Truth Magazine

By Truman Smith

On June 18, 1975 Brother Bob Vezinat and I made a trip to Haiti. Though we went prepared to do some teaching, the main purpose of the trip was to look into the situation to see what had been done, if anything, toward spreading the gospel in the land. Being supported for the most part by the church in Cleveland, Texas, where Bob Vezinat preaches, and the church in Greens Bayou, Houston, where I preach, we spent several days there and it was an experience we shill never forget.

As you may know, Haiti is located on the eastern side of the island Hispaniola in the Greater Antilles or West Indies. The country of Haiti occupies about one-third of the Island, while the Dominican Republic holds the other two-thirds. It is very beautiful in Haiti. When Columbus discovered the island in 1492, the mountains, trees and climate reminded him so much of his home land, Spain, that he called it “Hispaniola.” It is characterized by great mountains, hills, beautiful trees and a very warm climate. In the winter the temperature stays somewhere in the 60’s, and in the summer it hovers around the 80’s and 90’s. Though Haiti is considered the poorest country in Central Atherica, and the poverty there is almost unbelievable, the scenery, favorable climate, along with help of travel agencies, are fast making Haiti a tourist attraction. The city of Port au Prince serves as the Capital of the country. Their native tongue is Creol French; yet you will find many Haitians speaking Spanish and some broken English. Religiously, it is predominately Catholic and Voodoo. We also found some Seventh-Day Adventists, Baptists, and two varieties of the Church of God denomination.

By the time we were checked in at our hotel in Port au Prince, Bob had gotten some practice using his Louisiana French and was able to communicate very well with them in their brand of “French.” After freshening up a bit, we decided to go to God in prayer. This we did, asking Him to be with us, open our eyes to the many opportunities about us, and to give us the courage and zeal we needed to take advantage of them. Walking outside the hotel just to look the area over, we met a young man by the name of Johnny Audate. Johnny was a very friendly man about 19 or 20 years of age. He had finished his schooling, he told us, and had studied English and Spanish. He had left Voodooism to become a member of the Baptist Church. He agreed to go out with us the next day and show us around. Although he had no job and was broke, Johnny offered his services free of charge. We asked him why he would not charge us, and he said: “It is `Christian work.'”

The next morning Johnny directed us to the American Embassy where we registered and got other needed information. He had thought there was a church of Christ meeting in Port au Prince, but we were unable to locate their building. After inquiring through several sources, we finally resigned ourselves to the idea that there was no church in Port au Prince. Johnny suggested that we might go out to Leogane, a small town of about 5;000 population located some 25 miles south of Port au Prince, and find a place to teach the truth. It takes about two hours to travel there by camionet (A camionet is a small pick-up, usually a Toyota, converted into a bus). We arrived in Leogane around 2:00 p.m. Soon we found a place where a crowd could meet, which we rented for the night, ran an ad in the local newspaper, and also had a large poster or sign printed which a Haitian carried around and showed all over town. Then we went out on the streets and personally invited people to come to the Bible study being offered that night. About 150 people were present that first night. We had brought along the Visualized Filmstrips (for cottage meetings) series by Jule Miller, arid Bob was able to translate this into French and explain it to the audience. It was evident by their interest and good attention that they were starved for the truth. They also very eagerly accepted tracts which we had brought with us translated into French. Since this had proven to be such an overwhelming success, we announced that we would plan. to return the next night and continue the series. The next night about 200 came, and they all seemed very receptive. More tracts were handed out. The next night was Saturday night, and though few carne due to this being a night for worldly pleasures, Bob continued the series.

Bob and I met in our room for a brief period of worship and broke bread on Sunday morning. That afternoon we were invited by a man from the States, who was staying at our hotel, to accompany him to a village about 50 miles northeast of Port au Prince near St. Mare. Since he spoke only a little French, he needed Bob to interpret for him. He and his business associates had established a school there last year and he wanted to see how they were progressing with the school. It was while on this journey, as we were passing through a village called Pont-Matheux, Bob saw a sign which read, “Eglese du Christe.” We stopped and finally found a young man by the name of Petit Frore Rolart. This young man was the preacher for the church of Christ in this village. The members of that congregation called him “the pastor.” We mentioned the possibility of our coming back to this place and conduct our studies with them, and the preacher suggested that he ride back to Port au Prince with us. He said he would need to ask the “head pastor” about our coming to work with them! He said this “head pastor” preaches for the church in Port au Prince. This was when we first learned that there was an “Eglese du Christe” in Port au Prince. We were eager to learn more about this brand of “Church of Christ” in Port au Prince. Thus, as we returned to Port au Prince Brother Rolart directed us to the building there. The preacher’s name in Port au Prince is a Brother Sylvester. The liberal brethren in the States had sent him to Alabama Christian College for a couple of years, and he was able to speak very good English. He somewhat reluctantly agreed it would be alright with him for us to go to Pont-Matheux for the study series. The Port au Prince church consists of about 345 members, and Brother Sylvester was anxious to show us their plant, which consisted of an auditorium on the ground floor, then a second story still under construction for a second auditorium. There were also several Bible class rooms; then we were led on around and through the building where more class rooms were. Brother Sylvester said this was their “college” (Art School). Then he showed us their “medical clinic,” “dental clinic” and “pharmacy” which were all built into the operation. He told us that all these things were being supported by some churches in the States; but we were never able to get him to name these supporting congregations. He told us that Haitians who were not members of the church were charged 2 gorde (404) for these medical services, but that members received such free of charge! He said that they were baptizing people this way! Brother Sylvester said he supports himself by working as a secret policeman for the Haitian Government. We noted that their sign said, “Eglese du Christe du Haiti.” Also, a large picture of Jean Claud Devalier hangs in the foyer of their building. As you may know, Devalier is the president (dictator) of Haiti. Needless to say, we decided not to conduct the film study at Pont-Matheux, for we did not wish to be a part of the liberal element and help them to promote their ultra-liberal cause!

It had been our original plan to remain in Haiti for two weeks, but with this development of finding such rank liberalism, we decided that it might be unwise to remain that long spending more money than necessary. Thus, on Monday we took Johnny with us to the Airlines office and made arrangements to depart from Haiti and go back home the following Thursday (June 26). We wanted to spend the remaining few days continuing to teach at Leogane. I suffered a kidney stone attack that night and had to stay at the hotel all day Tuesday, but Bob and Johnny traveled by rented car to Leogane that day and got out advertizing for the study series to continue. We found about 100 people gathered that night. As the lesson neared its conclusion several Haitians made it known that they desired to obey the gospel! But because there was no water nearby, and it was getting late in the night, they asked us if we could come back the next afternoon and take them to the Atlantic Ocean and baptize them. Thus, we took them out into the ocean, and a total of 13 were baptized into Christ for remission of their sins. Johnny was among that number.

We had worked with Johnny constantly while we were with him, and he agreed to try to preach to the people at Leogane after we left. We learned that same afternoon, when these people were baptized, that the Baptist Church in Leogane was abandoning their building to go to Africa, and that they would no longer be using it; thus there was the possibility these brethren might be able to secure this building for themselves. All those baptized were young men ranging in age from 15 to 35. Three or four of them were brick and rock masons, and they were already talking of plans to build a building. Wednesday night concluded the lesson series, and we said good-by to these precious souls.

Brethren, there is hope for this group to survive if someone is willing to go there and work with them. They need a building in which to meet. Perhaps if Johnny Audate could come to the States and be properly trained he could return to Haiti and accomplish untold good. We would not recommend a preacher with a family moving there, but if there is a preacher not married, and can speak French, who might consider moving, we would be most happy to talk with him about the work and possibilities. Any church wishing to know more about the work in Haiti may call on either Brother Bob Vezinat or myself and one of us will be happy to come and show color slides and explain about the cause of the Lord there. That is, Truman Smith, address above, phone 713-453-2502, or Bob Vezinat, 807 S. Fenner, Cleveland, Texas 77327, phone 713-592-5676.

Truth Magazine XIX: 47, pp. 745-746
October 9, 1975

By Roy E. Cogdill

When the doctrine of Christ is adulterated with human doctrines and traditions by the people of God; when the mission and work of the church of the Lord is prostituted to serve human pleasure and will; when the worship of the church is corrupted; when the name and speech of God’s people becomes unscriptural; and when the government God has established over his people is forsaken by the effort to remodel and modernize the church in its organization, the church is no longer undenominational. The church of Christ, God’s dwelling place among his people (Eph. 2:19-22) can be. defiled by bringing in any of these unholy things. Profane things cannot be mixed with those things made holy by the blood of the New Covenant without bringing upon ourselves God’s judgment (1 Cor. 1:19, 25, 17-31; Rom. 1:16-18; Eph. 5:6).

Many churches of Christ today are being corrupted by federating themselves into “inter” congregational arrangements under the guise of “co-operation.” No one likes the charge of being “non-cooperative.” That is an ugly spirit and has become a dirty word in our vocabulary. We want to avoid it and sometimes we are willing to “co-operate” with that which is contrary to God’s will rather than be given such a stigmatized label. We need to remember that it is possible to “co-operate” with Satan and fellowship him. We cannot do so and enjoy fellowship with God, however (1 Cor. 1(1:20-21). In this passage Paul was writing to Corinthian Christians who were trying to be “co-operative” by attending the idolatrous feasts of the heathen people of that city. But one cannot partake of the cup of devils and the cup of the Lord!

When any movement transcends congregational limitations and boundaries, it becomes “inter” congregational instead of “intra” congregational and is thereby federated into an unscriptural arrangement. There is no such thing as an “inter-congregational” function of the church in New Testament scriptures. The man does not live that can find it. We have seen some of the experts try to justify such and always it has been by perversion, sophistry, and human reasoning and wisdom. God has authorized nothing of the sort and to engage in it is to corrupt the government of God’s Church, rebel against divine authority, depart from God’s ways, and denominationalize the church. The church cannot remain undenominational when its government is corrupted and human arrangements set aside divine authority.

The “sponsoring church” method of federating the efforts of the churches is but an example of such “intercongregational” arrangements. The Herald of Truth radio and television broadcast by the Highland Church of Abilene is such an arrangement. There are many others but this is an outstanding one. Brother Harper in the debates with Brother Tant tried to defend it as a scriptural organization. He tried to make out of it a local church and identify it with the pattern of New Testament church organization. But his defense was of the form of organization of the Highland Church and Dot of the Herald of Truth. The Highland Church has elders, deacons, and saints in it. He argued that this made the Herald of Truth scriptural. But in order to make this contention it was necessary that he contend such a position. However, he and they found to be indefensible and they abandoned it. In the debate at Birmingham on this issue Guy N. Woods threw this contention out of the window in his first speech on the Herald of Truth and argued that the work of Herald of Truth was the work of many churches and that one church had undertaken to take care of the details or manage it. This, of course, is the truth of the matter.

The Herald of Truth transgresses congregational boundaries. It has a brotherhood treasury; a brotherhood work; a brotherhood eldership. It is not a local church! It has its own treasury, its own name, its own address, its own employees, its own contracts, its own mailing permit, and its own program of work which cannot in any sense be identified as the program of a local church. This is so evident that it needs no argument to support it in the minds of the honest informed.

The very fact that such a work is “intercongregational” in its scope, financing, promotion, and nature makes it an unscriptural undertaking. All of the propaganda in the world cannot change that fact. If it were doing all of the good that they claim for it, and it is not, it would not justify such a denominational organization. Mr. A. T. DeGroot of Texas Christian University, refers to it as the Church of Christ Million Dollar Missionary Society. And he is right! That is exactly what it is! When any work or promotion crosses congregational boundaries it is a denominational affair.

This same thing is true of such promotions as the. “World’s Fair” advertising and evangelistic campaign. Under the direction of one group of elders, to whom God gave the right to govern and oversee only the program of work carried on by one congregation, they have amalgamated workers, and money from many churches. Some congregations in certain vicinities have become very enthusiastic over such a program and have sent their preachers and other workers to have a part in this “inter-congregational” promotion. It is bigger in every aspect than a local church. The fact that the eldership of a local church in New York City is directing it does not do away with the fact that it crosses congregational boundaries with abandon. In their zeal, without knowledge or respect for divine authority, those participating have become “workers of iniquity” which the Lord will not own in the last day unless they repent. Iniquity comes from “anomia” which means without authority or contempt for Divine law. This they are guilty of and they cannot successfully deny it. They have even lost the courage to try to defend it by the scriptures.

The modern projects called “Campaigns For Christ” are other setups that claim to be accomplishing great things. But, suppose they are, does that establish the scripturalness of them. Does the end justify the means? Shall we do evil that good may come? Some brethren evidently think so. One congregation, and there are several engaged in the business, through their preacher or some other promoter solicits money from many churches, in order that they might engage a preacher of the “Billy Graham” type, take charge of the advertising and promotion, engage workers from many congregations in a “personal work” high pressure campaign and hold an evangelistic meeting for another “church of Christ.” This is happening all around us. It has happened in Ventura and is to take place in Santa Barbara. Of course, the faithful of the Lord in neither place are counted in nor would they participate. But a high-pressure campaign ,is promoted and it crosses congregational boundaries. It is purely and simply a missionary society and putting it supposedly under the direction of a local preacher and a local eldership does not change its complexion one whit.

These are just a few of the modern day promotions that are leading the churches of Christ, many of them, into denominationalism. Their identity is being lost and complete apostasy ensues. Out of these unscriptural practices a new denominational body is emerging just as certainly as the missionary society and instrumental music gave birth to one (The Christian Church movement) more than a hundred years ago! Deny it if you can, and give us a chance and we will prove that you can’t do so successfully. Ugly epithets and a bad spirit will not answer the truth!

Truth Magazine XIX: 47, pp. 743-744
October 9, 1975

By John McCort

The question of Ecumenicalism and Fellowship before the church is one of awful moment. For my part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards the church, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Brethren, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not the things which so dearly concern their salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which to guide my feet; and that is the lamp of God’s Word. I know of no way to judge the future but by the Word. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with the kiss of loving words and promises of peace and unity. We have held the subject up in every light which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not already been exhausted? Let us not, I beseech, deceive ourselves any longer. We have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now upon us.

In vain, after these things, may we indulge in the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for compromise. If we wish to be free from apostasy; if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending; if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained-we must fight.

Shall we gather strength by irresolution or inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying serenely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? We have no alternative. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery to apostasy. Our chains are forged. Their clanking can be hear throughout the brotherhood. It is in vain to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry peace, peace-but there is no peace. Why stand we idle? What is it we wish? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of apostasy and eternal destruction? Forbid it, Almighty God!!

(Note: The preceding was adapted from Patrick Henry’s famous “Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Death” oration.)

Truth Magazine XIX: 47, p. 743
October 9, 1975

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Texas: “Did the Holy Spirit fall on the twelve only or on all the one hundred and twenty of Acts 1 and 2?”

Reply:

The answer to this query is of no mean moment. Pentecostal Holiness groups of every hue and dye appeal to Acts 1 and 2 as proof that Holy Spirit baptism is for believers today. They commence their contention by assuming that all the disciples were baptized in the Holy Spirit. From this springboard they leap to the conclusion that all disciples, all believers, in all ages were promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This baptism is often referred to as “the Pentecostal experience” by those of the modern day Pentecostal movement, though not by the New Testament. Thus, by showing that only the apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the Pentecostal theory is smitten at the root.

The Promise Was Made Only To The Apostles

In John chapters 14-16, Jesus promised the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, to certain ones. These were the apostles (Cf. Jn. 13:1; Matt. 26:20). “But when the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning” (Jn. 15:26, 27). Note that these ones to whom the Spirit was promised were to “bear witness.” These were individuals who “have been with me from the beginning.” Does that include anyone today? In Luke 24:46-49, Jesus said the apostles were “witnesses” who were to “tarry . . . in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.” These witnesses are the apostles who were empowered by the coming of the Holy Spirit upon them.

Further, Acts 1:1-8 presents the promise of Holy Spirit baptism as being made to the apostles and to no one else. The text says Jesus “gave commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen.” It was the apostles “to whom . . . he showed himself alive.” He was “seen of them” (the apostles). Jesus was assembled “together with them” (the apostles), and “commanded them (the apostles) that they (the apostles) should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which saith he, ye (apostles) have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye (apostles) shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. When they (the apostles) were come together, they (the apostles) asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them (the apostles), It is not for you (apostles) to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye (apostles) shall receive power, after the Holy Ghost is come upon you (apostles): and ye (apostles) shall be witnesses unto me” (Acts 1:1-8). The extent of Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 2 can be no greater than the promise of it in Acts 1. The promise was made to the apostles, so the reception was limited to the apostles.

Acts 1:1-8: is frequently misapplied by Pentecostal sects. They use it to show that Holy Spirit baptism is for believers today. They say they are guided by the Spirit of God. But how could the Holy Spirit lead them to contradict what the Spirit said in the New Testament? Either they or Luke is not guided by the Spirit in their claims. Who will say they are right, but Luke is wrong in the book of Acts?

Proofs From Acts 2

In Acts 2, every indication is that only the apostles were “filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.”

First, the pronoun “they” in verse one refers to the apostles in Acts 1:26.

Second, the multitude marveled “saying one to another, Behold are not all these which speak Galileans” (Vs. 7)? It is highly unlikely that all the nearly 120 disciples mentioned in Acts 1:15 were Galileans, but the apostles are specifically referred to as “men of Galilee” (Acts 1:11). Those who spoke in tongues were those who had been baptized with the Holy Spirit. Those who spoke in the languages were Galileans. The apostles were “men of Galilee.” So, the apostles were the ones who received Holy Spirit baptism.

Third, the mockers in the multitude “said, These men are full of new wine.” The 120 disciples included women (Acts 1:14, 15). The apostles were all men. The tongues speakers were “men.”

Fourth, the denial of drunkenness was made with respect to the apostles. Peter stood up with the other apostles and said, “These are not drunken as ye suppose” (V. 15). Since the denial was made concerning the apostles, the charge must have been made against them, not the 120. Only the tongues talkers were reproached and ridiculed, i.e., the apostles. Why not accuse all the disciples of drunkenness if all had received Holy Spirit baptism?

Fifth, Peter appealed to “witnesses” (V. 32). It was the apostles who were selected witnesses (Jn. 15:26, 27; Lk. 24:48; Acts 1:8, 22; 10:41).

Sixth, when the audience responded in remorse, they “said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do” (V. 37)? But why just ask the apostles if all the disciples were speaking as the Spirit gave them utterance?

Seventh, the obedient believers “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (V. 42). Why is it styled “the apostles’ doctrine” if the 120 disciples also delivered the teaching? The implication is that only the apostles spoke; they were the ones being guided into all truth.

Eighth, “many wonders and signs were done by the apostles” (V. 43). Why just the apostles? Compare Acts 4:33–“And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection.” “And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people” (Acts 5:11). It is not until Acts 6:8 that we find anyone but an apostle working miracles, and then it was after the hands of the apostles were laid on him (Acts 6:6). This is more than a little coincidental if all disciples received Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 2. Again, the compelling inferential evidence is that only the apostles received Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 2.

A Final Thought

Just suppose the above facts could be erased. Suppose the apostles and the 120 disciples received Holy Spirit baptism. What would that prove? It would not prove that Holy Spirit baptism is for believers today. This is the pleading of the present day Pentecostal party. To grant them that all the disciples in Acts 1:14, 15 were baptized in the Holy Spirit would still not erect their doctrine which says that such an “experience” is for believers today, for there is “one baptism” (Eph. 4:5).

Truth Magazine XIX: 47, pp. 739-742
October 9, 1975