Truth Magazine

By Lowell Blasingame

I like the American system of trial by jury, yet I recognize that juries do not always render fair and equitable verdicts. In the May-June, 1974 issue of Herald of Truth International Brother, Reuel Lemmons writes under the heading of Broadcast Evangelism in defense of Herald of Truth. Several statements merit comment, but the paragraph that is most striking to me is the one next to the last which reads as follows:

“Highland and Herald of Truth have been through some rough waters recently. The case went to the brotherhood jury for judgment through scores of inflammatory articles and `statements.’ The jury has been out long enough now to signal a verdict. And it has. Receipts for Herald of Truth January 1, 1974, through May 1, have been roughly $100,000 more than for the same period a year ago-up 20 per cent. The brethren have decided that this program should go, on-and by the grace of God it will.”

That Highland and Herald of Truth have gone through some rough waters is not denied. I have received and read some of the articles and statements that Brother Lemmons calls “inflammatory.” Which side; if either, has completely told the truth about the degree in which liberalism has infiltrated the Highland church, and the charges relative to control of Herald of Truth, is a matter which I have not been able to determine. Whether Highland’s elders “watergated” the matter and told us only what they had to, or whether we received the full story, are matters open to question.

Brother Lemmons thinks that the brotherhood has served as jury and decided as reflected in a 20 percent increase in contributions that Herald of Truth should continue. I, for one, am a wee bit leery of allowing the brotherhood to serve as a jury in deciding whether the sponsoring church arrangement for cooperation of churches should continue. I believe that church history will verify that a little. over a century ago a brotherhood jury gave its endorsement to the missionary society and the use of instrumental music in worship. Neither do I consider an increase in financial support a safe rule for determining the Scripturalness of a project. By this same rule, we might build a defense for the “Oral Roberts Show,” “The Hour of Decision” or “The Lutheran Hour.” These, too, have experienced an increase in financial support over that of last year.

There are still some brethren who are more concerned about Bible verdicts than they are about brotherhood verdicts. They are still interested in what the oracles of God say (1 Pet. 4:11) and in refraining from going beyond the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 9). For some strange reason, I still like that attitude and do not feel badly about questioning a jury’s verdict when it differs with the oracles of God.

Truth Magazine XIX: 12, p. 189
January 30, 1975

By Roy E. Cogdill

The mission of Christ into the world was fully accomplished. He will not be reincarnated to dwell on Earth. He will come a second time to award salvation to them that wait for Him.

For four thousand years the world looked forward to the Coming of Christ. It was heralded by all the prophets as the hope of the race. Every event in Old Testament history was made converge into the design of His Coming. It was the event of supreme importance. Any doctrine, the consequences of which make the Lord’s first coming a failure, is pernicious, and cannot be ignored as some are wont to do.

We want in this article to contrast the Lord’s first coming in both manner and purpose with what the Bible has to say concerning His second coming. The text suggesting the basis for such a contrast is Hebrews 9:2728: “And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment; so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for Him unto Salvation.”

The First Advent

Our text declares that Christ “was once offered to bear the sins of many.” This is the foundation of the Gospel of Christ. Paul preached that Christ died for our sins, “According to the Scriptures.” God’s law had been violated. Death was required as a penalty. Christ died in our stead. That is the doctrine of atonement.

The scriptures declare that Jesus came into the world to destroy the works of Satan. “To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil” (1 John 3:8). The destruction of the works of the Devil was the very purpose of Christ’s first coming. Premillennialism teaches that Christ will come again to accomplish that purpose. A mighty carnal war will be waged by Him at the time of His second appearance, in their scheme, for the purpose of accomplishing what he came the first time to do, viz., put down Satan, destroy his works, and establish His Kingdom. That means that he failed to accomplish this at the time of His first advent; that instead of conquering he was conquered, and instead of being exalted and crowned in His ascension to the Father, He went home in defeat and humiliation. What other conclusion can such a doctrine have?

That is not all. Christ came into this world and was made flesh and blood in order “To bring to naught him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14). Premillennialism teaches that He will triumph over Satan and bring him to naught, at His second coming; again proving that they regard the first advent of the Lord a failure. Such consequences cannot be overlooked, nor excused with any regard for truth.

The Bible not only declares that Christ came into the world to “destroy the works of the devil” and to “bring Satan to naught” but, according to the Scriptures, he succeeded in accomplishing this. Paul declares in Colossians 2:15 that He “despoiled the principalities ,and the powers, and made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it,” and in Ephesians 4:8 he.; said “when He ascended on high, He led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men.”

Jesus said: “But no one can enter the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man.” Jesus came to destroy the works of Satan (1 John 3:8). This he could not do without binding Satan (Mark 3:27). He accomplished his purpose (Colossians 2:15). Therefore Satan, the strong man, was bound. Satan has only the power and privilege that is yielded to him. “Each man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed” (James 1:14). “Resist . the Devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7). We have indeed been delivered from Satan’s power and bondage to sin.

The Second Advent

The second coming of Christ will be “to them that wait for him unto salvation” (Heb. 9:27). His promise is, “I will come again to receive you unto myself, that where I am ye may be also” (John 14:3). When He comes again, “even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him . . . then we that-are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:14-17).

We shall not know Christ after the flesh again for “though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more” (2 Corinthians 5:16). He will not, therefore, return to dwell in the flesh. Concerning His first coming, Paul says, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” But in sharp contrast, of his second coming he declares that Christ “shall appear a second time, apart from sin.” Those words can have no meaning if Christ comes back in the flesh to dwell on earth.

-The Gospel Guardian, February, 1936.

Truth Magazine XIX: 12, p. 188
January 30, 1975

By Jeffery Kingry

I happened to be paging through a bound periodical volume and came across an article I once wrote. In one of the bloated paragraphs I came across the following sentence, “In almost all of the Brotherhood’ papers and in some books written by brethren, there has appeared manifestly solecistic dogma.”

I laughed for awhile remembering the day that I constructed that sentence from a thesaurus, much like a do-it-yourself carpenter turned loose in a lumber yard. It must have been divine inspiration that produced that line, for even though the writer had not the foggiest notion what it was he said, he spoke the truth.

Manifestly: “that readily perceived by the senses: Easily understood by the intellect.”

Solecistic: “an ungrammatical combination of words in a sentence, a minor blunder in speech.”

Dogma: “something held as an authoritative opinion.”

What I think I was trying to say was that papers and books published by brethren sometimes contain error. What I actually said in my ostentatious effort to impress was that most of the papers contain obvious misuse of the English language-and that preachers cling to their “Goggledygook” with mistaken zeal.

The English language is a marvelous tool that can be used to produce great beauty and stir sensitive hearts to noble service. It produced poets like Robert Frost, and writers of force like Hemingway-men of economy and precision in their choice of words. But it is also the English language that produced pompous profundity, alliterative literature, and demonstrably loquacious erratica, counterproductive to the latter most calculated design inherent in utilitarian journalistic endeavors (Translated, “English can be genuinely obscure and trite too.”).

God makes “manifest.” The brethren have a tendency to “obfuscate” (Which is an overblown way of saying “confuse.”). The Apostle Paul gave us specific instruction in how we are to teach: “Even things without life, in giving sound, how shall it be known what is piped or harped except they give a distinction in tune? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle? So likewise, ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? For ye shall speak into the air” (1 Cor. 14: 7-9).

Indeed, if the words we use can not be understood without a dictionary-what have we accomplished? If our sentences are constructed to “impress” others with our knowledge and scholarship-what have we accomplished? If our sentences are a paragraph long, and our original thought is lost in our tortuous windings–what have we accomplished? Our words merely dissipate in the air like steam from a kettle and the thought is lost in the air.

Good words are like swords or arrows. They cut through the facade we all carry to protect ourselves from the deluge of words we face each day. Good teaching pierces and pricks and focuses our attention to the quivering shaft embedded in our heart.

Words should not be like hot taffy on sticky fingers-a nuisance and a bother, impossible to consume without great effort and persistence. Consider this piece of written taffy, “The suggestio verborum here asserted, is reduced to its right measure by didaktois; for that word excludes all idea of anything mechanical, and implies the living self appropriation of that mode of expression which was specifically suitabl6 both to divine inspiration and to its contents as an appropriation capable of being expressed in very different forms with different given personalities, and of presenting itself in each case with a corresponding variety.” I believe he is trying to say something about inspiration, but as many times as I have tried, it still sticks to the roof of my mouth, and I cannot swallow it.

Brethren who write should write to teach, to change wrong behavior-not to impress. Papers are an excellent means for getting widespread recognition. Politicians and movie stars know the value of public exposure and publicity. Politics is defined “shrewdness in promoting personal policy among people,” or as one editor once put it, “writing oneself into the confidence of the brethren.” When the teacher preaches for the sound and glory of himself, when he writes to be seen of men, he differs little from the self-serving politician, or the vain movie personality.

Now, for those of you brethren who will now return to compare my efforts with the standard, I want to go on record with the brother who once wrote: “My position now is and always has been in direct conflict to what has been erroneously and venomously attached to my writings by the scurrilous efforts of those intent on obfuscating my verisimilitude.” Amen.

Truth Magazine XIX: 12, p. 186
January 30, 1975

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

In their efforts to defend instrumental music in worship, some have argued that Christians like Clement of Alexandria in A. D. 190 favored the use of instruments in worship. They dispute the claim that the instrument was introduced into Roman Catholic services rather late and was unheard of in Christian worship until then. Burgess’ Documents On Instrumental Music takes this position. So does Dwaine Dunning in the Christian Standard, February, 1966. The matter is of upmost significance since in all of the literature of the church fathers, Clement is the only one who mentions it favorably and permissively. His quotation is the only one of its kind.

However, Clement was not talking about worship when he said, “even if you wish to sing and play to the harp or lyre, there is no blame.” The fact that he used Ephesians 5:19 only shows that he did not limit the passage to worship. Go to some preacher’s library or to the Public Library and get a copy of Clement’s works. It is found in Volume II of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. You will want to read Book II. As you read chapter one of Book II you observe that it is entitled “On Eating.” Chapter two is “On Drinking,” chapter three is “On Costly Vessels,” and chapter four is entitled, “How To Conduct Ourselves At Feasts.” It is in connection with chapter four that Clement makes his statement. He is therefore speaking in the context of a banquet arranged by Christians rather than a service involving worship. The chapter is a plea against making the feast into drunken brawls and “burlesque singing.” In this section Clement says, “let the pipe be assigned to the shepherds, and the flute to the superstitious who are engrossed in idolatry. For, in truth, such instruments are to be banished from the temperate banquet” (italics mine, jt). It is here that the quotation about not sinning if one plays on a harp or lyre occurs. Immediately after this he says, “and as it is befitting, before partaking of food (italics mine, jt), that we should bless the Creator of all; so also in drinking it is suitable to praise him on partaking of His creatures.” So Clement is talking about “partaking of food” and “drinking.” He is not talking about worship.

Those who use Clement are grasping at a straw. They will not look at the context and admit the clear import of the language. But even if they did have him by denying the context, they would have only one witness. There would be no case for them over the years and this is what they need. The church fathers, with the exception of Clement, unanimously opposed the instrument. They did this down to the middle ages. Apart from the New Testament, this constitutes the strongest argument that the Bible does not authorize the use of musical instruments in worship.

Truth Magazine XIX: 12, p. 185
January 30, 1975