Truth Magazine

By Raymond E. Harris

In Ezekiel 34, God calls the leaders of Israel to account for their contribution to the sin and ruination of His people. The shepherds of the flock of God have been negligent. Their unskillfulness, unfaithfulness, inefficiency and treachery is exposed and rebuked.

The shepherds of the Master’s flocks have the great responsibility to “feed the flocks.” However, in this text Jehovah charges that the shepherds had rather feed themselves. The shepherds have drunk the milk (1 Cor. 9:7), eaten the flesh and clothed themselves with the wool of the very sheep they were to care for. They selfishly had advanced and enriched themselves at the expense of God’s own. They had indulged and gratified their own appetites while completely ignoring the needs of the sheep. They were so ignorant, lazy, slothful and unfaithful, that God’s sheep were scattered and became as those that had no shepherd. God’s sheep became “the prey of all the beasts of the field” and “they wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill.”

Further, the Lord God charged that the shepherds had not bothered to strengthen the diseased, heal the sick, or bind up that which was broken. They had not “brought again that which was driven away,” or sought that which was lost. But rather he says that they had 11 with force and cruelty” ruled them.

In this dispensation it is the will of God that every flock (local congregation) have its own shepherds (Acts 14:23). In spiritual Israel shepherds (elders) are to feed the church of God (Acts 20:28). Their responsibility is to “all the flock” over which they have been made overseers (Acts 20:28). They are to “feed the flock of God which is among” them (1 Pet. 5:2). And this feeding is to be garnished with unselfishness, willingness to serve the Great Shepherd and a Christlike example in life.

We believe some parallels can be drawn between the failures of shepherds in Ezekiel’s day and the failures of shepherds in many congregations today.

(1) To begin with, over the past 20 years shepherds in many places have selfishly led the sheep to barren pastures and empty wells by allowing the pulpit to become a circus ring rather than a horn of spiritual nourishment. Theology, psychology and institutional ideology replaced the green pastures of speaking as the “oracles of God.” College presidents, editors of papers and silver-tongued promoters became the sources of authority rather than Peter, Paul and John. Hence, countless numbers will cry out eternally in the torments of hell. They will charge indifferent shepherds with allowing the flocks’ very souls to decay and rot as a result of a constant diet of syrupy sermons, honey coated appeals and frosted promotions. Woe be to the shepherds of Israel!

(2) Meanwhile many shepherds have drunk the milk, eaten the flesh and worn the wool of the sheep. By inviting the promoters for meetings, giving God’s money to the institutions of men and by glorifying the pseudointellectuals in Zion, they enhanced their own stature. Payments were promptly received. Elders who had previously been unheard of and unknown were invited to sit on panels at college lectureships. They were introduced before large audiences at orphan homes and heralded as giants for the cause of Christ in national papers. But why all the attention? The answer is simple: They had put the Herald of Truth, the orphan home and the college in the church budget! Woe be to the shepherds of Israel!

(3) Meanwhile back at the sheepfold, the flocks began to deteriorate spiritually. In a short time many became diseased with Pentecostalism, sick with Calvinism and broken with Modernism. The unfaithful shepherds were reveling in their new found popularity and brotherhood prominence. They had neither the time, knowledge or inclination to “strengthen,” to “heal” and to bind up.

By this time shepherds had turned the flocks over to professional “hirelings.” They had really lost control and pride prohibited them from reversing their course. One false word and they would have been stamped with that incomparable stigma “Anti!” Woe be to the shepherds of Israel!

(4) Hence, the die was cast! For most of these unfaithful shepherds there was no turning back. They were enslaved and chained by brotherhood pressure, popular preachers, powerful institutions and their own weakness.

They have not brought back that faithful remnant that was driven away. They have not sought that which is lost. Rather, many shepherds, skillfully manipulated by forces behind the scene, have crudely ruled “with force and with cruelty.” Woe be to the shepherds of Israel!

(5) Therefore, in many quarters God’s flock is scattered spiritually and doctrinally as sheep without a shepherd. They with anxiety and bewilderment wander through the mountains and high hills of the vicissitudes of life. They have become a prey to the beasts of the field as their starvation diets over the past years have left them weak and unable to discern, much less ward off, the false doctrines of men. Woe be to the shepherds of Israel!

Truth Magazine XX: 33, pp. 522-523
August 19, 1976

By Wallace H. Little

Not long ago, with another Christian, I stood at the bedside of a man dying of cancer in a hospital. He knew he had not long to live, and had accepted the fact of his soon-coming death. He was completely paralyzed and without sensation from the waist down. The loathsome disease had progressed to the point of softening his bones. As careful as the attendants were, and I verified this carefulness by my observation, they had accidentally broken one of his legs a week or so before. He was in considerable pain, and knew he had no chance of recovery, and his only hope for release from his physical agony was death.

But he was disturbed for reasons other than his cancer. A long time prior to this, he had been taught the first principles of the oracles of God. While recognizing truth and its application to him, he put off obedience. It was “not convenient”; besides, he was enjoying things he knew he would have to give up to become a Christian. Now he fully knew he was about to die, and that he was not prepared to do so. This, not his physical condition, was the cause of his mental anguish.

We talked for a few minutes, if the sounds he made could be called “talk.” He wanted to hear again Christ’s call for sinners to come to Him. In ten minutes or so, he urgently requested I baptize him.

It was not easy. His condition was so bad we were convinced to move him from the hospital to the nearest place suitable for immersion would cause him much pain and possibly kill him too. One of the nurses suggested trying a large tub in the hospital. The attending doctor gave his permission, so we carefully shifted him from his bed to a stretcher, and from there to the tub, which by this time was filled with water. Getting him into it was not easy. After baptizing him, getting him back out, onto the stretcher again and then returning him to bed was even more difficult. I know we hurt him, for several times he was unable to keep from groaning.

But now he was no longer troubled in heart. He was completely relaxed and content. Why he waited as long as he did, coming as close to death as he did before being baptized, I do not know. It is doubtful he really knew either. But God in His compassion extended this man mercy: our new brother in Christ lived just short of eight days after being immersed.

I stood in the presence of death . . . then in the presence of life powerful enough to overcome death. Our brother “squeaked through.” But we all stand in the presence of death daily. Oh, not necessarily physical death, but surely separation from God (Isa. 59:1, 2). And unlike this man, most of these will pass through physical death in their present condition, unprepared. The only hope of these lost ones is those of us who know the gospel of Christ and are willing to take it to them.

Without this gospel and ourselves as God’s messengers in bringing it to the lost, we will all continue to stand in the presence of death daily . . . and one day, we will stand in the presence of our own death for having failed to do as God would have us do (Jas. 4:17), not having tried to bring life to the lost, as was brought to our dying brother.

Will you stand in the presence of your own spiritual death?

Truth Magazine XX: 33, p. 522
August 19, 1976

By Roy E. Cogdill

My brethren have preached through the years that “There is one body.” They still profess to preach and believe it, but a close investigation reveals that many of them no longer believe it to the point that they are willing to practice it. If we are not willing to carry out every function of the Lord’s church in and through the “one body” or one organization found in the Scriptures, we are hypocrites when we preach and profess to believe in the “one body” of Ephesians 4. The practical application of this divine truth is not confined to denominations but is just as applicable to New Testament Christians everywhere. We have no right preaching that some are bound by it when we are not willing to be confined to the principle ourselves.

More than a hundred years ago, all through this land there was the disposition to cling to the “old paths” in theory but not in practice. Brethren became dissatisfied with divine arrangements yet professed to be believers in divine truth. They preached then, “We will speak where the Bible speaks and we will be silent where the Bible is silent.” This was more than a slogan. It is a Bible principle. “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen” (1 Peter 4:11). These brethren then professed to continue to “speak as the oracles of God,” indeed they still do make that profession, but they were not willing to minister (serve) of the “strength which God supplieth.” They demonstrated that “speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent” was to them just a slogan and not a divine principle at all. They went about organizing whatever they wished in the way of human institutions and societies to accomplish the work that God had designated as the work of the church. When once they had accepted the principle of the “missionary society” they were plunged into dozens of others and a multitude of other departures both in worship and doctrine. It is amazing to hear these brethren who “went out from us because they were not of us” and have formed themselves into the denomination known commonly as “The Christian Church” or as “The Disciples” and -even sometimes yet as “Churches of Christ” but a denomination none-the-less, still talk about “speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent.”

It is even more amazing to hear the modern defectors from truth among our brethren profess to disallow what those then did but who now themselves “doest the same things” (Romans 2:1). The brethren who have accepted the principle of being at “liberty” to affect whatever organizations they deem expedient or necessary to carry out the function of the Lord’s church, still would make one who does not know what is going on among them think that they believe in “speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent.” They still talk about the “sufficiency of the church to do what God gave it to do” and all of the time they preach and contend that it is necessary to build human organizations to do it.

In the Birmingham debate and at Newberne, Tennessee, in the discussions with Guy N. Woods, Gospel Advocate staff writer, he contended that the Lord had commanded the church to do the work of benevolence and then contended that the church could not actually do this work but could finance it. He along with all of the Gospel Advocate disciples argue that the work of benevolence which God has given the church to do necessitates (not just as expedient) the forming of another organization (body), a benevolent society under a board of directors with a president, vice president, secretary and treasurer. Still they would have you think they believe in “but one body.” We deny that they do. They no more believe in “speaking as the oracles of God” than the digressive brethren of the Christian Churches. They talk about it but they are not willing to “serve out of the strength which God giveth.” In fact, they say that God has not given us the means in the Scriptures of carrying out the very thing which God has commanded us to do.

There are others, like the Firm Foundation disciples, who insist that the work of benevolence should be under the elders of the local church. They form their giant combinations like Tipton Home to care for the indigent, put it into the farming business, livestock business, school business, and a dozen others, and then stick that giant institution, board of directors and all, under the eldership of the local church at Tipton. The elders at Tipton say that the work of this institution is under their supervision. Do they have the Bible classes in the real estate business, insurance business, secular educational business, etc.? Do they have these Bible classes set under a board of directors with the same kind of legal arrangement, incorporation, as they have the “home”? If not, why not? The fact is that their claim is not so. They have a separate organization from the church and it is professedly doing the work of the church. Why not this same arrangement for missionary work? There is no scriptural authority for either and both invade the sacred realm of God’s authority and are rebellious against His will.

These same brethren try to justify a perversion of the organization of God’s church, the local congregation, by making it serve as a brotherhood agency. They have a brotherhood eldership, brotherhood treasury, brotherhood work organized as the “Herald of Truth.” It is a sinful perversion of the nature and function of God’s organization and has divided churches of Christ all over the world and disrupted the fellowship of God’s people. When those who go along with it and support it claim to “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent,” they are making a false claim. God has supplied no such human arrangements and the “service” they perform is not by the “strength which God has supplied.”

Paul said, “Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God” (Col. 2:18-19). These liberal and institutional brethten may not “worship angels” but they definitely “intrude into those things which (they) have not seen” and are “vainly puffed up by (their) fleshly minds.” Moreover they are “not holding the Head, from which all the body (has) nourishment ministered . . . and (is) knit together, and increaseth with the increase of God.”

Those who are led astray by such deceptive means while professing a form of godliness have denied the power thereof.” They “say and do not.” They do not respect the divine truth: “there is one body.”

They do not preach what they practice. Then there are those who do not practice what they preach. Sometimes churches say, “We do not contribute to these human societies.” Yet they give them their endorsement and encouragement and will not allow the truth which condemns them to be taught from the pulpit or in the Bible classes. They are even more inexcusable and are “accessories” to the fact whether they contribute their money or not. There is no neutral ground when Bible truth is involved.

Christ is not the head of human arrangements and organizations and has not supplied nourishment unto them in any sense. Neither is God giving the increase. It is not the increase of God (Col. 2:18-19).

Truth Magazine XX: 33, pp. 520-521
August 19, 1976

By Mike Willis

In the April issue of Restoration Review, editor Leroy Garrett continued his series on “The Word Abused” by writing an article on 2 Pet. 2: 1. Here is the passage:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

By the time that Garrett had finished his article, he had stated that he believed that men like Billy Graham, Adam Clarke, and Albert Barnes could not be properly described as false teachers. And, as you might have guessed, the erudite editor of Restoration Review somehow managed to find a way to legitimately use the passage to describe those of us who believe such men are false teachers. But, let him speak for himself; here is what he wrote:

I may shock some of my more staid readers with the thesis I now set forth as to the identify of a false teacher. I do not believe, as I was always taught in the sect In which I grew up, that “denominational preachers” are necessarily false teachers, which Is the view still urged upon us by many within Christian Churches-Churches of Christ. I have long since discarded the notion that “our” men are the true teachers while “their” men are the false teachers (p. 262).

According to Garrett’s position, one cannot be properly called a false teacher unless he is intentionally dishonest; so long as he is ignorant of the truth, he cannot be called a false teacher.

It is unthinkable that such a characterization as this should be laid upon any sincere, well-meaning, God-loving person, however misled he may he on some ideas. One may even be caught up In the clutches of an insidious system and still not be a pseudo-didaskalos (false teacher-MW). The nun that marches her girls in front of you as you wait at the fight does not necessarily deserve the epithet of false, whatever judgment you make of Romanism.

She may well he more devoted to God than yourself, even If wrong about some things, and she may be a kalosdidaskalos (teacher of good), as in Tit. 2:3, in that she is teaching those girls “to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind, and submissive to their husbands (and to the pope-MW), that the word of God may not be discredited” (p. 264).

No one is a false teacher who is honestly mistaken or in error. It is gracious of us to distinguish between unintentional wrong and deliberate and malicious falsehood (p. 265).

Rather, a false teacher is one who is unscrupulous, who acts deceptively and maliciously.

This term pseudo is the key to our understanding the true character of the false teacher, and its meaning becomes evident when we see it used as a prefix to numerous other words. 2 Cor. 11:13 refers to the pseudo-apostles and Mt. 24:24 mentions both pseudo-Christs and pseudo-prophets. Mt. 26:60 tells how pseudo-witnesses testified against Jesus before Calaphas.

In each of these cases you have a bad egg, an unscrupulous person who acts deceptively and maliciously so as to satisfy his perverted ego. So Paul described the false apostles as “deceitful workmen, disguising themselves.” Those who testified falsely against Jesus were malicious liars. That is our word, pseudo is a lie. A false teacher is a liar, and he knows he’s a liar; or he is so corrupt of mind and heart that he no longer between right and wrong. He has “rejected his own conscience,” as the apostle describes him (p. 264).

No one would deny that any teacher who acts deceptively, maliciously, or unscrupulously is a false teacher. The various passages which teach this are incontrovertible. My disagreement with Garrett regarding false teachers does not occur at this point. The point at which I find myself in disagreement with Garrett is his tendency to limit a false teacher to one who is so immoral and in deciding what doctrines qualify one to be considered a false teacher. Hence, I want to consider the false teacher of 2 Pet. 2:1 with you.

The False Teacher of 2 Peter 2:1

Since we are pretty much agreed that acts of immorality will classify any teacher as a false teacher, I see no need for further comments regarding those aspects of the teacher in 2 Pet. 2: 1. Hence, I want to draw your attention to this description in 2 Pet. 2:1 of the false teacher: “who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them.” From this, I will show that a false teacher is, not only a teacher who can be described as an unscrupulous man, but also any teacher who introduces destructive heresies whether that person be immoral or not.

Hairesis (heresy), in this passage, refers to heretical doctrine which destroys the foundation of the church (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 183). Barclay’s comment about this word in this passage is appropriate; he said:

” . . . In other words, with the revelation of God in Christ, it is no longer a question of choosing the particular line of belief which happens to appeal to us; it is a question of accepting, or rejecting, the revealed truth of God. A heretic then becomes a man who believes what he wishes to believe instead of accepting the truth of God which he must believe.

“What was happening in the case of Peter’s people was that certain men, who claimed to be prophets, were insidiously persuading men to believe the things they wished to be true rather than the things which God has revealed as true. They did not set themselves up as opponents of Christianity. Far from it. Rather they set themselves up as the finest fruits of Christian thinking. Insidiously, unconsciously, Imperceptible, so gradually and so subtly that they did not even notice it, people were being lured away from God’s truth to men’s private opinions, for that is what heresy is” (William Barclay, The Letters of James and Peter, p. 374).

Hence, the false teacher of 2 Pet. 2:1 is any man who brings in a destructive heresy whether he be unscrupulous, deceitful, immoral or not. The destructive heresies of the teacher is one of the things which causes a man to be classified as a false teacher. These “false doctrines” cause the false teacher, and his adherents, to deny the Lord who bought them.

Garrett admits that false doctrine can also cause a man to be considered a false teacher, even if the man’s personal character is immaculate. He wrote,

The early church had its Gnostics and its Judaizers, its legalists and its antinomians, all false teachers. We certainly have our Christ-denying systems as much as they had. We too have our pseudo-knowledge (philosophy of science “false socalled”) in various systems. I know brethren who have been led astray by the astral false teachers, professors of theosophy and the “spirit” cult. They now attend seances and commune with departed spirits rather than assemble with the saints and commune with the Holy Spirit (pp. 264-265).

Notice that Garrett called Judaizers, Gnostics, legalists and antinomians “false teachers” regardless of whether or not they were moral or immoral. Their personal character could not alter the fact that their basic doctrines were wrong and, because their doctrines were false, they were false teachers.

Now, we are able to see exactly why Garrett and I disagree regarding false teachers. We do not disagree regarding whether unscrupulous, ungodly men are false teachers; we do not disagree regarding whether false doctrine alone qualifies a man to be considered a false teacher. What we disagree on is whether or not certain doctrines are false doctrines and whether these doctrines are of serious enough consequence to cause one to be considered a false teacher.

Garrett cited the example of three pious men whom we consider false teachers but whom he considers to be men of God. Let us look at them one by one.

1. Albert Barnes. I have a set of Barnes’ commentaries and refer to them frequently in the study of the Scriptures. I have no reason to doubt that the man was a good moral man and, therefore, have no intention of assassinating his character. However, he was a false teacher! He, for example, believed the major tenets of Calvinism-total depravity, limitei atonement, . unconditional election, irresistible grace, and the perserverance of the saints. If that theological system is not a damnable heresy, there are none! Despite the fact that for well over 100 years our brethren have been fighting Calvinism, Garrett says that a man who propagates that system cannot be considered a false teacher.

2. Adam Clark. Though I do not use. Clarke’s commentaries because I do not have a set of them, I know that Clarke was a Presbyterian who became a Methodist in 1778. Hence, he accepted the unique doctrines of Methodism such as sprinkling for baptism, faith only, etc. Yet, Leroy Garrett does not believe that the man who propagates such doctrines is to be considered a false teacher!

3. Billy Graham. Most of us have read enough of Graham’s columns in the daily paper to have some idea of what this Baptist believes. He believes in salvation by faith only, impossibility of apostasy, and other typically Baptist doctrines. Yet, Leroy Garrett does not believe that the man who propagates such doctrines is to be considered a false teacher.

My brethren, if a man’s doctrine denies the truth regarding the steps to salvation in Christ, how can he be regarded as a good teacher? Yet, Garrett believes that these men must be recognized as good teachers and not as false teachers. This is probably due to the fact that Garrett himself believes that one can be saved without being immersed in water for the remission of his sins (salvation by faith only). If you doubt that this is true, I will be happy to document this from his pen.

Does the fact that I find useful material from the pens of these men prove that I do not actually consider them to be false teachers? No! I find some good material in William Barclay’s words. Barclay is a modernist who denies the miracles and inspiration of the Bible. in some places, his comments are as wild as a turkey; yet, many of his comments are simply outstanding. Does the fact that Garrett uses Barclay in his studies prove that Barclay is not a false teacher? No more so than the fact that I use Barnes proves that I do not believe that he is a false teacher.

Who is a false teacher? According to Garrett, those of us who call men like Billy Graham and other denominational preachers false teachers are more accurately described as false teachers than the denominational preachers are. He said,

In the light of all this, some of our folk will quote 2 Pet. 2:1 “There will be false teachers among you” – and browbeat those who would venture to a stadium to hear Billy Graham. That Graham errs in some things he Includes or excludes may be argued, but to say he is a false teacher after the order of 2 Pet. 2 is horrendously wrong. He who would so contend, to the confusion of well-meaning people who would like to help in what they believe to be a constructive effort, would come nearer fitting the scriptural description of the false teacher than does Graham (p. 263).

Now we see what Garrett’s concept of a false teacher is-one who denies that denominationals are Christians!

Conclusion

Once again we have seen how Leroy Garrett has tried to disarm those of us who are opposing the denominationals, both inside and outside the church, by throwing aside one of the proof-texts used against them. If we concede what these men say, at some point in the future we are going to try to expose a false teacher and reach for a text to use to do so and find there are none left to use. Garrett is methodically trying to throw out the various passages which we use to expose false teachers. I cannot sit in silence while he teaches his damnable heresy; he is a false teacher who must be exposed!

Truth Magazine XX: 33, pp. 518-520
August 19, 1976