Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

The doctrine of Universalism was once actively and aggressively advanced by those who claimed to believe the Bible. Their belief is that God will save all men regardless of their character and life. One of the Scriptures they use as a proof text is Matthew 5:44, 45, “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”

Universalism Argument

God urges us to love, bless, do good, and pray for the wicked. Will God turn and hate, curse, do evil, and damn those we must receive? Observe that, despite their wickedness, God does good to them in this life. Are we to understand that God will suddenly do evil to them in the end? If so, this is hypocrisy. God will eternally love them that hate Him; He will everlastingly bless them that curse Him.

Argument Answered

God’s blessings in this text are temporal, not eternal. All spiritual blessings are in Christ (Eph. 1:3). God sends the sun and rain, temporal blessings, to the just and the unjust. To whom? To the “just” and the “unjust.” This shows there are two classes of men, which the universalist will freely grant. Morally speaking, they are considered as the “just” and “unjust.” But why so classify men and actions if there is no moral or spiritual accountability?

Even these earthly blessings are conditionally appropriated. One must act, or he will not be blessed by the sunshine and rain. “The soul of the sluggard desireth and hath nothing” (Prov. 13:4). “And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God” (Eccl. 3:13). What man does to reap the benefits of God’s gracious gifts in nature does not mean man has earned his food and drink. “It is the gift of God.” It is the same in the moral realm. God loves, blesses, and makes provision for the salvation of the unjust. However, he must respond to the overtures of Divine grace and mercy. If he does not do so, he will spiritually starve just as he will physically famish if he does not act when the sunshine and rain are provided.

God’s pure grace is matched by His pure righteousness and justice. Sin demands retribution. Righteousness demands reward. All men sin (Rom. 3:23). Through the blood of the cross, God forgives those who believe in Jesus. One must accept God’s free gift by faith, by obeying the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). When one does so, he becomes a servant of righteousness, free from sin (Rom. 6:17, 18, 23). Those who neglect or ignore the blessings contained in sunshine and rain will starve-“if any would not work, neither should he eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). Likewise, those who refuse the generous gift of God in Christ will perish. It is not hypocrisy. Neither is it hypocrisy when God gives the sun and the rain but man refuses to sow, plow and reap. It is love unbounded which goes unaccepted. God’s eventual cursing and condemnation of the unjust is not arbitrary and capricious. He will not suddenly turn and damn certain ones any more than he will suddenly turn and starve those who will not work. Their end is the just reward of their deeds. God is not hypocritical in his nature, purposes, or actions. He is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). God is not willing that any should starve, but one must work, reap and eat. God’s goodness provides sunshine and rain, but man must act or die. God’s grace gives Christ and the gospel, but man must obey or perish (Matt. 7:21; Heb. 5:8, 9; 2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Proverbs 1:24-33

“Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord: They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and prosperity of fools shall destroy them. But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.”

Truth Magazine, XX:12, p. 12-13
March 18, 1976

By Johnny Stringer

One of the papers published to promote a pseudo unity based upon compromise of truth and toleration of error is Integrity. The August, 1975, issue of that publication contains an article by Thomas Lane, entitled “The Principle Reconsidered.” The principle which Mr. Lane reconsiders is the restoration principle; this writer believes that Mr. Lane needs to reconsider his reconsideration.

Summary of Lane’s Argument

Mr. Lane avers that the restoration principle (taking the Bible alone as the rule of faith and practice) is the principle which is held by all conservative protestants. He says that it is “little more than a restatement of the historic Reformation principle of sola Scriptura,” which “has been shared by practically all conservative Protestants from the time of Luther right down to the present.” This principle, according to Mr. Lane, “is the basic tenet of religion throughout the world.” “In principle,” Mr. Lane asserts, “the Restoration plea differs in nothing from the broad modus operandi of all conservative Protestants. Adherents of the Campbell heritage and adherents of the Luther-Calvin heritage are agreed in taking the Bible as their sole rule of faith and practice.”

Thus, Lane concludes that we who accept the restoration principle to be guided solely by the Bible are really no different in principle from the protestant denominationalists, since they operate on the same principle. This being true, a fundamental unity exists between us and all conservative Protestants, so that we should regard them as brethren and have fellowship with them. According to Lane, their doctrines and practices differ from ours only because of their different interpretations of scriptures, and not because their allegiance to the scriptures is any less than ours. We are informed by Mr. Lane that our doctrines were derived from our “Restoration fathers” and that these doctrines are not easily proved from the scriptures. The protestant denominationalists, Mr. Lane tells us, are open-minded seekers of truth who have simply reached different conclusions than those reached by the restorationists; and we are united with them in our common love for truth.

Response

To say that all conservative Protestants are loyal to the concept of being guided solely by the scriptures is utterly absurd. Does Mr. Lane really believe that everything the denominationalists practice religiously is done because they found a passage of scripture which they concluded taught them to observe that practice? Think of the complex organizational arrangements that exist in denominationalism. Did these denominations organize themselves as they did as a result of diligent study of the scriptures to determine just what the scriptures taught regarding church organization? It would be interesting to see what passages they interpreted to teach such organizational arrangements! Does the protestant preacher wear his collar backwards because of a passage of scripture which he interprets to mean that he should do so? And which passage of scripture does the protestant preacher interpret to mean that he should exalt himself above his brethren by the title “Reverend?” We know there must be one, for these denominationalists are devoted to the principle of taking the Bible alone as their guide, and they surely would not practice something which they did not believe to be grounded in the Bible! We might also ask if the denominations began using the piano and organ in worship because of their discovery of a passage which they interpreted to instruct them to worship God with a mechanical instrument of music.

The fact is that while many may give lip service to the principle of adhering to the scriptures, the denominational world does not practice that principle. Some may say they believe in the principle, but in practice they reject it. Most of them, far from believing that it is necessary to be guided solely by the scriptures, will argue that we can be guided by our own opinions and do anything we please in religion as long as the Bible does not prohibit it. They organize their denominations as they please and worship as they please without regard for whether or not their practices are authorized in the scriptures. How many times we have asked them for the scriptures which authorize their practices, only to hear them reply that they do not need scriptural authorization and that “the Bible doesn’t say not to do it.” No, the protestant denominationalists are not devoted to the principle of letting the scriptures be their guide. In fact, they even deny and reject the plain teaching of some passages (Acts 2:38 for example).

In attempting to show that we should have fellowship with the denominationalists, Lane argues that we cannot be certain that we are right and they are wrong. He argues that our beliefs are simply doctrines that have been handed to us from the so-called restoration fathers, and that “it isn’t all that easy to prove that our system of doctrines is really Scriptural.” “Truly,” opines Mr. Lane, “those doctrines which we suppose to be abundantly clear in the Bible are not necessarily so.” I do wish that Mr. Lane would be more specific and name which particular doctrines he had in mind. The congregation of which I am a part practices nothing which cannot be proved from the scriptures with very little difficulty. For example, we believe in baptism for the remission of sins, and surely the Bible is abundantly clear in teaching that doctrine (Acts 2:38 and many others). We believe in congregational government, and there is no difficulty in proving that from the scriptures (Acts 14:23, 20:28, 1 Pet. 5:1-3.). We believe in singing, and most anyone could prove that to be right (Eph.5:19). Just what is the doctrine that is so difficult to prove? Name it. General statements are easy to make.

Moreover, the assertion that we accept our doctrines merely because they have been handed down to us from our “Restoration fathers” is simply not true of many faithful Christians who are diligent to study the scriptures to be certain that all of their practices and beliefs are grounded in God’s word. When Mr. Lane says that our beliefs and practices have been “handed down from our past and accepted uncritically,” he needs to stop presuming to speak for others. Perhaps he has accepted doctrines uncritically which have been handed down to him, and surely too many people have; but many of us have refused to accept and practice any teaching without examining it in the light of divine truth. I do not believe anyone can name anything the congregation of which I am a part does that is not based on scripture. We practice nothing whatever that originated with the leaders of the 19th century American Restoration Movement. One who argues otherwise is obligated to name the practice. Of course, Lane’s purpose in his allegations is to show that our doctrines are no more Bible-based than the doctrines of denominationalists are.

Conclusion

Brethren, we must not be deceived by those who would have us believe that there is no fundamental distinction between the protestant denominationalists and those of us who are devoted to the principle of following the Bible alone. We must not be misled into thinking that their doctrines and practices are as likely to be in harmony with scripture as ours are. In reality, the denominational world has rejected the Bible as a religious guide, as is obvious from their many doctrines and practices which either are not found in scripture or are in contradiction of plain scriptural teachings. We must continue to expose their errors, reprove them, rebuke them, and plead with them to look to the Bible alone (2 Tim. 4:2, Tit. 1:13, Eph. 5:11, Jude 3, 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Truth Magazine, XX:12, p. 11-12
March 18, 1976

By Royce Chandler

Just as the local work seems to be getting off to a good start and the future harvest appears promising, the preacher calls together the elders and informs them of his intention to move. After all the time spent in searching for a replacement and the money spent in moving him, it still takes, usually, at least a year or more for the church and the new preacher to adjust to each other, and for things to level out to where they were (if, indeed, such is possible) before the former preacher resigned.

The new man must start from scratch to win the confidence and respect of the local saints; programs begun by the former preacher are discontinued, often in midstream; contacts made by him are forgotten; fruit that was almost ready to show itself will not be harvested, for that accumulative influence which the former preacher would have exerted during the next several months is aborted, and the hidden sprouts of faith in sinners’ hearts, which with only a little more work and support would surely blossom forth into obedience, silently die. Those indifferent saints just being inspired to interest and zeal by the example and influence of the preacher are suddenly deprived of that motivating personality and, having not yet developed the independence to stand on their own devotion, lose that surge of growth as the “prop” moves to another local church.

With the new preacher comes a new stress in the local program; while the former stressed local edification through improved classes, special series of instruction, training sessions, etc., the new emphasis is placed on those areas which especially suit the new man. Thus, the entire local program often takes a good amount of time to readjust, and much damage has been done in the vineyard by churches having to readjust far too often.

How many are the elders who have not had to wrestle this problem? How many have not often asked, in frustration, “What can we do to keep this man?” “Why do preachers so often just get things going smoothly, and then leave?”

This article is not inclusive to the point of exploring the faults of preachers in upsetting local works by foolish, selfish and ill-considered decisions to move; we desire only, for the present, to offer some ideas on how to prevent such moves. In keeping with this one-sided theme, then, let us suggest that local elderships could prevent many preachers from moving by giving due regard to this statement: “. . . for the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of light” (Lk. 16:8); i.e., they are more mindful, more prudent concerning the matters of everyday life.

Can we not learn from the sons of the world? How do successful businesses prevent within their ranks this same upheaval, which surely would destroy them? Are we to refuse to learn all we can from what practical wisdom the world so prudently employs? To do so is an evident sign of folly. How, then, do successful businesses retain their most qualified men for many years of service with little fear of their leaving in favor of another company? It there is a general statement to explain it, perhaps it is this: the sons of men have learned that when a man is made to be happy in his work, and when this happiness and his productive efforts are reinforced with positive rewards from those around him, there is little motivation for leaving. This one small bit of secular prudence could often enable an eldership to retain a hard-working, productive preacher for many years, resulting in an abundant harvest that can hardly be matched by churches which regularly must be searching for new preachers.

Acts of Kindness

In one sentence, elders could frequently secure a continued and fruitful work simply by showing genuine consideration to the preacher with whom they work.

As this article must be brief, let us now suggest some simple acts of kindness-of consideration-that would greatly aid a preacher in his work and would in most cases disarm the ever-present temptation to leave. This list of suggestions is necessarily brief, and should be used as a springboard to other suggestions.

1. Do not ask a preacher to leave unless there is a strong and pressing reason for such. Giving in to the baseless idea that a preacher should move every four or five years promotes an atmosphere of insecurity and futility, to say nothing of the unsettling effect it has on his wife and children. Knowing that they might be told to move at any time does nothing to give a preacher’s family a sense of belonging and of security. Children do not need to be shuffled around, always having to leave friends and to change schools, sometimes at a moment’s notice. Would you want your family to be treated that way? The emotional impact can sometimes be devastating on both the preacher and his family. Be considerate; be fair.

2. Realize that a good preacher is just really getting started after his first two or three years. Give him the support and the security he needs to spend several more years building on the foundation of the first few. This is a major key to local growth.

3. Periodically, tell both the preacher and the brethren how much you appreciate his work. Every man needs to know that his work is beneficial, and the brethren need to know that the elders are well aware of what work is being done, and that they are solidly behind it. Encouragement breeds more diligence.

4. Send your preacher to “training” or study situations which will help him to grow. Maintain his support and pay his expenses to go study; this is for his benefit; but mainly for that of the church, as he can return to teach those things which he learned. Especially would this sort of work be good for young preachers, who have not yet had the time to study, in detail, certain subjects. If business organizations recognize the great benefit of such programs to their employees and leaders, why cannot we use a little of that same wisdom?,

5. Look for things to do to encourage him and to make things comfortable for him and his family. Don’t make him ask for every little thing that needs doing to the house, if the church owns it; be considerate enough to purposely notice things that could improve his situation. Provide him with study space and efficient equipment, such as a typewriter, an overhead projector, etc., to be used in his work.

6. Show some initiative in the local work. Many times there will be no organized program of work unless the preacher thinks it up, organizes it, and drives everyone into helping with it. This is shameful. The elders ought to constantly be thinking of ways to improve and to expand the local work; let the elders shoulder the task of providing new and better methods, concentrated studies, etc., instead of just sitting around until the preacher comes up with another “hot idea.” If the church’s program of work moves away with the former preacher, the brethren see a distinct picture of figureheads, not of true elders. And, they also may see the reason why they cannot keep a preacher-at least, not a good one.

7. Why not give your preacher a set amount of money year specifically for books. There is nothing more valuable to a preacher’s work than a good library. Good books are expensive, and most preachers have enough to pay for without having to sacrifice unduly to purchase the best study aids. Since the books are used primarily to benefit the brethren in the classes and sermons, why cannot churches give $100-$200 each year, unrelated to his regular support, for providing your preacher with what he needs. The benefits will far outweigh the cost.

8. Provide, automatically, a cost of living adjustment every six months. Inflation hits a preacher, too. Any man worth keeping is worth showing this consideration. He has no union to bargain for him, so the brethren must take the initiative. Is it “Christian” to let the world be fairer to its own than brethren are to the local preacher? This should be completely unrelated to any raise that might be given.

9. Do not make the preacher beg. How many businesses retain employees by going on and on, offering no raise until the employee finally comes in and asks for it? Consideration and fair play ought to eliminate this problem. If the world can recognize the need to increase productive workers’ salaries on a regular basis, why can elders not profit from this understanding? Is it so hard to go to the preacher, sit down with him, and open-mindedly discuss his increased financial needs on a regular yearly basis? Do you treat the preacher any less considerately than your company treats you? It is hard to leave a church where the preacher knows for a fact that the elders are constantly thinking of him, are aware of his needs and are willing to be fair with him.

10. Understanding that preachers have no fringe benefits like most workers have, recognize that an inflation adjustment is not a -raise. If a man receives only enough increase to meet inflation, he simply treads water at the same buying power he had when he first moved among you. If a man is worth keeping, he is worth an increase in his support on a regular, fair basis. If he is not worth that consideration, he should be asked to leave. And surely all would recognize that when a new child is born in his family, it takes more to support that family than it did before. Be considerate; be fair.

These suggestions are offered in a meek and humble spirit; it is hoped that they will be considered in the same spirit. They are, admittedly, one-sided; perhaps some good elder would help us preachers by offering a list of suggestions from the other perspective.

Truth Magazine, XX:12, p. 9-10
March 18, 1976

By Alexander Campbell

(Note: This excellent article, “Religious Controversy,” written by Alexander Campbell one hundred and forty-five years ago was a much needed piece of material then and it is equally needed now. Honorable discussions to elicit truth is a time-honored method used by the good and godly of generations past and must remain with us and those who follow. Those who believe God comes to conference tables to negotiate His will, in compromise fashion or otherwise, have never accepted the “Religious Controversy” method of teaching the word of God and perhaps never will. They have alleged themselves to be following Christ! But the greatest controversialist of all was the very Son of God. He was able to get the truth before men; He did not make all victorious in their struggles, but He made it so they could know freedom. The ones who feign themselves too nice to controvert error know not the Christ of the Bible. Read this Campbell article with profit. Earl E. Robertson)

Many good men whose whole lives have been one continued struggle with themselves, one continued warfare against error and iniquity, have reprobated religious controversy as a great and manifold evil to the combatants and to society. Although engaged in a real controversy, they knew it not; but supposed that they only were controversialists who were in debates and discussions often. Had they reflected but a moment, they would have discovered that no man can be a good man who does not oppose error and immorality in himself, his family, his neighborhood, and in society as far as he can reach, and that he cannot oppose it successfully only by argument, or, as some would say, by word and deed-by precept and by example.

There can be no improvement with controversy. Improvement requires and presupposes change; change is innovation, and innovation always has elicited opposition, and that is what constitutes the essentials of controversy. Every man who reforms his own life has a controversy with himself. And, therefore, no man who has not always been perfect, and always been in company with perfect society, can be a good man without controversy. This being conceded, (and who can refuse to concede it?) it follows that whensoever society, religious or political, falls into error; or rather, so long as it is imperfect, it is the duty of all who have any talent or ability to oppose error, moral or political, who have intelligence to distinguish, and utterance to express, truth and goodness, to lift up a standard against it, and to panoply themselves for the combat.

But yet, plain and obvious as the preceding remarks may be, many will contend that religious controversy, oral or written, is incompatible with the pacific contemplative character of the genuine Christian and promotive of strifes, tumults, and factions in society, destructive of true piety towards God and of benevolence towards man. This is a prejudice arising from the abuses of controversy. Admit for a moment that it were so, and what would be the consequence? It would unsaint and unchristianize every distinguished Patriarch, Jew, and Christian enrolled in the sacred annals of the world. For who of the Bible’s great and good men was not engaged in religious controversy! To go no farther back than the Jewish lawgiver, I ask, What was his character? I need not specify. Whenever it was necessary, all-yes, all the renowned men of antiquity were religious controversialists. Moses long contended with the Egyptian magi. He overcame Jannes and Jambres, too. Elijah encountered the prophets of Baal. Job long debated with the princes of Edom. The Jewish prophets and the idolatrous kings of Israel waged a long and arduous controversy. John the Harbinger, and the Scribes and Pharisees, met in conflict. Jesus, and the Rabbis, and- the Priesthood, long debated. The Apostles and the Sanhedrin, the Evangelists and the Doctors of Divinity; Paul and the Sceptics, engaged in many a conflict; and even Michael fought in “wordy debate” with the Devil about the body of Moses; yet who was more meek than Moses-more zealous for God than Elijah-more patient than Job-more devout than Paul-more benevolent than John?

If there was no error in principle or practice, then controversy, which is only another name for opposition to error, real or supposed, would be unnecessary. If it were lawful, or if it were benevolent, to make a truce with error, then opposition to it would be both unjust and unkind. If error were innocent and harmless, then we might permit it to find its own quietus, or to immortalize itself. But so long as it is confessed that error is more or less injurious to the welfare of society, individually and collectively considered, then no man can be considered benevolent who does not set his face against it. In proportion as a person is intelligent and benevolent, he will be controversial, if error exists around him. Hence the Prince of Peace never sheathed the sword of the Spirit while he lived. He drew it on the banks of Jordan and threw the scabbard away.

We have only to ask how we inherited so many blessings, religious and political, contrasted with our ancestors some five hundred years ago, to ascertain of what use controversy has been, and how much we are indebted to it. All was silent and peaceful as the grave under the gloomy sceptre of Roman Pontiffs under the despotic sway of the Roman hierarchy until Luther opened the war. The Roman priesthood denounced the “ruinous errors” and “Damnable heresies” of Luther, the “deadly influence” of the tongue and pen of the hierarch; but they fasted, and prayed, and denounced in vain. No crocodile tears “over the souls of men;” no religious penances for “the church in danger;” no invocation of “all who loved Zion;” no holy co-operation of “the friends of evangelical principles,” could check the career of this reforming Hercules. Bulls of excommunication assailed him as stubble would Leviathan in the deep. “He feared no discipline of human hands.” All was impotent and unavailing. The fire then kindled, though oft suppressed, yet burns.

The controversy begun by Luther, not only maimed the power of the Roman hierarchy, but also impaired the arm of the political despotism. The crown, as well as the mitre, was jeopardized and desecrated by his herculean pen. From the controversy about the rights of Christians arose the controversy about the rights of men. Every blow inflicted upon ecclesiastical despotism was felt by the political tyrants.

Reformation was the era of the Revival of Literature. It has enlightened men upon all subjects-in all the arts and sciences-in all things-philosophic, literary, moral, political. It was the tongue and pen of controversy which developed the true solar system-laid the foundation for the American Revolution-abolished the slave trade-and which has so far disenthralled the human mind from the shackles of superstition. Locke and Sidney, Milton and Newton, were all controvertists and reformers, philosophers, literary, religious and political. Truth and liberty, both religious and political, are the first fruits of well directed controversy. Peace and eternal bliss will be the “harvest home.” Let the opponents of controversy, or they who controvert controversy, remember, that had there been no controversy, neither the Jewish nor the Christian religion could have ever been established; nor had it ceased could the Reformation have ever been achieved. It has been the parent of almost all the social blessings which we enjoy.

If, indeed, all mankind were equally in love with truth, equally rational, equally intelligent, and equally disinterested, we might have only to propose a change for the better, and all would embrace it. But just the reverse of this is the true history of society. He is but little experienced in the human heart – he knows but little of the world, who imagines that what appears clear, wise, and useful to him, appears so to all; or that it is only necessary to support truth and goodness by unanswerable- arguments, to render. them universally triumphant. The more clearly and forcibly and unpopular truth is argued, the greater will be the dislike to it by all who are interested in representing it to be an error. Melancthon was for a time the subject of an illusion of this sort. He once told Luther that so clear were his apprehensions, so deep his convictions, and so forcible his arguments, that he could soon convince all Germany of the truth of the Reformation principles. He became an itinerant, and commenced a campaign against the priesthood. On returning from his first tour Luther said to him, “Well, Melancthon, what speed?” “Alas!” replied the young reformer, “old Adam is too strong for young Melancthon.”

A little experience will convince the most astute that the clearness and force of argument will not subdue opposition. It very frequently provokes the greater resentment. The adversaries of the Messiah are proof of this. So were the aristocrats in the late Virginia Convention. Orpheus could, by his music, as easily have caused the oaks to follow him, as could the republicans, by their arguments and demonstrations, have caused the Oligarchs in power to consent to extend equal rights and immunities to the proscribed casts in this commonwealth.

When error has but a single ally in the corruptions of the human heart, it is very formidable; but how strong when pride, passion, and interest become its auxiliaries! To overcome these, reason and logic must be strong indeed, and rhetoric most persuasive. Pride, ambition, and selfishness, are all powerful allies of error. Hence, double, triple, and quadruple the evidence necessary to convert a layman, will not often convince a priest. The pride of the understanding is the most invincible of all sorts of pride, and more especially when religion is the problem. A bigoted sceptic, a prejudiced secretary, and an interested priest, are more without the pale of reason, are more beyond the reach of controversy, than the errorists of any other school. But while error lives, and falsehood has an auxiliary upon earth, controversy will be necessary, and argument indispensable.

When controversy proceeds from benevolence it will be more successful and less injurious to the comfort of them who are engaged in it. But when argument and debate are dictated by resentment, prompted by pride, or controlled by the lust of power, the hearts of the combatants must be polluted, and their passions inflamed. The wrath of man never did, and never can, effect the righteousness which God requires; nor can it promote the happiness of man. When we love truth for its own sake, and when our efforts to maintain it proceed from brotherly kindness and love to all men, then we will plead its cause with force and with success; and then, and then only, will we be sanctified and blessed in the work. But a controversy for opinion, or for truth, instituted by vanity, by the pride of understanding, or the lust of power, will pollute the heart, aggravate the passions, sour the temper and terminate in vain jangling. But because it has been abused shall we desist from the use of it? This would be to make a covenant with death, and an agreement with destruction. This would be to live in vain, and to die without honor. This would be to depart from the example of the Confessors, Martyrs, and Apostles of Jesus, and to renounce our allegiance to the King eternal, immortal, and invisible. For so long as error in principle and in practice exists, so long will it be the duty and the felicity of the intelligent and the good to oppose it; and as long as there are conflicting creeds, sects, and divisions among religionists, so long will it be our duty to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.

But never was there so much need to study the “suaviter in modo,” and the “fortiter in re,” amiability in the manner, and firmness in the purpose, as in the defense of truth. We must conciliate the passions, while we besiege the understanding. We are not to suppose all our opponents to be knaves and impostors, to be interested and obstinate. We must remember that in this world of weakness and of error the good and the virtuous are often found enlisted under the banners of error. There are honest differences of opinion, and men equally sincere and virtuous on both sides of every question. This must never be lost sight of. It is nevertheless true that our great models, the Prophets and Apostles; nay, the Savior himself, though often mild, as the genial influence of Spring, were sometimes severe and surly as the Winter’s blast. At one time, and amidst one class of opponents, they were as gentle as the balmy zephyrs on beds of violets; at another time, and amidst other opponents, they were like the mountain storm roaring through the cliffs. Soft and persuasive were the words and arguments to those who appeared honest in their convictions, but severe and tart were their reproofs to such as appeared obstinate in error. Hence, Paul who instructed his son Timothy to imitate him in all things, admonished him to instruct some opponents “with all meekness,” and “sharply to rebuke and confute” others. So did Peter and Jude in their epistles. “Make a difference,” says Jude, between those “who are complainers, who walk according to their own lusts, whose mouths speak great swelling words, and admire men’s persons for the sake of gain” – “have compassion upon other errorists;” save them with fear, hating the garments spotted by the pollutions of the flesh.” No man ever spoke more severely of certain teachers than Peter in his second epistle. We must, in all our controversies, make the same differences. When we find persons like Balaam, obstinately intent on covetous courses, for the sake of others we must not spare them. But courtesy and benevolence will be our best guides; and a good example will often achieve more than a thousand arguments.

To your posts, then, O Israel! Remember you have enlisted not for six months, like some of our sectarian militia; but you have vowed allegiance during the war. “Fight the good fight of faith.” Keep your eyes upon the Captain; and when the conflict is over he will cover you will laurels which will never wither, and bestow upon you a crown of righteousness which fadeth not away. EDITOR (i.e. Alexander Campbell)

Excerpt from Millennial Harbinger, by Alexander Campbell, Published 1830.

Truth Magazine, XX:12, p. 6-8
March 18, 1976