Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

A doctrine often taught is the subject of our investigation for the next few weeks. Some time ago I read a proposition affirmed by a denominational preacher. It read: “Resolved: That there is only one person in the Godhead. . . .” There are many good people in the religious world who believe this teaching to be founded on the Scriptures. Perhaps some are unfamiliar with the statement of the doctrine. It maintains that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are not different entities, but are only different manifestations of the same person. It is often referred to as the “Jesus Only” doctrine. It teaches that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are really all just one person. If this doctrine is taught in the Bible, all of us ought to believe it; if it is not taught in the Bible, none of us should believe it.

This week we want to spend our time in studying the passages that have been cited as proof-texts allegedly proving that there is just one person in the Godhead. I have not chosen passages that I think may be used by the proponents of the doctrine, but I have gone through some of their written speeches with one specific purpose of learning what they consider to be the best proof-texts of their doctrine in order that we might investigate them.

First of all, let us notice the passages cited as their proof texts from the Old Testament. Remember now, these passages are supposed to prove that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all one person. Isa. 43:10 is one passage cited as proving this doctrine. It reads: “Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” This passage says nothing about God, Christ and the Holy Spirit all being one person. It does assert that there was no god made before Jehovah, which I believe as strongly as they. Isaiah is contrasting Jehovah with idols, and all one has to do to learn this is to read the next two verses. Of course, our friends who use this passage as a proof-text never seem to do this. But verses 11, 12 read: “I, even 1, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour. I have declared, and I have saved, and I have showed; and there was no strange god among you; therefore ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and I am God.” In contrast to idols, God is the only God. This is the teaching, also, in Deut. 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” No idol can be put in God’s stead.

Furthermore, Isa. 44:6 is cited as proving that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all one person. It reads: “Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God.” But what does the context indicate Isaiah is referring to when he quotes God’s words? Verse 9 says, “They that fashion a graven image are all of them vanity.” These people were trying to substitute a graven image for Almighty God.

In seeking to prove the identity of Jesus and God, they argue that Jesus was but another manifestation of God. I turn to the creed book of one denomination which teaches this doctrine and read: “The one true God manifested Himself in the Old Testament in divers ways, and as the Son while he walked among men . . . As the Holy Spirit after His ascension” (Articles of Faith, United Pentecostal Church, page 16, paragraph 4). According to this statement of the creed, Jesus was not really the Son of God; He was just a manifestation of God. This doctrine undermines the Sonship of Jesus Christ, which the inspired writers sought to sustain.

Now this next argument we are about to review may seem a bit far-fetched to some of you, but I stated I am going to investigate the grounds of this belief by reviewing the argument as made by the proponents of the doctrine. They cite 2 Cor. 5:19 in which Paul said, “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.” From this it is argued that Christ was but a manifestation of God, and hence Christ as He pilgrimaged with man and God must be one and the same person. But does the fact that one is making manifest another indicate that they are identical? John the Baptist said, “And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, for this cause came I baptizing in water” (Jno. 1:31). John said he came baptizing in order that he might make manifest Jesus Christ. Because John made manifest Jesus Christ, are John and Jesus therefore identical? Paul also made manifest Jesus Christ: “But thanks be unto God, who always leadeth us in triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest through us the savor of his knowledge in every place” (2 Cor. 2:14). Paul’s work was to make Christ manifest in every place. When Paul made manifest Christ unto the people, did that make Paul the same person as Jesus Christ? Did Paul and Jesus become one person because Paul made Jesus manifest? If not, why did God and Christ become one person when Jesus manifested God? Well, the fact is, Jesus’ manifesting God did not make them one person.

But one other point, and we must proceed to another of their arguments. They argue that since God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself (2 Cor. 5:19), God and Christ must be identical. If this argument were sound it would defy man. John said, “if we love one another, God abideth in us” (1 Jno. 4:12). If the fact that God was in Christ proves that God was Christ, then God’s being in us would prove that we are God. This is a fallacious argument, and I think it is apparent to all, so let us proceed to another.

Perhaps the most frequently quoted passage in striving to prove that God and Jesus are one person is Jno. 10:30. At least it sounds like it might begin to hint at what they teach. In this passage, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” But I know of no doctrine that has more trouble than this one. Every passage they cite to prove that Jesus and God are one person denies this to be true. Notice Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” In speaking of Himself, Jesus says “I”, which is one, and “the Father” which is another “are one.” They are not both the same person. Is Jesus His own father? Can one be both his own father and his own son? Certainly not, yet this is exactly what these men would have us believe.

It just so happens that when Jesus said “I and the Father are one” He did not say “I and the Father are one person.” They may be one, and yet not one person. Jesus prayed that the disciples may be one: “Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me” (Jno. 17:20, 21). Jesus prayed that the disciples may be one as He and the Father were one. Was Jesus asking that all the disciples of Christ throughout the world become one big man? This is absurd. He was simply praying that they might be united, or work as one.

In teaching on marriage, Jesus declared that man and woman should be one: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. So that they are no more two, but one flesh” (Matt. 19:5, 6). When husband and wife become one, do they become one person? Can one person be both a husband and a wife? The point these passages illustrate is that we may be “one” and not “one person.” All the disciples are to be “one,” yet all of the disciples can never become “one person.” The husband and wife are to be “one,” but they can never become “one person.”

God and Christ are one, but they are not one person. One of them is the Father; the other the Son. But if God and Christ are not one person, how are they one at all? “God and Christ are one in doctrine, 2 Jno. 9, not in person. God and Christ are one in protection, John 10:29, 30, but not in person. They are one in words and work, John 14:8-11, not in person. They are one in name, John 5:43, not in person. They are one in purpose, John 14:16, 28, not in person. They are one in fulness, but not in person” (Wallace-Vaughn Debate, pg. 31).

When Jesus said, “I and the Father are one,” He did not declare the doctrine men read into his statement. He did not say they were one person. And there is a vast difference in being one, and in being one person.

In John 14, Philip requested that Jesus “show us the Father.” Jesus replied by saying, “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” Quo. 14:8, 9). But once again, observe that Jesus spoke of Himself, and of the Father. Was He His own Father? Someone should answer this question either yes or no. Really what Jesus was teaching is the same thing that Paul declared in Heb. 1, in which he declared that Jesus is the express image of the substance of God (verse 3). Furthermore, in Phil. 2:5-7 Paul said that Jesus counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped. Jesus was indeed divinity manifested in flesh, so when they saw the Son of God, Philip and the rest, were seeing God in human flesh.

Jesus said “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” This is another instance in which the proof-text denies the doctrine. Here again Jesus refers to the Father. One cannot be a father before there are two persons. One cannot be a father without there being a son. For example, Adam was created, and was a man, but he was not a husband before Eve was created to be his wife. Neither could God be a father without reference being made to His Son.

Actually, the doctrine we are discussing denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Of course the adherents of the doctrine would say this is not so. But they teach that there is just one person in the Godhead. That one person is both Father and Son. So Jesus is not the Son of God. He is His own father, and His own son. No passage in the Word of God teaches this doctrine. We have tried to be fair in our choosing of the passages cited as proof-texts, and in our review of them. Next week we shall study passages which indicate that there are three persons in the Godhead.

Truth Magazine, XX:18, p. 3-5
April 29, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

When one defends the truth against compromisers and their sympathizers, it is charged that, “He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness” (I Tim. 6:3-5). In effect, those who seek to expose the errors of the day are egotistical fools who do nothing but stir up stink and strife and surmisings and suspicions. They know nothing. Their minds are perverted and corrupt; so, “from such withdraw thyself.” These things are all mouthed and mumbled against gospel preachers who seek to terminate present problems of Pentecostalism and Calvinism before they can germinate further. In truth, anyone who fights any false doctrine at any time will be so accused and accursed.

But did you notice who Paul was describing in the text quoted above? He was not painting a picture of those who “fight the good fight of faith.” Whose portrait is it then? Who is the one that “is proud, knowing nothing?” Who is the man who generates “questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings?” Paul answers that it is the man who dares to “teach otherwise, and consent(s) not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness” (1 Tim. 6:3). He is the guilty party. The one who will “teach otherwise;” the man who will “consent not to wholesome (sound) words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ;” the man who will not submit “to the doctrine which is according to godliness,” that man is your troublemaker.

Brethren have often unwittingly denounced faithful Christians who were standing in the ranks for the cause of truth. It was true in the warfare against the presumptions of the premillennial party and the encroachments and innovations of institutional entities. And it will continue to be so. However, if you are one who does it, from now on it will not be because you do not know better. You will be doing it because of hatred and bitterness against the faithful who stand and fight while you lie down and gripe, or you will be doing it because of your sympathy for the errors that are being broadcast. Either way, some one has your license and pedigree, for it is the one who teaches “otherwise” who is the cause of strife, surmising, and slander.

Truth Magazine, XX:18, p. 2
April 29, 1976

By Mike Willis

In the December installment of “The Word Abused,” Leroy Garrett considered 1 Jn. 1:7. As usual, he was trying to disarm another weapon which is used to counteract the influence of false teachers. Apparently, the editor of Restoration Review knows of only one evil which is serious enough to call for all-out war—-that evil being the spirit of opposition to false teachers. Every issue which I have read from his pen has been aimed primarily at those of us who insist that innovations can sever the ties that bind us to God and to each other.

Here is the passage under consideration: “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:6-7). Here is the abuse of the passage which Garrett criticized:

“This passage is given a very strange twist indeed, all for the purpose of teaching the idea that fellowship is predicated upon doctrinal inerrancy. If one holds a doctrinal error, then he cannot be ‘fellowshipped,’ for he is not walking in the light, which is the basis of fellowship according to this passage. This verse has thus become part of ‘the party line’ in most every sect among us, and it is used to justify the alienating and dividing of God’s people. To `walk in the light’ is made to mean doctrinal purity, especially in reference to the unique interpretation of the particular party.

“If one has what is believed to be a wrong view of prophecy, such as premillennialism, then he is not ‘walking in the light’ and so must be excluded from fellowship. If he supports Herald of Truth or a missionary society, then he walks In darkness rather than light and therefore must be rejected as a faithful brother. If one truly ‘walks in the light’ then he will be right on everything from the way to make music in the assembly and the Sunday School to the use of literature and the method of serving the Supper. Light is thus made to mean ‘truth,’ which is made to refer to all the teaching of the scriptures, including (mainly) the disposition made of the silence of the scriptures.

“The passage therefore might be paraphrased this way, once the bending and twisting is accomplished: We can have fellowship with each other if we believe and practice all of the teaching of the New Testament alike. This becomes even more oppressive when the silence of the scriptures is imposed within this framework. We are told that we must agree on what the Bible says nothing about to start with, whether classes, organs, agencies, colleges. We must see all alike what It doesn’t say as well as what it does say! Otherwise we are not walking in the light!” 1

What Garrett is trying to do is apparent; he is trying to stop the usage of this passage with reference to the issues which have occurred among us. Whether one uses instrumental music in worship or not, whether one participates in church support of missionary societies and benevolent societies or not, and whether one participates in the sponsoring church arrangement or not has no bearing upon whether or not he is walking in the light, according to Garrett. He said,

“We must not turn from such a heritage as this and make light’ refer to being right on the class question and `darkness’ mean sending a missionary through a society rather than by direct support.”2

We need to back up in our consideration of this passage to understand exactly what John had in mind when he warned his brethren not to walk in darkness. Practically every commentator which I have read on 1 John asserts that he was warning the brethren against a form of gnosticism called docetism, particularly as propagated by Cerinthus. The main tenets of gnosticism, which are relevant to this article, are as follows:

1. The relationship of God to the world. According to gnosticism, the world originated by the fulness of Deity flowing through emanations from God=aeons or angels. There was supposed to be an innumerable host of these aeons with gradations from high to low in spirituality. The lowest was practically corporeal; the highest was just a little below God Himself. In this way the gulf between God and the world was bridged.

2. The relationship between matter and evil. As the aeons got further and further removed from God, they manifested proportionately less of His purity. Conversely, as the aeon became more and more corporeal, he became more evil. Thus, matter was seen to be evil and spirit was seen to be good. A dualism was posited by gnosticism.

These two doctrines of gnosticism3 had profound effects when synthesis occurred with Christianity. With reference to the doctrine of Christ, the doctrine taught that Jesus was the highest aeon-an originated being and not God. The gnostic doctrine of the relationship between matter and evil precluded the belief that Christ could assume a truly human form. Thus, the docetism taught by Cerinthus developed. Here is a summary of Cerinthian docetism’s view of Christ:

“Its christology declared that Jesus was son of Joseph and Mary; that at his `baptism’ the Christ, the `Father in the form of a dove, descended upon him, and only then did he begin to prophesy and do mighty works, and preach the hitherto unknown Father (unknown to the Jews), the God over all. That the Christ then left him; and then Jesus suffered, and rose again (that Is, appeared to his followers after death).”4

“It appears that Cerinthus considered Christ an ordinary man, born in the usual way, and devoid of miraculous powers, but distinguished from the rest of the Jews by possessing superior wisdom, so that He was worthy to be chosen as the Messiah; that he knew nothing of his high dignity till it was revealed to Him in His baptism by John, when He was consecrated to the Messiahship, and furnished with the necessary powers for the fulfillment of His office by the descent of the supreme Logos or Spirit from the heavens, which hung over Him like a dove, and at length entered into His heart; that He was then raised to the dignity of the Son of God, began to perform miracles, and even angels were now taught by His revelations; that redemption could not be effected by His sufferings. Jesus, in union with the mighty Spirit of God, could not suffer, but must triumph over all His.enemies. The very fact of suffering was assumed to be a proof that the Spirit of God, which had been previously united to Him, was now separated from Him, and had returned to the Father. The sufferings were of the man Jesus, now left to himself.”5

You can see how that Cerinthian docetism denied the incarnation of Jesus Christ in the biblical sense. To see that, John is refuting these contemporary ideas, read the following passages:

“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life-and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us-” (1:1-2).

Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son” (2:22).

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world” (4:1-3).

For further study, compare 1 Jn. 5:1,5; 2 Jn. 7.

A second major problem which accompanied Cerinthian docetism was its ethics. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) article said, “The nec6ssary consequence of the gnostic theory is an ascetic morality which passed over by sure steps into antinomian license. . . .”6 “But in Gnosticism, sin is something quite different; it is not the act and the disposition of the human will in rebellion against God; it is drily a physical fact or quality inherent in the body and, in matter everywhere.”7Thus, in John’s epistle, he was, concerned to prevent a development of the gnostic concept of sin, as the following passages show:

If you know that He is righteous, you know that every one who practices righteousness is born of Him” (2:29).

“Every one who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is; lawlessness” (3:4).

“No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious; any one who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother” (3:9-10).

For further study, see 1 Jn. 3:24; 5:17-18.

Having some background into the evil which John is fighting, we are now prepared to consider 1 Jn. 1:6-7. I think that what John had on his mind is now quite obvious. He was militantly opposing docetism in the church. Those who taught that one’s sins did not affect his soul had to be refuted. The man who taught that one could maintain fellowship with God while walking in darkness was a liar. Walking is used to refer to one’s conduct; darkness, as the opposite of light, is anything that is in opposition to God, doctrinally or morally. Some have tried to separate doctrine from morality to assert that John had in mind only moral impurity when he referred to “walking in darkness.” The relationship between doctrine and morality is causal. B. F. Westcott said,

“The teaching of St. John in his Epistle thus turns upon the Person of Christ. Under this aspect it is important to observe that it is intensely practical. St. John everywhere presents moral ideas resting upon facts and realised in life…. Truth is never stated in speculative form, but as a motive and a help for action. . . . The apprehension of the historical manifestation of the Life of Christ is thus pressed as the prevailing and sufficient motive for godlike conduct; and at the same time mere right opinion, apart from conduct is exposed in its nothingness.”8

If a person can see the connection between the doctrine of Christ and Christian morality, he should also be able to see that the same type of relationship existed between the doctrines of gnosticism and its morality. Thus, R. C. H. Lenski wrote,

“To walk in this darkness is to believe and to hold to the lie, to reject and to fight the saving truth, to hate this light (John 3:20), to make God, the light, a liar (v. 10). The walk or conduct shows this clinging to the lie just as does not doing the truth, i.e., what the saving gospel tells.

“Ethics are included, but John has in mind first of all doctrine and faith, here false doctrine as opposed to the true. The whole claim to fellowship with God is a lying. John minces no words. Our modern considerateness toward heresies and heretics is unscriptural and dangerous.” 9

We simply cannot take the position that “walking in darkness” applies only to ethical sins.

Consequently, when we read that fellowship with God and with one another is contingent upon “walking the light,” we must understand that to refer to more than living a morally pure life. Though some of my brethren, such as Garrett, do not consider the issues of mechanical instruments of music in worship, church support of human institutions, and the sponsoring church to have any connection to “walking in the light,’,’ I cannot understand how they can see no connection between brethren running roughshod over the conscientious objections of their brethren in order to promote their pet innovations as having no connection with “walking in the light.” When they apply this passage to moral evils, why do they persistently omit that moral evil?

Actually, “walking in the light” refers to both ethical and doctrinal purity. The man who does not believe and teach the right things is not walking in the light; neither is the man who does not live the right kind of life walking in the light. Garrett recognizes that what I have said is true-that “walking in the light” refers to doctrinal as well as ethical matters. He wrote,

“We are of course dealing with an infinite concept that defies exact definition. Light can well represent the whole of the Christian faith, while darkness stands for anything that militates against that faith. But we must always speak of fundamentals and not peripheral issues.” 10

However, the key to understanding this paragraph is “peripheral issues.” Everything which Garrett decides do so label is “fundamental” and anything which we might not like is a “peripheral issue.” Give him the license to define what the peripheral issues are and you have the “unity-in-diversity” dogma which is presently splitting churches.” Frankly, some of the things which Garrett considers peripheral issues are rather fundamental to me. For example, he believes that there are faithful children of God in all denominations, that one may use leavened bread when observing the Lord’s Supper, there is no pattern for the frequency off observing the Lord’s Supper, etc. Too, I suppose one could present a good case for the Old Testament matters of where one got the fire to light the altar of incense and how to move the ark of the covenant as peripheral issues, though God punished with immediate death those who violated His word with reference to them.

Apparently, Garrett does not believe Jas. 2:10-11 which says, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For’ He who said, `Do not commit adultery,’ also said, `Do not commit murder.’ Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become’ a transgressor of the law.” The point which James is establishing is that the same authority resides behind every commandment. The man who disobeys God in one point has resisted and rebelled against God regardless of what that point may be. We recognize this principle with reference to the discipline of our children. There have been a number of occasions when I have disciplined my daughter for matters which were really quite insignificant simply because the incident manifested a spirit of rebellion. Similarly, the matters over which we have divided might appear insignificant, but they manifest a spirit of rebellion against God. If a person considers mechanical instruments of music in worship and the missionary society as peripheral issues, he needs to open his eyes to see that more was involved than arguing over peripheral issues; the whole approach to Bible authority by the two groups was significantly different, as reputable historians recognize. 12 Post division developments show how divergent their concepts of authority actually were. The same might be said for the recent divisions among the Lord’s churches; recent developments (denial of the authority of apostolic examples, involvement in the social gospel, recreation, etc.) have shown that our concepts regarding authority are significantly different. The violation of God’s word at the one point (e.g. instrumental music in worship, sponsoring churches) manifested this spirit of rebellion. Garrett’s comments regarding “peripheral issues” does not take these facts into consideration.

We who hold to the truth with reference to the issues just mentioned must be careful not to equate soundness with being right on these issues. One might be right on these issues and yet be an unfaithful child of God. (I do not see how a person can be a faithful child of God while opposing what God has said on these, or any other, subjects.) We must be careful to measure soundness by the sum total of what the Bible says and not by one or two issues.

Garrett’s comments on 1 Jn. 1:7 do not adequately consider the context in which the book was written. Consequently, he refuses to apply this passage to contemporary forms of darkness which exist among us, with the exception of sins of immorality and “sectarianism.” Sectarianism, according to Garrett’s definition, is opposition to unscriptural innovations. One can be guilty of walking in darkness if he opposes mechanical instruments of music in worship, sponsoring churches, and church support of human institutions, although he cannot be guilty of walking in darkness by supporting them! God’s grace will somehow cover every sin except opposing unscriptural innovations!

Again, the editor of Restoration Review has aimed his big guns at us who are in the churches of Christ who oppose any tampering with God’s pattern. About the only ones who escape Garrett’s assault are the liberals who bring in the innovations. They are the Only ones who stand guiltless before the mighty throne of Garrett. Garrett is trying to disarm every passage we use against false teachers. If we give in at this point, we will eventually be left without an arsenal to stop the innovations that invariably creep in among God’s people. The Lord’s word is the only defense we have to ward off the assaults of Satan. Consequently, we must not capitulate anytime someone questions an application of a passage. So long as we are within the.limits of sound exegesis, as we are with 1 Jn. 1:6-7, let us use it against the enemies of God.

FOOTNOTES

1 Leroy Garrett, “The Word Abused . . . ‘Walking in the Light,’ ” Restoration Review, XVII: 10, p. 182.

2 Ibid., p. 184.

3 See the article on “Gnosticism” in the ISBE for further study.

4 G. R. S. Mead, Fragments of a Faith Forgotten (New Hyde Park: University Books, 1960), p. 238.

5 John McClintock and James Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Eccesiastical Literature, Vol. II, p. 191.

6 ISBE, Vol. II, p. 1245.

7 Ibid., p. 1244.

8 B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John (London: Macmillan and Co., 1883), p. xxxvii.

9 R C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1966), p. 387.

10 Garrett, op. cit., p. 185.

11 Garrett listed two more churches which have split over this in his November paper-one in Cleburne, Texas and the other in Hutchinson, Kansas. Naturally, these splits did not bring down the wrath of the apostles of unity! These were holy splits!

12 See David E. Harrell, The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ 1865-1900, p. 7; A.W. Fortune, The Disciples in Kentucky, pp. 364-365, etc.

Truth Magazine, XX:17, p. 9-12
April 22, 1976

By John Mc Cort

In September of 1974 Cecil Willis and Jesse Jenkins met in Houston, Texas for a four night debate on the college question. It was announced during the debate that the discussion would be published. My wife was given the job of transcribing the debate. She began the actual transcription process in November of 1974 because it took over a month to procure a complete, and clearly audible set of tapes of the discussion. This was finished in June of 1975.

Many have inquired as to why the debate has not yet been published. The reasons are many. 1. Shortly after we began transcribing the debate my wife was bedfast for a month due to illness. In March of 1975 we moved to Kansas City, Missouri which complicated matters. (I am sure that Brent Lewis and Billy Norris can sympathize with our problems.) Even so, the un-edited transcripts were sent to Brother Willis and Brother Jenkins in June of 1975. 2. Brother Willis held meetings from January till March of 1975. In April he and Connie Adams went to the Philippines for several weeks. Brother Willis then went to Australia for a preaching i rip where he suffered the first of two mild strokes. He returned to this country in June and suffered his second stroke shortly thereafter. Since that time the doctors have ordered him to do as little as possible. Although the strokes did not affect his mental faculties the doctors want him to rest as much as possible for the time being. He has had severe problems with chronic high blood pressure which have not yet been completely resolved. Thus he has not been able to do any work on the manuscripts for the debate.

Those who think there has been extreme delay in the publication of the debate should not be alarmed. Many debates have taken over two years to publish. For example, the Willis-Inman debate took place in 1966 but was not published until 1968. This delay has not been intentional.

In a recent issue of With All Boldness Darwin Chandler wondered out loud if Brother Willis was intentionally delaying publication of the debate. Brother Chandler “surmised” that Cecil had taken such a licking (which is untrue) at the Houston debate that he was afraid to have the debate published. (One brother even accused Cecil of not even having the debate transcribed after Cecil had personally told him that the debate was about half transcribed.) Never, at any time, did Cecil even intimate that we slow down on the transcribing of the debate. In fact, Brother Willis did a good deal of prodding to speed up the process.

The debate should be published by summer. If you would like to order a copy of the debate, Truth Magazine Bookstore is now taking orders. The book will have the charts used in the debate inserted into the text of the speeches every time they are used. The book should be a classic. All interested in this controversial question should order a copy.

Truth Magazine, XX:17, p. 8-9
April 11, 1976