Truth Magazine

By James W. Adams

All of us to one extent or another are creatures of prejudice, or “predisposition.” While imagining that we are independent thinkers, studiously logical, and quite objective in our appraisals, we have strong dispositions toward certain views, procedures, and organizations. These dispositions result from many things: rearing, custom or tradition, popularity of the thing in question, innate personality traits, etc. The cause may differ with different individuals, and whatever the cause the practical result is the same, but we all have predispositions. This fact should cause every man who desires to spend eternity with God to re-examine the spiritual ground on which he stands. Am I what I am and do I believe and practice that which I believe and practice because they are right and true, or because they are what I want to be right and true?

One of the universal tendencies of mankind has been to worship a God of his own creation. This can and is done without constructing a graven image of wood, stone, or precious metal. Many individuals professing to be a New Testament Christians who would consider it quite heathen to bow down to a graven image worship a God of their own creation. The Psalmist warned against this tendency when he quoted God as saying to the wicked: “These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such a one as thyself . .” (Ps. 50:21). Do we worship and serve God as He is revealed to us in His word? Or, do we worship and serve Him as we desire Him to be?

Frances Bacon wrote: “What a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope; the deeper things of nature, from superstition; the light of experience, from arrogance and pride, lest his mind should seem to be occupied with things mean and transitory; things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar. Numberless in short are the ways, and sometimes imperceptible, in which affections color and infect the understanding ” (Novum Organum via Logic and Language).

Jesus impressively taught in the “Parable of the Sower” that the “good seed” -“the word of God”-takes root and grows to fruition only in the “good and honest hear” (Lk. 8:11-15). The more strongly therefore we desire to believe a thing, the more carefully we should guard against being deceived by our own predisposition!

Truth Magazine XIX: 45, p. 716
September 25, 1975

By Irvin Himmel

Baptism is a command of the gospel. Jesus said to the apostles, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15, 16).

On Pentecost, the hearers of the gospel asked Peter and the other apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Peter answered, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:37, 38).

Paul preached the gospel at Corinth. Later he wrote, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. .” (1 Cor. 1:17). It is useless to baptize people unless they understand the gospel and the meaning of baptism. Paul’s preaching at Corinth resulted in many of the Corinthians hearing, believing, and being baptized (Acts 18:8).

After mentioning that in Noah’s time eight souls were saved by water, Peter wrote, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21). The New American Standard Bible translates this verse: “And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Today, when I preach that baptism saves through the resurrection of Jesus, therefore one must be baptized “for the remission of sins,” a somewhat common reaction is, “I cannot accept what you teach about baptism, because that would condemn my mother and father.” Perhaps the individual’s parents are deceased and he knows that they never were baptized in order to have forgiveness of sins. He is unwilling to obey the Lord in baptism because he feels that his obedience would be a testimony against his own mother and father.

Let us change the situation a little and apply the- same line of reasoning. I preach to a Jew that he must believe in Jesus as the Christ in order to be saved. Jesus said, “For if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24). I point out, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36). My Jewish hearer responds, “But I cannot accept what you preach about believing in Jesus, for it would condemn my mother and father who did not believe.”

Suppose I preach to a man from a backward African or Asian country that one must believe in God. After all, the Bible says, “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Heb. 11:6). This man replies, “I cannot accept what you preach about believing in God, for my doing so would condemn my parents who knew nothing of the God you preach.”

In each of these three parallel cases, the rejection of Bible truth is on the same ground: Condemnation of one’s parents. If the rejection in the first case has any validity, so do the other two.

An examination of this line of reasoning for not doing right, whether in relation to baptism, belief in Jesus, or belief in. God, prompts the following observations:

1. Our actions will not change the destiny of deceased parents. If our departed parents are rejected in the day of judgment, it will be their fault. When death overtakes anyone he has either prepared, or failed to prepare, for judgment and eternity. No one’s acceptance of the truth will alter the destiny of anybody whose life on this earth is already completed.

2. Our actions may help to save living parents. If our mother and father are still living and have not obeyed the gospel, we may be able to help them by our own example. We should think in terms of saving them rather than condemning them.

3. Each one must give account for his own life. Whether one’s mother and father are saved or condemned, or possibly one is saved and the other is condemned, every person is individually responsible before God. It is absolutely foolish to refuse to believe in God, or refuse to believe in Jesus who is the Son of God, or refuse to be baptized .into Christ,. on the ground that one’s parents did not do it. “So then everyone of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12).

4. Refusal to believe and obey the truth will condemn one’s own soul. Instead of saying, “I cannot accept what you preach, because it would condemn my mother and father,” one should realize that if the truth is being preached, the reaction should be, “If I do not accept this, I will condemn myself.”

5. God must come before our parents. Jesus said, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. . .” (Matt. 10:37). Some by their attitudes show more reverence for their parents than they show for God. The thoughts of the earthly father carry more weight with them than the thoughts of the heavenly Father. To please the Lord, we must to love Him more than we love father. and mother or brother and sister. This is the root of the problem in the hearts of some who do not obey God.

Truth Magazine XIX: 45, pp. 715-716
September 25, 1975

By Jeffery Kingry

This month I had the pleasure of spending three days with a fellow preacher who was holding a meeting in Salem, Ohio. We stayed in one of the brethren’s home just outside Lisbon.

It was in Lisbon, Ohio, on November 18, 1827, that Walter Scott preached the true Gospel for the first time to the assembled Baptists of the Mahoning Association. Every seat in the Baptist church building was taken when Scott arrived in Lisbon. The aisles and doors were jammed.

Earlier that year both Scott and Campbell had decided after diligent study, that baptism was for the remission` of sins. In conversation with Alexander and his father Thomas at Bethany, Scott became even more convinced that Baptism was a part of the plan of God’s salvation.

That evening Walter was preaching on Matt. 16:16, Peter’s confession of Christ’s Messiahship and Deity. One Baptist, William Amend, a diligent Bible student himself, had arrived late. He heard Walter Scott preaching on Acts 2:38 as he approached the building. With sudden and firm resolve he pushed his way through the crowd, made his way to the feet of the teacher and demanded to be baptized for the remission of his sins.

From this beginning the entire Western Reserve was turned upside down. Many heard the Gospel for the first time and obeyed it. The Baptists and other denominational groups were in an uproar. The Gospel had been planted in the hearts of men, and the natural fruit was coming forth. despite the tares of the wicked one.

The church building that Scott preached in is long gone today. The town of Lisbon is a sleepy, rural, Ohio community with no remembrance of the excitement of earlier days. There is no sound church in Lisbon today.

We traveled an hour or so down the road till we came to a small sign declaring with weathered assurance that “Bethany” was to the east. The road we turned onto was rough and narrow. The hills rose up on either side and we crossed Buffalo Creek at least four times as we wound up towards Bethany. It was in those waters on a warm June day in 1812 that Alexander Campbell, his father and mother, and three close friends were immersed for the remission of sins. The war of 1812 with Britain was in full swing, and one of the men who came to hear and see this, unusual spectacle left for a muster in town of the militia. He returned six hours later in time to see the baptisms. The Campbell’s had been preaching baptism since he left.

Bethany College was erected by Alexander Campbell several years later on land given to him by his father-in-law. Campbell gave ten acres to the school board and by October 1842, the first classes were held. The school had 102 students. Twenty classes were formed, the first meeting at 6:30 AM. The school bell rang at sunrise and every student was required to rise and start the day at that time. Every student dressed alike in gray or black in material “not to exceed six dollars a yard.”

The ideal behind Bethany was not to produce a theological seminary but “a literary and scientific institution, founded upon the Bible as the basis of all true science and true learning.” Bethany did not have a “Bible Department.” The Bible was taught in every class. Great men taught there, and great men were students there.

We drove on the campus and found a librarian that would permit us to look into the “Campbell Room” at the remains of Campbell’s library and papers. Old letters, ledgers, notes, papers and books were idly stuffed in cabinets and bookcases. The people who worked on campus had no idea of the heritage they had been bequeathed.

The receptionist thought we were looking for material on the inventor of the telephone because she kept referring to “Alexander Campbell Bell” no doubt confusing Graham with Campbell.

In our search for material to buy or be given we visited the religion professors in their offices. While the other preacher talked to them; I glanced over their libraries. There was nothing one wouldn’t find in any denominational preacher’s library: junk. The bulletin board in the hall advertised a new course in methods and theory of Civil Disobedience with a “practical lab.”

We made our way to the home of Campbell, his Bethany mansion. The house was old, rickety, and in disrepair. A house where generations of Campbell’s lived and died, where presidents slept, where great Bible discussions with great preachers went far into the night-now stands creaking and idle, a minor tourist attraction.

We ended our day in Bethany talking to a very old man, Wilbur H. Cramblet. Cramblet had his PhD from Yale before he was.21. He had taught in Kansas shortly after it became a state, about the time Roy Cogdill was born. He had been president of Bethany College, President of the Disciple’s Board of Publications, President of the West Virginia Missionary Society Board. His book, The Christian Churches (Disciple of Christ ) in West Virginia, was reviewed by Brother Willis in Truth Magazine (“No New Thing Under The Sun” Vol. 17, p. 99 & 115).

His books were mildewing in a damp basement. As we were going downstairs, he told us he was in the process of sorting his periodicals. We had visions of old unbound volumes of the Advocate going back to the last century, at the very least the Standard. But his periodicals were Newsweek, Life, and Sports Illustrated.

From the paraphanalia on his walls, Cramblet’s greatest joy was his association with the institutions he headed, the political figures he had met, and his longtime association with the Masons. His library was junkier and even more worthless than the religious department’s.

So What?

It struck me as we drove out of that isolated valley and its one gas-pump town, “How did Campbell change the face of America and touch so many lives? What is his heritage today?” Campbell as a man left little or nothing. If he were to return to Bethany Campus today, he would find a few crumbling books, yellowed creased papers stuffed into a cabinet. He might find a few sticks of funiture and odds and ends from his house. If he were to see the bar in the home of the president, the lasciviously clad girls walking about on campus, and view the place the Bible takes in the curriculum of their evolution and religion classes, he would probably stalk away in frustrated rage.

Campbell’s heritage was not in the college he founded, the papers he started, or the money he spent. Campbell’s heritage was a strong and defiant individualism that pointed men away from conformity to the word of God. The fruit of that is eternal and still growing today, because he turned men to the only lasting heritage we have. Solomon’s temple is gone, David’s battles are long gone, the pain and sacrifice of the Apostles has long since gone into the earth, but the heritage they left us through their teaching will bear fruit in eternity. Campbell was not inspired, but he like all men, went to the dust, and his works will follow him to eternity or to the dust.

Where will “our” colleges be 150 years from now? Or the papers, or the church buildings, or the houses we live in? Will our books, and papers, and personal possessions be rotting in a library or an attic, or long since hauled away to the garbage dump of the future? The only thing that endures is the soul of man. What are we doing about its future. Souls converted to Christ, washed in the blood of the Lamb, led from spiritual infancy to full maturity by preaching the full counsel of God, strong men standing behind the power of God: These are what stand for eternity. We are making the history of tomorrow and the substance of eternity now. “Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness” (2 Pet. 3:11)?

Truth Magazine XIX: 45, pp. 714-715
September 25, 1975

By Roy E. Cogdill

The undenominational character of the church revealed in the New Testament scriptures is easily apparent to unprejudiced minds.. The simplicity of it is evident. The government of God’s people can be set forth in a few simple sentences.

The church is the spiritual body of .Christ and He is its head (Eph. 1:22-23). The same passage affirms that Christ is the “head over all things to the church.” This simply means that he is the exclusive head-the only head-and that there is nothing which is any part of the church over which he is not head. The church is a realm where the authority and rule of Christ is absolute and complete. This eliminates Catholicism for the Catholic church claims two heads-Christ and the pope. That is one too many

The scriptures also reveal that there are not many bodies but “one” (Eph. 4:4). It is just as scriptural and right to teach that there are many Christs as to teach that there are many bodies. Yet this is the essence of protestant denominationalism. The entire denominational conception is that there are many bodies and one is just as good as another. This idea is as much a monstrosity as the two-headed body of Catholics.

Many brethren (or at least they were) today have the denominational concept of the church in their idea that the “churches of Christ” compose “The Church of Christ.” This is being heard on every hand. E. R. Harper of the Herald of Truth has ‘preached all over this country that the church is the army and the local churches of Christ compose the various battalions of that army. Carl Spain in an hour’s recorded speech argued that there is an “organic” connection or, relationship between all the churches of Christ on earth. That there is a spiritual connection in the relationship every Christian sustains to Christ would be undeniable but the idea of an “organic” connection tying all of the churches of Christ together is rank error and evident sectarianism. There is a film strip, with a record accompanying, put out by some of the brethren (the voice on the record is not identified) advocating that the church is the body-in a universal sense and that the member of the body, (the hand, for instance) represents the congregation. The recorder goes on to say that of course there are various members of the hand representing the individual members of the congregation. This is the attempted defense they make of the amalgamation and federation of congregations into the “co-operative” organizations that characterize the promoting liberal churches of today.

In one instance on a sign identifying the church as “The Church of Christ” there was a further point of identification-“The church with a complete scriptural program.” By this they meant simply that they were having a part in all, or at least all kinds, of federated programs promoted among the churches of today. They make this a point of identity. In the publication fathered by Batsell Barrett Baxter and M. Norvell Young -“Churches of Today”-their questionnaire seeks to establish their identity as a separate body by asking the churches to signify whether or not they believe in and support the institutional orphan homes (so-called) among us and the federated promotions in evangelism such as the Herald of Truth. These “Churches of Christ of Today” reminding one of the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, ” and one of these days they will identify themselves by some such distinctive title, have denominationalized themselves by this concept of the church as a universal body composed of smaller units (local churches) tied into the “main stream.” The church is the vine and congregations are the branches according to them. This is very little different to the concept that denominational preachers have contended for through the years, viz., Christ is the vine and denominations are the branches. One is just as scriptural as the other. The text (John 15) teaches, of course, that individuals are the branches not organizations.

Where in the Bible does anybody learn that the “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16) compose the “church of Christ?” Such teaching is not in the Bible and one who does not know the teaching of the Word of God better than that is incapable of teaching the truth to anyone.

Bible teaching sets forth each congregation or community of Christians in their own geographical locality as the church of Christ in the absolute and complete sense and if there were but one on earth instead of a plurality or multiplicity of congregations, it would still be the church of Christ in the exact sense in which the Bible uses that term. The church in a universal sense has no organic existence but is a common relationship that all the saved individuals on earth sustain to God, Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Some brethren in their ignorance are contending that one church of Christ can withdraw fellowship from another church of Christ. How can this be unless there are organic ties in some sense? You cannot sever what is not joined! The concept of universal federation and one church withdrawing from another grows out of the same error. One church might refuse to recognize another as a church of Christ, but this is as far as that can go scripturally. Brethren who are trying to stand for the truth against present day institutionalism need to see that they surrender their very ground when they contend for the right of one church to discipline another or disfellowship another.

The undenominational character of any church of Christ can easily be lost. Churches of Christ as undenominational in the fact that they have no denominational organization. Whenever any church made up of God’s people adopts human doctrines, human designations, or forms human combinations and organizations, it has already denominationalized itself and lost its identity as a “church of Christ” in reality.

The pattern of apostasy has always followed the same course. The devil infiltrated the Jewish nation with a corrupted idea of government. God was their king! But Satan planted in their minds the desire for another king, an earthly or human king, that they might be like the nations of the world. When they made this demand, although God let them have their way, they had actually rejected God as their king and corrupted their government. This led to their eventual ruin as a nation.

Moreover, when the church had been planted on this earth, and in Paul’s day the “spirit of iniquity” was already at work, the first thing Satan sought to do was to corrupt the organization of the church. Intercongregational ties soon corrupted the equality, independence and autonomy of the churches and gradually human doctrines and human methods of worship led them into complete apostasy. The devil knows that if he can get control of the organization of God’s people, he can have his way in all other regards.

In the great apostasy of the churches of Christ of the 19th Century that formed the Christian Churches and their denomination, the procedure, once again, was exactly the same. Satan corrupted the simplicity that is Christ’s by introducing the missionary society among the churches. Wherever it was accepted, this principle of forming a separate human organization to do the work God commanded the church to do, resulted in the corruption of the worship by adding instrumental music and eventually led into complete apostasy and denominationalism. The same spirit of “iniquity” is at work today. Iniquity is simply lawlessness or disrespect for divine authority. Evidence of it is apparent on every hand.

Truth Magazine XIX: 45, pp. 712-713
September 25, 1975