Truth Magazine

By Roy E. Cogdill

We have sought to separate unity from the “Ecumenical Movement” which some have confused as a “movement” in the direction of unity and God. Of course, Christianity is not connected with any “movement” of any kind. A “movement” toward union without unity-compromise without conviction-policy without principle-is subversive to truth, contrary to the will of Christ and displeasing to God. The “unity of the Spirit” is essential to truth and righteousness and is the only unity that pleases God and is worth the time and effort that it requires to talk and write about it.

Unity among the people of God upon the basis of divine truth is primarily a congregational matter and not a universal problem. When a local church is a “church of Christ” it measures up to the divine standard closely enough to enjoy that identity and is therefore built by the same pattern as every other such local church on earth.

There is, however, no connecting tie of federation between these churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16) as they exist in their various localities. They are rather completely independent bodies subject to the same authority, with the same faith and message engaging in the same pattern of worship and identical in organization and mission. They each have their own members, elders or bishops and deacons, place of assembly, program of work, resources or treasury, and exercise their own discipline and control their own fellowship. They are subject only to the authority of Christ.

In the New Testament there is nothing that teaches that these “churches of Christ” should or did pool their resources into a combined or “brotherhood treasury.” They did not jointly undertake any work. They concurrently labored independently of one another to preach the gospel in the same place and even support the same preacher. (2 Cor. 11:7-9), but they did not combine their work under a single eldership or some humanly devised organization nor did they combine their resources. You can search the scriptures in vain for such combinations as are common today among professed churches of Christ, viz., Herald of Truth, sponsored church co-operation, etc. We have seen and heard brethren try to establish the scripturalness of such joint enterprises in vain but we have never heard any scripture produced teaching it either in precept, example, or by necessary inference. They have no scripture for such combinations. They can only appeal to “the liberty to act in God’s silence” and plain sophistry. There is no divine authority for any organization in the work of the church but the local church (Phil. 1:1). Neither is there any divine authority for a local church functioning as a brotherhood agency. This is a perversion of the function of God’s organization.

History teaches that when these independent congregations of God’s people began to merge, federate, form inter-congregational ties apostasy was already under way. This led to the crowning of a universal bishop over all the churches and that is Roman Catholicism. Inter-congregational federation either in organization, function, or of resources will lead in, the same direction again. The flagrant violations of this fundamental principle of truth and church identity today among the churches has lead and is leading to the disruption of the peace of many congregations and the creation of dissension and strife. Not only have the people of God been divided but families have been separated and bitterness has been created and all because the false assumption that “we do not have to have divine authority” for all we do in the church of the Lord. The New Testament teaches that when anyone brings into any church of Christ anything as a matter of expediency or personal liberty that causes others in that congregation to offend their consciences or separate themselves therefrom, they have condemned themselves by “destroying the temple of God” (1 Cor. 3:16-17). Such an attitude is plain carnality (1 Cor. 3:1-3).

Unity is enjoined upon the congregation by Paul and he invoked the authority of Christ to impress the obligation it carries. “Now I beseech you, brethren, the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (I Cor. 1:10).

More than a. hundred years ago when brethren introduced the missionary society organization into evangelism of the church and instrumental music into the worship, they did not plead scriptural authority for these innovations at the beginning. They brought them in as matters of expedience and human judgment and preference. They took the attitude that those who could not conscientiously worship and work with them in use of these “expediencies” were “anti,” narrow minded, non-progressive, making laws where God had riot rude them, etc. Today liberal brethren who are bringing into the congregations their human expediencies and disrupting the peace and harmony of God’s people are once again taking the same attitude and hurling the same epithets against those of their brethren who oppose theist. They are saying now even as they did then, “We have the liberty of practicing such things and you do not have the right to oppose them, therefore, you can either go along in violation of your conscience or get out.” This is the reason many brethren are leaving the place of worship where they have been for years, helped to pay for the property and facilities for carrying on their work, and seeking some other place of worship where they will not have to sacrifice their convictions for the sake of peace. Even though they do it with a grieved heart, this is all that they can do and still please God. Those who force them to do it, however, are marching toward complete apostasy and eternal condemnation as sure as the Bible is the Word of God.

Truth Magazine, XX:24, p. 9-10
June 10, 1976

By Loren N. Raines

There was no man that David loved more than he loved Jonathan. Perhaps no greater friendship ever existed than that between these two good men. Of Jonathan David said, “Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” In lamenting the death of Jonathan, David said, “How are the mighty fallen.”

On April the 8th death claimed a mighty man, in spiritual Israel. On that date Brother J. C. Roady passed from time into eternity. I was called to speak at his funeral which was held at the building of the Church of Christ at Sullivan, Indiana where Brother Roady had lived for over fifty years. Brother Ermil Poer assisted in the service.

Perhaps Brother Roady is not too well known by the present generation. He was born in Illinois September 4, 1887. He began preaching when quite young and had preached the gospel for 70 years. He gave his entire life to the church, and spent all his life in the evangelistic field. He preached in most every state in the Union, and no man was more in demand as an evangelist. His meetings were scheduled years in advance, and he never turned down a congregation because of its size. He preached every day in the year unless he was traveling. He spent but very few days in his home. Only those who have done this type of work know the sacrifice that he made. He sometimes preached as many as four sermons in one day. He kept accurate records of all his baptisms, funerals and weddings. He baptized a total of 15,039 people, besides restoring thousands to the church. Few, if any preachers of the Lord’s church have spoken to more people. In most of his meetings the houses were packed, many times overflowing, and sometimes people had to be turned away.

Brother Roady was a self-made man. He lacked the educational advantages of most preachers of this generation. Few people knew the Bible better, and none could defend the faith more effectively. He was blessed with a strong body, a keen mind, a good memory, and a forceful delivery. He was blessed with good health, and until the last few months of his life he said he never knew what it was like to be tired. He was an impressive speaker, but seldom spoke more than thirty minutes. He said he preferred that people go away hungry, rather than foundered. They always wanted to come back for more. His sermons were simple, well organized, understandable, and Bible from beginning to end. He knew how to inform the mind, touch the heart, and move the will.

During the last several years of his life he and two other brethren pooled what funds they had, and thus created a circulating fund from which they loaned money at a low rate of interest to needy congregations to build meeting houses to meet their needs. All they requested was that the congregations pay the interest the first of each month on the unpaid balance, then make whatever payment they were able to make on the principal. As a result many loyal congregations now have adequate, comfortable places to meet, and go carry on the Lord’s work more effectively.

During the last year Brother Roady gave up preaching due to failing health. He recently had a cancerous kidney removed. The doctors said he would have recovered had it not been for complications which caused his death. He was in the hospital at Terre Haute when he passed away. He spent most of seven weeks in intensive care. He is survived by his faithful companion and a few distant relatives. The church building was packed at his funeral service. He was laid to rest in Indian Creek Cemetery in Hamburg, Illinois, near where he was born. Truly, a mighty man has fallen. As the end drew near, if suffering permitted, surely it was a comfort to him to think of those more than fifteen thousand souls he had led to Christ, and could say, as Paul said to the brethren at Thessalonica, “For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?”

Truth Magazine, XX:24, p. 7
June 10, 1976

By Raymond E. Harris

During the past couple years we have heard a great out pouring of pros and cons concerning the “Bus Ministries.” It seems to be a subject most church members feel rather strongly about. They are either strongly in favour or utterly against the church bussing programs. ‘This has caused no little stir within churches all across the country.

However, until now we were uncertain as to public reaction. Now we are beginning to learn that the general public is not nearly as excited about church bussing programs as the bus promoters would have us believe.

Recently negative reaction caught on in Bloomington, Indiana, where a number of letters came in to the newspaper editor. That was followed by newspaper articles revealing various problems with “candy giving bus drivers.” In an article entitled “Evangelists Sour Tulip Tree Parents on Sweet Religion,” Alan Kinney of the Bloomington Herald Telephone, reports the following:

Parents for years have instructed their children never to accept a ride or candy from strangers. But some parents at the Tulip Tree Apartments (I.U. married housing) complain they have a harder job because of the methods some area churches employ to get children to ride their buses on Sunday mornings.

“Just last Saturday morning I heard a man tell one of the kids to he sure to come to church tomorrow and check out an the free gum and candy. I’m trying to teach my daughter not to take anything from strangers, but they’re not malting my job easier,” said a mother at Tulip Tree.

Another mother said that she had seen a bus parked in the circle drive at Tulip Tree every Saturday morning all summer.

“They waited for children to walk past the bus, and then one of the men jumped out of the bus, shook hands with all of the kids, and gave them candy and gum. My kids are cavity prone, and this man isn’t helping my husband or myself with the dentist bills. Why should he be allowed to give my children candy in the first place?”

The Reverend Oliver Rogers, minister of the North Central Church of Christ, 2121 N. Dunn, said his church has an active bus program at the Tulip Tree Apartments. He said he saw nothing wrong with giving the children “little gifts as a reward for coming to church.” This practice was never meant to entice the children to ride the bus, he said.

“We place brochures under the doors at the Tulip Tree Apartments inviting children to come to the free puppet show in our bus,” Rogers said, “When the show is over, we always try to have a little gift for the children.”

“We are having a contest on our buses where the bus director, Joe Bernhardt, is offering the child that brings the most visitors a small radio. This is merely for incentive purposes, the same incentive a business man would receive to do a better job,” Rogers said.

“I took my children to the puppet show that had Bruce and the Cookie Monster from Sesame Street. We were notified of this by a note under the door and the note said nothing to the effect that this was church-oriented. I think it is deceitful to use something a child loves to push religion down their throats,” another mother said.

The Reverend Herbert Buff, minister of the First Assembly of God, 801 Mattock Road, said area churches compete for children, but the children also compete to ride on certain buses.

“We have what we call a McDonalds Sunday, where we take the children to McDonalds for a treat after church. Many times we’ve heard of children riding our bus rather than a different bus because we were going to McDonalds, and the other churches were only giving out bubble gum,” he said.

From the foregoing interviews it is obvious that many of the parents up and down church bus routes resent the bus ministries intrusion into their family affairs. Little children are gullible enough to want to accept candy and gum anywhere they can get it. However, older children and adults are perceptive enough to spot the religious con of reward motivation. It would be interesting to know the average age of the bus riders, how many are baptized and what percentage stick. If all those facts could be viewed 10 years from now in the light of bussing costs for 10 years, it would be interesting to know how many will still call bussing an “Expedient.”

Truth Magazine, XX:24, p. 6
June 10, 1976

By Cecil Willis

In Eph. 4:3-6 we find Paul saying there is one body, one hope, one faith, one baptism. But in this same passage Paul says there is one God, one Lord, and one Spirit. There are those who deny the truth of this passage. They want to maintain the separateness of the ..one body, one hope, one faith, one baptism.” They recognize these refer to different things. But when they come to the one Lord, one Spirit and one God, they say these refer to one and the same person. God and Christ partake of the same nature, of the same image, and hence, in comparison to others, they both have a name that is above all things, both in heaven and on earth, but they are not one person.

Beginning with the presupposition that there is but one person in the Godhead, and that this person is Jesus, some of our denominational friends maintain that baptism may be scripturally administered only when the formula “in the name of Jesus” is spoken over the candidate. If you were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they will tell you your baptism is unscriptural.

In this controversy a distinction is made between a name and a title. To some of you good people who are unfamiliar with the doctrine we are studying, this subject may seem unimportant. But to others of you who have been confused by designing teachers, we hope it will be helpful and enlightening.

The terms, “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” are said to only be titles. Jesus is said to be the only name of God. We are told that is it not right to baptize in the name of a title, but that one’s baptism must be in the name of Jesus only. But in order that the position of our religious friends may be put in their own words, I quote now from a booklet sent to me by an individual supporting the teaching we are studying this week. I am quoting from “The Real Truth About Baptism in Jesus’ Name” by John Paterson, published by the Pentecostal Publishing House. He says: “I would ask you to remember that the words, `Father, Son, and Holy Ghost’ are titles or terms of relationship; they are not the Sacred Name!” Of course this statement is made to show that one should not baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. These are titles, not names, we are told, so we should not baptize in them.

But we are told that Jesus is the only name of God; and that all else are titles. But if Jesus is the only name of God, is not Christ a title? They argue that we should baptize in the name of Jesus only. Jesus is the only name. But if Christ is a title, then in Acts 2:38 we find baptism commanded in the name of Jesus Christ, and therefore baptism is administered in the name of a title. Christ. If Lord is only a title, since Jesus is the only name, then we find a title used in the baptismal formula of Acts 8:16. In Ex. 15:3 we read, “The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is his name.” It did not say “Lord” was His title. In Isa. 42:8, Isaiah says, “I am the Lord: that is my name.” The Scripture says that “Lord” is the name of God. But our friends tell us that Jesus is the only name of God. If then Lord is a title, and not the name of God, as we are informed, then this question: Why is one’s baptism valid if he is baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, remembering that Jesus in the only name, and therefore Lord is a title, but invalid if he is baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which are said to be titles? Why is one’s baptism valid in the name of one title, but invalid if another title is used?

I mentioned before that advocates of the doctrine which we are studying say that one baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is unscripturally baptized. I am quoting again from the same pamphlet previously quoted to show you this is taught: “Once this question is faced squarely you will have to admit that baptism `into Jesus’ name’ is not merely a correct formula–it is the ONLY correct formula. You will have to admit that the Triadic formula commonly used today is NOT EQUAL to the one used in the Acts of the Apostles-it is wrong and is totally invalid” (Pg. 30).

Note these questions: Is Lord the name of God? Is Christ the name of God? Is Father the name of God? Is Son the name of God? Is Holy Spirit the name of God? We are given an emphatic “No!” in answer to all these questions. They are all titles, and Jesus is the only name. But I ask again, Why is it wrong to baptize in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (titles), but right to baptize in the name of Lord and Christ (Also titles)?

We are told that baptism is not valid unless the “ONLY correct formula” is spoken over one in his baptism. Will one of you fellows who makes this statement please tell me what the “ONLY correct formula” is? They are quick to reply that it is baptism “in the name of Jesus” only. But will one of you fellows show me a single instance in the New Testament in which anybody was ever baptized in the name of Jesus only. There is no such instance.

A “formula,” Webster says, is a “set form of words for use in any ceremony; as a formula of faith; a prescribed or set form; a fixed or conventional method.” Where is the set of words that must be spoken over a person in his baptism in order for his baptism to be valid?

We find four passages are cited as giving us the prescribed formula for one’s baptism. Let us look at each of them. In Acts 2:38, Peter commanded the Jews to “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 8:16, we find that those of Samaria had not received the Holy Spirit by the imposition of the apostle’s hands, “only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48 Peter commanded the Gentiles to “be baptized in the name of the Lord” (KJV); “in the name of Jesus Christ” (ASV) And in Acts 19:5, “They were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” In these four passages we have three different prepositions; one meaning “upon,” another meaning “in” and two meaning “into.” In these four passages we have differences also in terminology with respect to the person. Once it is in the name of “Jesus Christ;” another time it is in the name of the “Lord Jesus;” and again in another, it is in the name of the “Lord.” The formula is supposed to be uniform, but in these passages which are supposed to tell us the formula for baptism, there are three different prepositions used, and three different terms for the persons. If there is only one formula to use, which one is the right one and which ones are the wrong ones?

But why is such a discussion as the one we are having this week imperative? It is because there is a passage in the Scriptures that some of our religious friends feel must be explained away. They take a long and drawn out way to try to accomplish this. They are teaching that baptism is invalid if any other name than Jesus’ is uttered as the act is being performed. But when Jesus gave the great commission, unfortunately for the doctrine we have been studying, his statement directly contradicted the doctrine we are studying.

In the great commission as recorded by Matthew, Jesus said: “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:18-20). Our denominational friends maintain that baptism must be in the name of Jesus only, and of course, when Jesus commanded the apostles to baptize into the name of the Father and of the. Son and of the Holy Spirit, it perplexes them to no end. It does not fit in with our doctrine, they say, so it just has to go. Certainly the Bible could not teach anything contrary to what they believe!

Therefore, they say that since the word “name” is singular in this passage, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit must all be one person. They tell us that a singular noun cannot refer to a plurality of objects. The word “name” cannot refer to the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So they conclude that the three just have one name, and that name is Jesus, and that all three are but one person.

Actually one finds several examples of a singular noun referring to a plurality of objects. In Matt. 18:16 Jesus commands that in disciplinary matters, we let every word be established in “the mouth (sing.) of two or three witnesses.” Now did the three witnesses just have one big mouth? Certainly not. In Matt. 17:6 we read that “the disciples fell on their face (sing.).” Did all the disciples just have one face? Surely not. In Jno. 10:39 we find that Jesus “escaped out of their (the Jew’s) hand (sing.)”. Did all the Jews just have one big hand? Such an idea is ridiculous. If in these instances we find that a singular noun is used to refer to a plurality of objects, what reason is there for concluding that the name (sing.) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit must refer to but one person? There is no valid reason.

In Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:48 we find baptism is commanded “in the name of” the Lord Jesus Christ. What does it mean to be baptized “in the name of” Jesus? In the original language, the expression translated “in the name of” means “To do a thing in the name of someone, i.e., by one’s command and authority . . .” (Thayer). To be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ means to be baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ. But how did Jesus say be baptized? He said for the disciples to go teaching the gospel, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:18-20). Friends, to be baptized in the name of Jesus, or by the authority of Jesus, is to be baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Someone asks, “Show me, after Pentecost, where anyone was ever baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” I reply by stating that there is no instance, in the New Testament in which one is baptized in the name of Jesus only, without the addition of a “title,” such as Lord or Christ. Actually good friends, I do not find an instance of any specific uniform formula being spoken over a person as he is being baptized. The important thing is for the right subject to be immersed in water for the right reason. The instructed believing penitent must be immersed for the remission of sins.

Where do we find an example of baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? We find Jesus’ commanding the disciples to so baptize in Matt. 28:19,20. Did the apostles do what Jesus told them to do? He told them to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. I believe they did. Some of my religious friends believe they did not.

Truth Magazine, XX:24, p. 3-5
June 10, 1976