Truth Magazine

By Mike T. Rogacs

The following is a letter recently received commenting on an article I submitted to Truth Magazine and which was printed in the October 16, 1975 issue of the Magazine. You might wish to refer to the article entitled “Comments On Teaching.” The brother who made the following comments remains anonymous unless in the future he wishes to be known. His letter was as follows:

Dear Brother Rogacs:

I appreciated your article in Truth Magazine “Comments On Teaching”. But I am afraid you are fighting a lost cause.

We have been conditioned down thru the years to have some one do our thinking for us in the church. We are spectators and do not really participate.

People are not allowed to develop their talents in the church today – as they were years ago. They don’t feel a part of the Body as they used to.

How long has it been where you worship since some (layman)? was asked to prepare a lesson and present it to the family? Today we have 1 salesman, 1 problem solver, 1 man – “the” minister as if the Lord had only ONE minister in the body. You just can’t have only one minister and expect the people to take an interest unless they are encouraged or motivated by the Rulers – (they have to, have a change of mind or attitude) or you will always be doing the work of the whole church (I am assuming you are “the minister” since as far as I know only “the ministers” are the only ones who write in Truth Magazine.)

Respectfully;

As follows, I wrote this reply to the letter, and I submit both for the edification of you the reader:

Dear Brother

I thank you for your kind comment of appreciation of my article in Truth about teaching. But I do believe that you have assumed too much and do indeed show the very reason why I wrote that article.

First of all, I refer to your asking how long it has been since some LAYMAN preached here. I do not like the term layman. It is denominational. It begs the question and demands the presence of a preacher – layman distinction. I hope you used it in jest – or something of the like – and that you do realize that ALL Christians are ministers of the gospel. I am not “THE” in here. I am an evangelist, yes. If you will study the scriptures more closely, you will understand that an evangelist is a man who has the desire to devote his FULL TIME to ministering the gospel to the world. As far as I am concerned, if such was possible, there could be several full time ministers of the gospel in one congregation. But always remember that EVERY Christian is a minister of the gospel though he may devote the major portion of his earthly time to seeking sustenance for his family needs.

But I will agree with you, too many members have conditioned THEMSELVES to believe that there is only one minister to a congregation. This is the need I have seen and of which I have written. And so I have always encouraged the brethren of the congregation (ministers of the gospel who work at other jobs) to do all the teaching they possibly can in assembly. You asked when did they last preach? Well, here at the Capps Road congregation in Harrison, Arkansas; two brethren preached the two Lord’s Day lessons just two weeks ago (this is in November). Also, we devote one Wednesday night a month for preaching by the members. We always ask two of the men (young or older) to prepare a lesson and give it on that evening. So, in November, four different men (two young and two older) chose to speak. This shows both my desire and the desire of this church to give all men the opportunity to teach publicly. (And again you are incorrect if you feel that evangelists are the only ones who write for Truth Magazine.)

Again I notice that you commented that we evangelists (or as you say “THE” minister) “do the thinking” for the membership. I realize that there would be a tendency for such to develop, and this is yet another reason for that article. I have always insisted that the people listening to my lessons study the topic on their own. I insist, but few do so. But if few do so, this does not make the practice of using an evangelist unscriptural. It only shows that individual Christians are too often lazy with their faith. (On the subject of evangelists, notice that God ordained that such should exist – Eph. 4:11. All Christians minister, but God chose to have evangelists, elders and teachers. Not included in this list is the duty of the deacon. Notice then that Philip and Timothy are two famous evangelists-men who devoted their full efforts to preaching and ministering the gospel – Acts 21:8; 2 Tim. 4:5. Be also aware that even elders can be full time workers in the Lord’s vineyard – 1 Tim. 5:17-18.)

Your attitude on this matter also shows a fearful misunderstanding of another point: that teaching is not to be limited to the assembly! Your attitude expresses the belief of too many people (again they have conditioned themselves to take this attitude) that teaching is only to be done in assembly. In my article I was hoping to express the thought that teaching outside of assembly to the lost of the world is too often neglected by the members of the congregation. Again too many people think that a chosen few should be the “personal workers” of the church and the preacher and the elders end up doing most of the outside teaching. It is my firm conviction that the scriptures press for preaching and teaching to the lost by every single Christian. This, has to be outside of assembly. The lost who need salvation are usually outside of assembly and will never attend an assembly of God’s people unless and until they are approached by and taught by one of God’s children. This is what I mean when I say that the scriptures teach that every Christian is a minister of the gospel unto the lost and unto fellow brethren.

Where will the Christian who is a woman teach if teaching be only in assembly? 1 Cor. 14:34 instructs that women should be kept silent in the assemblies. Yet women are to teach others. I submit that the Bible is clear in teaching that all women should teach when they can outside of the assembly of the church. Look at the following examples-Acts 18:24-28; Phil. 4:2-3; Titus 2:3-5. No, indeed! Teaching and the necessity of all Christians to teach has not become a “lost cause” because evangelists do most of the teaching in assemblies. Even if there existed no evangelists; there would hardly be enough time for all Christian men to get the necessary amount of teaching (which they should do) done by preaching in the assembly! Some are too shy to do public teaching, but all can teach from house to house. And congregations are often too large to afford the opportunity for many to teach. We in Harrison afford the opportunities to preach to the men NOT so that they can say “I have done my teaching for the year” but so they can get a taste of the teaching they should be doing at all possible times! Take for instance the church in Jerusalem. From the first the congregation was at least 2,000 people strong. As it continued to grow, think of the size! Could the men do all the teaching a Christian SHOULD do in the public assemblies only? No, indeed. So we come to the purpose of evangelists and other public teachers as did the apostles in Jerusalem and all teachers everywhere, public teachers teach the gospel so that Christians can learn what and how to teach on their own! Very few people are converted in assemblies. Assemblies are for the worship of God, for the building up of the body of Christ AND for the instruction on how to take the gospel to the world. (That is the work of the church in assemblies and out of assemblies – Eph. 4:11-15; 3:8-10; 2 Tim. 2:2; etc.)

Again I state that the work of an evangelist in a congregation is scriptural. Any ills that some have imposed upon themselves and others by assuming that the preacher is the only minister in the church and is the only one who is supposed to teach and do other aspects of personal work (visiting the sick and spiritually weak, etc.) come from their own lazy approach to Christianity and not from the existence and work of an evangelist. I do hope that you are not one of my brethren who believe that there should not exist any located or full time preachers. If indeed you do believe such, please consider the following passages: I Cor. 9:6-16, especially verses 11 and 14; 2 Cor. 11:8-9; Timothy, Philip, Titus, Stephen, Barnabas and several other evangelists listed in the scriptures could not possibly have served the gospel as they were required unless they were indeed rewarded with carnal blessings for their spiritual work. Remember, even elders can be full time laborers in the kingdom (1 Tim. 5:17-18).

I hope that these comments will be taken in the spirit of love in which they were given, and that they will benefit your study on this matter. I wish to send these comments along with your letter (minus your name) to Truth Magazine. I do not usually do such, but I believe that your comments and my reply might be of benefit to others. Again, thank you for your comments and interest in this subject. Continue to study.

In Christ,

Mike T. Rogacs, your brother in the Lord and an evangelist for Him.

The letter is finished. I have presented the two for your benefit. I pray that the intended purpose is clear. I must add that I made slight corrections to the wording and spelling in both letters. The changes were not substantial.

Truth Magazine, XX:7, p. 11-12
February 12, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

The church which meets at the Dunn Road Chapel, Hazelwood, Missouri, has long been under the influence of Carl Ketcherside’s cancerous errors (2 Tim. 2:17). That church’s “Winter Youth Study” for 1972 (complete with “the Melody Boys Quartet”) featured “Carl Ketcherside” and “Gordon Wilson.” “Rod Langston” and “Bernie Crum” also spoke. Brother Wilson’s dissimulation is long overdue in coming to light, and his remarks on faith and works long overdue in being reviewed (Gal. 2:13). Gordon is not the only one guilty of such compromise, but he must face his responsibility for such conduct lest others be “carried away with their dissimulation.”

Instead of reviewing brief quotations from Gordon’s speech, I am giving the reader the full text of his loose statements on faith and works. The following paragraphs have been transcribed (and checked several times) from a tape of that speech.

Transcription of the Part of Gordon Wilson’s Lesson Dealing With Faith and Works

“Then, again, we often consider in harmonizing a pair of contradictions, the time element that is involved in the making of apparently contradictory statements. You see, what is true at one time may not be true at another time. And visa-versa. There may be something that is true of a person in one condition or at one time in his life that would not be true of him in another condition or at another time in his life.

“An example of this is, the supposed discrepancy so often called to our attention between James and, Paul on the subject of faith and works. Of course, Paul said in Ephesians chapter 2, ‘By grace have you been saved through faith, that not of yourselves it is the gift of God, not of works that no man should boast.’ While on the other hand; James said in James the second chapter, ‘You see then that man is justified by works and not by faith only.’ Now isn’t that a contradiction regarding justification between James and Paul?

“Well, I think not, because they are talking about two different time periods in the lives of the people who they addressed. When Paul writes his statement in Ephesians with reference to the fact that you’re saved by grace through faith, not of works, that no man should glory, he said, ‘For by grace have you been saved through faith.’ He’s talking about their salvation in the place and the time where they came into Jesus Christ. On the other hand, James, when he said that one is justified by works, is not addressing the alien sinner nor is he talking about what the alien sinner does. But, he’s addressing brethren in Christ Jesus and talking about that which justifies us in Christ as servants of the Lord responding to the salvation which is by faith.

“The word ‘works,’ Paul and James agree on. Neither man nor any other New Testament writer ever uses the word ‘works,’ with approval of the obedience of an alien sinner. Never! Look it up in your concordance, my friend. The Bible never speaks of works with approval as a means for salvation from sin. It isn’t there. It does speak of the obedience of faith. And it does talk about faith which means not merely believing evidence but submitting one’s whole life in submission and, obedience, with all that involved that is included in becoming a child of God. But when James says we’re justified by works, he’s talking about the only kind of works there are . . . (unintelligible phrase, possibly “for the Christian,” “for the child of God,” or the like). The Christian works in response to what God has given him and he works for the Lord. But human works didn’t save him, God’s grace through man’s exercised faith is what saved him.

“James and Paul agree one hundred percent. But they’re talking about two different times in a person’s life. And the time element makes the difference, and discounts the contradiction.”

James: “Works” for Saints Only?

First, faith, any faith, whether of an alien or a saved one, must be accompanied by “works” (obedience) or it is dead. Anyone who thinks otherwise is “vain” (Jas. 2:20). True, James is writing to Christians (Jas. 1:1,2; 2:1; 3:1; 5:12,19), but he is not writing specifically of the faith of a saint; but of all faith. Any faith that hath not works is dead, being alone. James uses demons for an example. May we not safely assume ‘they would classify as “alien sinners?” Well, James says their faith is dead because it is alone; that is, not accompanied by works, obedience.

Second, one is “justified by faith” in becoming a Christian (Rom. 5:1). One saved stands “by faith” (2 Cor. 1:24; Rom. 11:20). Both the one saved by faith and the one standing by faith must have “works” (obedience) or their faith is dead. The statement by Habakkuk is quoted by Paul and applied to the initial justification provided in Christ, not by the works of the law (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). But this same principle is inherent in the life of those who have been justified by faith. How do they continue to live? The Hebrew writer says, “Now the just shall live by faith” (Heb. 10:38). In this text he is talking to those who “were illuminated” (Heb. 10:32). So, the justification by faith, “the just shall five by faith,” is applicable to both saint and sinner (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38).

Third, Gordon Wilson says no alien sinner is ever said to be justified by works. Well, if “Rahab the harlot” was not an alien sinner who is said to have been “justified by works,” then I have misread James 2:25. Look it up in your New Testament!

What’s the Difference Between “Exercised Faith” and “Works”?

Fourth, Brother, Wilson speaks of “exercised faith” on the part of the alien in becoming a Christian. What he calls “exercised faith,” James and I call a “working faith.” Observe a parallel quote of Gordon’s statement: “God’s grace through man’s, exercised (obedient, working) faith is what saved him.” I dare say it would take a good bit of “works” and “exercising” to explain the difference between an “exercised faith” and an “obedient or working faith.”

Fifth, Gordon Wilson’s fundamental error is that he thinks James and Paul are “talking about two different times in a person’s life.” It is not two different periods of time, but two different kinds of works that Paul and James are discussing. Both Paul and James quote Genesis 15:6. Paul says it proves justification without works (Rom. 4:1-5). James says it proves justification by works (Jas: 2:20-22). Is this two different times in the life of a person? No, it is the same time in the life of the same man (Abraham). It is two kinds of works, but it is not two different times.

Both Wrong and Inconsistent

In debate, Baptists have made the same argument Gordon has made here. Of course, their end (conclusion) was not the same, but that is only because Gordon is inconsistent with the general thrust of his argument. Baptists are wrong and consistent in their conclusions. Gordon is both wrong and inconsistent: A good Baptist debater could take Gordon’s claim that “works” never refers to an alien’s obedience, and whip him from pillar to post and back again!

Truth Magazine, XX:7, p. 9-10
February 12, 1976

By Dick Blackford

Question: Where in the Bible do you find authority for a young Christian woman to teach an older Christian woman?

Answer: The subject of women teaching has long been a controversial thing. This question which we had to deal with recently indicates that it will probably continue to be. It is so controversial that when the subject arises many always take a negative approach and automatically begin thinking of ways in which she may be restricted. It rarely dawns on them to take a positive view as to what is a woman’s duty regarding teaching (and she does have a duty to teach!). It seems to be a “cart-before-the horse” situation. Many are more concerned about the exception than they are about the rule. The thing is approached backwards. They leave undone the “weightier matters” (her obligation to teach – and how weighty a matter that is!) so that the most important thing is completely overshadowed by a cloud of controversy and confusion over an exception. It becomes a matter of majoring in minors and minoring in majors. The exception gets all the attention and the rule is forgotten to such a degree that some women have even concluded that they have no obligation to teach whatsoever. That is a sad and tragic thing to me. They may ridicule the digressive, brother who says “it is better to do something wrong than to do nothing at all” but they take an equally erroneous view when they feel that “it is better to do, nothing at all than to ‘do something’ wrong.” Both views are damnable. Actually, it is better to do what is right than to do wrong or to do nothing.

So, perhaps for the . first time in your life, let’s approach it positively by talking about her obligation to teach. Notice:

1) The Great Commission obligates her to teach both saints and sinners (Mt. 28:19,20).

2) Acts 8:1-4 is an approved example of both men and women teaching.

3) Priscilla taught Apollos (Acts 18:26).

4) She should teach her children (Titus 2:4).

5) She should teach her husband (1 Pet: 3:1; Titus 2:4).

6) She should “be ready always to give an answer. . . .” (1 Pet. 3:15).

7) She is commanded to teach in singing (Col. 3:16).

8) The term “men” in 2 Tim. 2:2 authorizes her to teach as it is the Greek word anthropos, which means “without distinction of sex. A human being, whether male or female” (Thayer, p. 46).

9) 2 Tim. 2:24 says the “Lord’s servant must be apt to teach. . . .”

The New Testament has a lot to say about a woman’s responsibility to teach. In short, a woman is as much obligated to teach as is a man, unless there are passages which limit her teaching.

Now to Titus 2:4. This is not a prohibitive passage. The word prohibit means “to forbid, to refuse to permit.” This passage is not excluding (forbidding, prohibiting) the young woman from doing anything. That is not even the point of the passage (to tell us what a young woman is not to do) any more than Jn. 6:27 is telling us not to work for our groceries. Titus 2:1-9 is not the “sum total” of anyone’s responsibilities any more than Jas: 1:27 is the “sum total” of pure religion. There is grave danger in isolating one passage from all others and acting as though this were the complete revealed will of God on the subject.

To be sure, there are some things that are more becoming or befitting (Titus 2:1) when taught by the aged. But the fact that aged women are mentioned does not forbid these same things being taught by others. Both Peter and Paul (men) taught the obligations of women to their husbands and children (Eph. 5:6; 1 Pet. 3) and all Christians are to follow their example, Phil. 4:9. It is true that fathers have a special responsibility to train their children (Eph. 6:4) but that verse is by no means forbidding a mother to teach anything to her children. Titus 2 mentions some five classes of people (aged men, aged women, young women, young men, servants) and tells us some things to which each has a special responsibility. Isolating this passage from all others can really run us into trouble. For example, teaching is not specifically mentioned as one of the things that aged men are to do. Is it sinful for an aged man to teach since it is not specified in Titus 2? Does God give a qualification for elders (That they be apt to teach, 2 Tim. 3:2) that they can never fulfill – because it is forbidden by not being specified in Titus 2? Or must we use the scriptures already previously given to show that aged men also have this duty?

Now, let us pose another question that will help us arrive at the truth. What scripture authorizes a young woman to teach her own children? I cannot think of one that specifically tells her to (and that is what some are wanting regarding her teaching someone older than her – a specific word-for-word verse rather than generic authority). I believe this passage authorizes her to teach her children because she is to love them (Titus 2:4). It is unthinkable that one could love her child and not try to save it from hell. The two ideas would be incompatible. She is also authorized to teach her husband for the same reason – she is to love him? It is possible that she can do this without violating a restriction. BUT, are her children and husband the only people that she is to love? They are if Titus 2 is giving us her only responsibilities. However, she is also to love her neighbors, enemies, brethren, etc. (Rom. 13:9; Mt. 5:44; 1 Pet. 1:22). This would also include her loving the older woman and even teaching her if there was something she needed to be taught and if the younger woman had the ability to teach it. Of course she should do so with respect of age.

Some other consequences (and I do not rest my case on these but upon what has already been said) would be that it would be wrong for a 39 year old woman to convert a 50 year old woman! We could have (in fact we would have to if such were the case) a 65 year old new convert teaching a class of 45 year old women who were mature Christians and had been in the kingdom for 25 years. (This passage is presupposing that such older women have themselves learned the lessons they are to teach the younger women). The ladies would have to have a countdown (or a count-up) every time they came together to see who was the oldest woman present. (And how many do you suppose would admit to being the oldest?)

NOW, to the exception. And did it ever dawn on you that there is only one exception (singular) to a woman’s teaching? That’s right, 1 Tim. 2:12. She is not to teach over a man. Do you now see how “out of joint” we have been on this by putting the emphasis on the exception instead of the rule? Some women have felt that they had no duty to teach at all and some men have felt that they had no responsibility to teach unless they had mastered the talent of proper voice control and perfect grammar! No wonder the kingdom is not growing as it should! Let us be about our Father’s business!

Truth Magazine, XX:7, p. 7-8
February 12, 1976

By John McCort

“We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is correctly translated; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God” (Joseph Smith, “Articles of Faith,” Article.8). “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book” (Joseph Smith, “A Compendium Of The Doctrines Of The Gospel,” p. 273.) “If the Book of Mormon is the word of God then it is to be accepted with equal authority . . . Yea with greater authority, since it purports to be not only the word of God, but translated into the English language by the power of God.

The Mormon attitude toward the Bible is utter blasphemy. Joseph Smith stated that the Book of Mormon would get a man closer to God than even the Bible. Orson Pratt, a prominent, early Mormon leader, stated, “All therefore, is uncertainty as to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament; they can be proved to be changed, added unto and corrupted in almost every text …. Who knows that even one verse of the whole Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original” (Orsow Pratt’s Works, p. 217-218).

The Mormons actually claim that the Book of Mormon is far superior to the Bible since it was translated into the English language by the power of God. This claim to inspired translation into the English language will prove to be the Achilles’ heel to the claim of Mormon inspiration. Not only do they claim the original plates were inspired but he actual translation into the English language was inspired. This means that there can be no mistakes in the process of translation.

“By and of the seer stone, sentences would appear, were read by the prophet and written by Martin Harris, and when finished, he would say written, and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another would appear in its place; but if not written correctly, it would remain until corrected. So that the translation was just as it was engraved upon the plates precisely in the language it was written” (Testimony of David Whitmer, one of the original three witnesses to the Book of Mormon). “Until the writing was correct in every particular; the words last given would remain before the eyes of the translator and not disappear” (B. H. Roberts, “Brief History Of The Church”). Therefore they Mormons cannot even claim any transcribing errors and mistakes in English grammar.

20,000 Changes

Nearly 20,000 changes have been made in the Book of Mormon since the original 1830 edition. These 20,000 changes represent a staggering embarrassment to the claim of Mormon inspiration. Do the Mormons claim that God made 20,000 mistakes when helping Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon. These errors and changes are not merely typographical errors. These are errors in grammar and even some contradictions.

Here are just a few of the changes that have been made in the Book of Mormon. In the original 1830 edition, Alma 20:30 read, “. . . they had arriven . . .” It remained that way until 1920 when it was changed to, . . . they had arrived . . . ” Alma 46:19, in the 1830 edition; read, “. . . waving the rent of his garment in the air that all might see the writing which he had wrote on the rent.” In the 1908 edition it was changed to read, “. . . waving the rent part of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had written upon the rent part.” 1 Nephi 5:11, in the 1830 edition, read, “. . . Adam and Eve, which was our first parents. . . .” In the 1908 edition it was changed to; “Adam and Eve, who were our first parents. . . .” In the original edition, Alma 32:5 read, “. . . the one which was the most foremost among them.” In the 1908 edition, it was changed to “. . . the one who was the most foremost among them.” In 1920, the passage was again changed to read, “. . . the one who was the ( ) foremost among them . . .” deleting the word most.

Not only has the Book of Mormon been changed, the supposedly inspired “Articles of Faith” have been dramatically altered. 90 words from the original “Articles of Faith” have been deleted in the modern editions. Fourteen words have been added to the modern editions which were not in the original. Four words have been changed from the original, edition to the modern edition. Since the “Articles of Faith” are comparatively short; these changes represent some very substantial alterations. In the original “Articles of Faith” there were fourteen articles. In the modern edition there are only thirteen articles with number eleven being omitted in its entirety.

Portions Identical to the King James Version

There is something that is very strange about the Book of Mormon. The golden plates, from which the Book of Mormon was supposedly translated, were, according to the Mormons, written about 600 B.C. Yet one-eighteenth of the Book of Mormon is identical, word for word, to the 1611 King James Version of the Bible. The thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians is quoted word for word. An entire chapter out of the book of Isaiah is quoted. How is it that: the Book of Mormon, which predates the King James Version by nearly 2,000 years, could have precisely the same language word for word? Another strange thing is that there are no quotations from the American Standard Version of the Bible. Another item which is equally strange is that the Book of Mormon even quotes the words that are in italics (which were supplied by the King James Version translators). In the Bible, the words in italics are words which are supplied by the translators and are not in the original text. How is it that the Book of Mormon would be identical to the King James Version in parts, and even contain the italicized words supplied by translators nearly 2,000 years later? Some of these supplied words do not appear in any other translation? Surely the Book of Mormon is a fraud.

The Book of Mormon: Inspired or Not?

The Book of Mormon does not claim for itself to be inspired. “Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon the plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even they did err of old” (1 Nephi 19:6). “And it came to pass that I, Jacob, began to be old; and the record of this people being kept on the other plates of Nephi, wherefore I conclude this record declaring that I have written according to the best of my knowledge” (Jacob 7:26). The alleged authors of the Book of Mormon make no claim to inspiration and even allow the possibility of error in the original plates. How then could it be superior to the Bible and the book by which people get nearer to God; even nearer than the Bible?

The Mormon claim to inspiration almost boggles the imagination. Its stupendous claim to be far superior to the Bible is one of deluded conceit if not utter blasphemy. It is, at the very least, a colossal fraud.

Truth Magazine, XX:7, p. 6-7
February 12, 1976