-pack-a~day cigarette smoker with a hacking cough and a ruined appetite and puts him into the same category with Grandma and her nightly pinch of snuff which is one of hex few sensual pleasures and which harxns her net at all, He makes no distinction among cigarettes, pipes, cigars, snuff and chewing tobacco. All statistics, show that the rise in lung cancer did not occur among smokers until cigarettes became the popular method of using tobacco. He makes no distinction in amount of usage. He does nit desire to counsel on principles o# good health. He desires try make an ironclad law where God has made none.

Suppose we accept Brother Potts’ reasoning. Many of us know a fact of nutrition that he may neat be aware o#: that the use of white sugar by Americans is one of the leading causes of disease and mortality in the Twentieth Century. Some of us could write volumes on the subject, and more volumes on white bread, chemical additives in our food, and floridation in our water supply. A good case can be made, amply documented by authorities in the field, that all these things axe harmful to the body. At lest they can be harmful in large amounts. Shall we then issue a brotherhood diet like that o# the Seventh Day Adventists and force all church members to conform? Brother Potts’ reasoning will lead to just that.

So we conclude that our brother’s minor premise falls flat since that which proves too much proves nothing. Both premises being faulty, the conclusion is in doubt, to say the least. But let’s don’t be too hard on Brother Potts fox his first syllogism. There is still the second syllogism. And you ain’t heard nothing yet! All of you who smoke, or chew, or dip, or raise tobacco, or work in a store which sells tobacco are sorcerers! That’s right, a coven o# witches. Cotton. Mather, where axe you when we really need yoga?

The major premise is accepted, being a simple statement of scripture: “Those guilty o# sorcery ox witchcraft will be lost (Gal. 5:19r20).” The minor premise states: “Those who use or administer fox use, nicotine axe guilty of sorcery.” I find it hard to believe that such a statement ever found its way into print. Brother Potts’ authority is Thayer’s. A Greek-English lexicon and a loaded revolver are two things that ought never to fall into the hands of one unprepared in their proper use. It is well known that many of our English words have more than one meaning. This was also true with the ancient Greek. The Greek word for “sorcery” in Gal. 5:20 has three meanings: (1) the use or the administering of drugs, (2) poisoning, (3) magical arts. Thayer makes it quite clear that the third meaning is the one used in Galatians. If the first meaning is to be accepted, then all pharmacists, all doctors, and all who work in drug stores or who take any form of medication are sorcerers. Brother Potts shows that nicotine can be classified as a drug, and that one gets a “lift” from using it. Caffeine is also an alkaloid drug and it is found in coffee, tea, and some soft drinks. Are those who drink such beverages to be called sorcerers? The Mormon church has made a law against such drinks. Brigham Young had to have a special “revelation” to authorize such a law since he knew it was not to be found in the Bible. Has Brother Potts had a revelation? Is he going to present us with a Word of Wisdom type creed for the church of Christ?

If the only effect of Brother Potts’ article were to discourage someone from smoking, it would not be worth answering. It might be said to have a positive benefit in spite of its poor logic. But articles such as his are far from harmless. Here are some of the reasons why his article had to be challenged:

(1) An attempt to make a law where God has made none is an exercise in creed making, which leads to sectarianism.

(2) Such an attempt, if successful, should logically lead to disfellowship of those who do not obey Brother Potts’ law. Thus division in the church will result.

(3) A twisting of Holy Scripture to prove an opinion is a sin in itself. It is contagious, and will lead to other perversions to justify the first departure.

(4) Such an article as Brother Potts’, in spite of good intentions, brings reproach upon the church and upon faithful preachers of the gospel because of its ludicrous nature. It reflects upon other writers who burn the midnight oil in an effort to be accurate and precise.

Truth Magazine XXI: 6, pp. 89-90
February 10, 1977