Truth Magazine

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

By Cecil Willis

As we proceed in our lessons on conversion, we feel confident that we would not do justice to the subject, were we to omit a discussion of the nature of repentance. There is a wide diversity of opinion as to the true nature of repentance, and therefore we want to determine all we can about the nature of repentance from a study of the Word of God.

Before we can see the true, nature of repentance, it is necessary, first, to investigate the modern concept of repentance, as taught by many denominations. Denominationalists teach that repentance is a direct gift of God. They tell us that repentance comes just as does faith, that is, by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit. A few weeks ago, when we were studying the subject of faith, we saw that God does produce faith. It has never been a question of whether God produces faith or not, nor has it been a question of whether the Holy Spirit produces faith or not, b ut it has been a discussion of how God and the Holy Spirit produce faith. It is a matter of whether they do it directly, or through some medium. It is a discussion of whether men become believers because of some mysterious operation of God through the Spirit upon the heart of man, or whether God causes man to believe by the Word of God, which is the product of both God and the Holy Spirit. Paul settled forever the arguments as to how men are made believers, as he said, “So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). Denominationalists tell us that faith and repentance both come in the same way. They say that God must send some kind of a power upon man and produce faith and repentance in his heart.

To some men, repentance is the gift of God, directly. There is a very basic reason why men teach that God must operate directly and independently of the preaching of the word. A large portion of the denominational world maintains that men are born inherently totally depraved. By this they mean that because of the sin of Adam, a baby is born into the world totally in sin. Therefore since one is a total sinner, then there must not be any good thing that he can do. Since both faith and repentance are good actions, being the commandments of God, and man is totally evil, then it must follow that man cannot do these things, but that they must come directly from God. The logic might be sound, but the premise is false, and therefore the conclusion is accordingly false. If one is a sinner now, it is because of his own sin, and not because of Adam’s. Although, man does bear some of the consequences of Adam’s sin, he very definitely does not bear the guilt of Adam’s sin.

God has commanded that man repent or perish. We saw this to be true from the Lord’s statement in Luke 13:1-5; and then we see it reiterated by Paul in Acts 17:30,31. Suppose these men are correct in what they say about the necessity of God’s sending some direct power upon man in order to produce repentance, then whose fault is it if one does not repent? If one must await God’s decision to send a person repentance, and he never gets it, then it certainly could not be his fault; but then it must be God’s. Certainly there would be no justice in condemning a man for not getting something that he could not get.

Because man thinks that repentance comes as a direct result of the special action of God upon the sinner, then they have come to think of repentance as some mysterious, mystical, incomprehensible act. They go to the “mourner’s bench,” as it is called in denominational phraseology, and there they plead, pray and beg God to send them repentance. Then when they finally get what they think is repentance, they act very odd. Sometimes when individuals tell you about their repentance, they tell you of some weird dream that they have had, something comparable to a nightmare. They call this repentance. This mysterious way in which men speak of the religion of our Lord has driven many away from the Word of God, who otherwise might have obeyed. It is our purpose to investigate just what the Bible says about the nature of repentance.

When one remembers the definition of repentance as defined in the Scriptures, it will then be apparent, that repentance cannot be the mysterious act that some would have us believe it is. Repentance is a change of mind, preceded by godly sorrow, and followed by a reformation of life, but basically, it is nothing more than a change of mind. Repentance is my decision to cease sinning, and to do better in the future. Seeing then that repentance is nothing more or less than a change of mind, it therefore follows that there is no part of it that can be the incomprehensible something that so many would have us believe. Repentance is the result of the calm, sober thinking of the intelligent mind, honestly and fairly weighing the consequences of sin and righteousness, and then the intelligent decision to quit sinning, and to do what is right.

When I seek to get one to repent of his sins, I do not try to get him so emotionally upset that he hardly knows what he is doing, but I try to provoke within him sober thought, and to be sure that he understands the consequences of his decision. One who resolves to quit sinning because of momentary emotional instability will not maintain the life in accord with his change of mind or his repentance very long. When one is prompted to repent because of emotional uncertainty, he will revert back to his former way of life after the emotional uprising subsides. Repentance therefore must be a rational act, prompted by sober thinking, rather than prompted by emotional unrest. When one becomes so emotionally upset, at the mourner’s bench, with a number of people nearby adding to his inner disturbance, then intelligent thought, and therefore repentance is impossible. One cannot rationally decide to abandon sin under these circumstances, and this kind of decision does not constitute repentance.

It is further seen that repentance is an intelligent mental act when one remembers that it is something to be preached. Notice these passages stating such: “Thus it is written that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Lk. 24:46,47); “And in those days cometh John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:1,2). As Peter, the apostle, preached the first sermon under the gospel commission, on the day of Pentecost, one of the things preached by Peter was repentance. He told the people that they must both repent and be baptized in order to receive the remission of sins. It is easily seen, then, that repentance is a commandment that is to be preached to the world by the speakers of God. If repentance is something that is to be preached to the world, then it certainly must be something that one can understand, or else it would be futile to preach it to men. What good would it do for me to preach that one must repent, if repentance is an act so mysterious that men cannot understand it?

In connection with this same thought, let us refer again to the idea taught that God sends repentance directly. Repentance is an act of man, and not of God. When one goes into some denominational meeting and they are all down at the front kneeling around the mourner’s bench, and especially around some particular candidate, they usually are praying that God will send His converting power upon this candidate, in order that he might believe and repent-or as they prefer to state it, in order that he might repent and then believe. But friend, God has already done all that He is going to do in order to get one to repent.

I am conscious of the statements in the Bible stating that God has something to do with one’s repentance. A favorite passage of denominationalists used to prove that God sends repentance upon man directly is Acts 11:18, which reads: “And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life.” While it is here stated that God grants repentance unto life unto the Gentiles, just a moment’s reflection will reveal to us how this repentance was granted. Peter had gone over to the household of Cornelius and had preached to them, using the powers that God has given that produce repentance. God produced the repentance, but He produced it through the forces that we considered in a preceding lesson. Since repentance is an act of man, and not an act of God, then it must follow that repentance is an action understandable by man. It is comparable to saying that God produces bread that we eat, but it would be very foolish of one to say that God does it directly. Even though we have to work for the bread that we eat, it is still a gift of God. One might as well sit idly by and wait for God to send him bread to eat, as to go to the mourner’s bench and there wait for God to send him the power to repent. God has already sent the power, and man only needs to respond to that power.

In all the examples of individuals’ repenting in the New Testament, one finds no trace of the mysticism (emotionalism) characteristic of the modern misnomer, styled by man as repentance. What men style “repentance” is not repentance. In Acts 3:19 we hear Peter soberly tell the Jews that they must repent to have their sins blotted out: “Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord” (Acts 3:19). Here one does not see a group of people conducting themselves as modern sensationalists do as they try to get one to repent, or more properly stated, as they try to get God to grant repentance unto one. We find no crying, shouting, mourning, or any of the other actions that ordinarily transpire at one of the modern revivals, that precedes one’s repentance.

We are often called upon to believe that repentance is what leads one to throw himself violently upon the ground, to roll, tumble, and shout. Friend, do not misunderstand my motive. I am not ridiculing these people, but I am plainly declaring that what they style as repentance very definitely does not coincide with repentance as pictured in the Bible. Repentance is not described in the Bible as a convulsion!

It might be worthwhile in this lesson, also, to point out that repentance is not an act for which one has to wait years to experience. We are often told that certain individuals have persistently gone to the mourner’s bench for years, and yet they have not been granted repentance. They have not gotten any strange feelings indicating that they have decided to reform their lives. Repentance, as pictured in the Bible, being a mental act, occurred simultaneously with one’s decision to abandon sin. It was not necessary for one to entreat God to grant repentance, for God had already done that. It is now dependent upon the cordial acceptance of God’s benevolence by man. When the young man was approached by his father, as recorded in Matt. 21:29, at first he rebelled and refused to go into the field as his father requested. “And he answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented himself, and went.” As soon as the young man changed his mind regarding his reaction to his father’s command, he had repented. It takes no longer to repent than it does to change one’s mind about sin.

Conclusion

From our study we see that repentance is an act of man, and not of God. God does not send repentance to man directly, but He uses the powers that we discussed in the former lessons to produce repentance. We further may see that repentance is removed from the mystical realm, for it is a commandment to be obeyed by man, it is preached to man, and because of its very simple definition of being a change of mind. All of these points bring repentance into the realm of intelligence. It is hirther seen that repentance does not make one con duct himself like many today do who say that they have been saved, or that they have repented. Finally, we see that it takes no longer to repent than it does to change your mind, and that the modern way of “praying through” in order to get God to grant repentance and faith is a farce. It is improper and unscriptural.

It is understood by all who have followed us in our studies on this subject that repentance is a prerequisite to salvation. Repentance comes by the forces taught in the Word of God, rather than by a direct force. Repentance is the act performed by man, commanded by God, that changes man’s feeling about sin, and in which he resolves to obey all the commandments of the Lord. Repentance is preceded by faith, and is followed by the act of baptism. It is our plea that many will decide now to leave sin, and be baptized immediately into Christ in order to receive the remission of sins.

Truth Magazine XX: 33, pp. 515-518
August 19, 1976

By Luther Blackmon

Dr. Howard W. Pope tells the story of a young lady who read a book, and having completed it, remarked that it was the dullest book she had read in many a day. Not long after this she met a young man and in time their friendship ripened into love. They became engaged. During a visit in her home one evening she said to him, “I have a book in my library which was written by a man whose initials and even his name are precisely the same as yours. Isn’t that a coincidence?” “I don’t think so,” he replied. “Why not?” “For the simple reason that I wrote the book,” he said. Dr. Pope concludes the story by saying that the young woman sat up until the early morning hours to read the book again, and when she had finished reading it the second time she thought it was the most interesting book she had ever read. It was not dull at all. She found it fascinating! Why the change? Simple. She knew and loved the author.

Another story with the same meaning concerns the 23rd Psalm, and a contest in a class on public speaking. A young minister with a clear strong voice recited the psalm aloud to the audience. His pronunciation was perfect. His diction left nothing to be desired. When he had finished the psalm the audience cheered loudly. Then an old man rose from his seat and in a cracked and faltering voice recited the same scripture. When he had finished the audience sat in silent respect and awe. “What caused such different reactions in the audience?” asked a listener. “Well, you see,” someone explained, “the young man knew the Shepherd Psalm; the old man knew the Shepherd.”

Here we have a paradox. You cannot know the author apart from his book (the Bible). But our love for the author increases in proportion to our practical knowledge of his book.

Truth Magazine XX: 33, p. 514
August 19, 1976