Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Leroy. Garrett obviously designs his unity forums not only to explore concepts of unity but also to provide opportunity for cultivating fellowship across the lines. Because of the very atmosphere Garrett tries to generate at these forums, a speaker who did not share his basic concept of unity and fellowship across the lines would have to explicitly say so and would have to speak a distinctive message demonstrating the contrast.

Even then, many brethren question the expediency of appearing on such forums. Cecil Willis’ Sept. 1, 1974, letter to Garrett gives this evaluation,

“I am not optimistic at all that any good will come from the one-session type of discussions being held in the so-called `Unity Forums.’ There is not enough opportunity for probing of the positions taken. Furthermore, the open forums held afterward permit so many questions to be introduced that nothing is ever answered. I do not think 1 am going to participate in any more of .them. The short speech that one is permitted to make has less impact than one’s presence in such a meeting. I have seen nothing that even closely resembles the unity that is ‘of the Spirit’ resulting from any of the so-called ‘Unity Forums’ known to me.” (“There Will Be No Debate,” Imhoff Ave. (Port Arthur, TX) Messenger of Truth, Vol. 5, No. 9 (Sept., 1974), pp. 2, 3, 6, 7).

Apparently a good number of brethren share this evaluation. At the 9th Annual Unity Forum in Nashville, Tennessee, July, 1974, Garrett bemoaned the difficulty of getting men like James R. Cope and Homer Hailey to speak. The judgment of these experienced men should be weighed. On the other hand, little advantage can be reaped for the false unity movement by having the kind of speech delivered which David Edwin Harrell, Jr. delivered at the Reed Lectures for 1966. At the outset, Brother Harrell said, in part,

“. . . I believe in a literal and narrow interpretation of the Bible as the Word of God. My aim is the exact restoration of the ancient order of things …. the Bible should be, can be, and is literally understandable and . . . it should lead all men to the same conclusions.

“Any man who believes that he can find literal truth in the Scriptures must also believe that those who do not find the same truth are wrong. What follows is that such people are sinful. The next logical conclusion is that they will go to hell. The most onerous charge leveled against those who are members of the Churches of Christ is that they are bigots. It is frequently assumed that they believe that all who do not accept the truths which they find in the Bible will be lost. All members of the Churches of Christ do not have such an attitude, but I do. ” (Robert O. Fife, David Edwin Harrell, Jr., Ronald E. Osborn, Disciples and The Church Universal, pp. 34-35).

Harrell left no doubt as to specific applications, including “baptism for the remission of sins, the proper time for taking the Lord’s Supper, the biological qualifications of elders, distinctions between individual and congregational activities . . . .” Furthermore, since the theme of the speakers was supposed to center on the. “Church Universal,” he pointed out that actually he believed only the broup sharing the above “point of view . . . is the church universal.”

Certainly there are more favorable circumstances in which to declare the counsel of God than at the so-called unity forums. Yet if Garrett is willing to permit someone to declare such truths as Harrell presents above, in flat contradiction to recent heresy on fellowship, then we are willing to help him find speakers. A bushel basket full! And we (Steve Wolfgang and myself) told him so in Nashville. We shall see what we shall see about how many such speakers he really wants to appear. Certainly such speakers would appear like voices crying in the wilderness, but the more such voices the better.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 3, pp. 36-37
November 21, 1974

By Cecil Willis

Several years ago Norvel Young and Batsell Barrett Baxter compiled two volumes entitled Preachers of Today. At the time, I had absolutely no interest in such volumes, and these books often have been referred to as preacher “blow books.” But nonetheless, I have found myself resorting to them again and again for one purpose or another. Occasionally I have needed a photograph of a preacher listed therein; at times I have needed to know the correct spelling of his name, or to refer to some biographical data concerning him.

Two of the most useful books I have found in Restoration History are W. T. Moore’s History of the Disciples of Christ published in 1909, and John T. Brown’s Churches of Christ which was published in 1904. Everyone who has had occasion to study Restoration History, or to do any kind of research in the biographical field of early preachers surely has appreciated these books. One of their greatest values to historians today has been their large collection of good photographs of well-known and not-so-well-known brethren. In fact, some of the photographs which I used in W. W. Otey: Contender for the Faith were taken from these books.

Most preachers today are too modest to think that anyone would be interested in knowing what they look like, and something about their lives. But I have found every single one of the preacher-books which I have read to be most interesting. There have been perhaps a dozen or so such books published in the last century. The Preceptor recently has been re-running some pages from one of these old books; evidently great interest has been generated in reading these men’s brief biographies.

Recently I have been wondering if there might be enough interest on the part of preachers among us to publish such a book. I have in mind the publication of a good photograph, and a brief account of each preacher’s early life, – training, areas of work, and perhaps some kind of a permanent contact given. With such a book, it would be feasible to publish only 350 – 500 biographies of faithful gospel preachers. There are perhaps four times that many, in this country alone. However, some probably would not be interested in having an account of their lives included, but yet these same men would enjoy knowing something about the lives of other gospel preachers. Some might be completely opposed to such an idea. Certainly no one would pretend to pass judgment on the soundness or worthiness of men whom they do not even know. I would hope that no liberal preachers would want to appear in such a book. In fact, I suspect they know that the appearance of their picture in a book published by us would be a “kiss of death” to them in many places.

If you would like to see such a book prepared and published, write me concerning your interest. If there seems to be enough interest, we might proceed to advertise a little regarding it and encourage some positive response in order to see if such a publication project is feasible. I know I personally would appreciate having such a book. Within the last two or three days, I have had to seek some biographical information and a photograph of preachers. It is very difficult to find such items now. I believe that laying modesty aside (and some who pretend such modesty may not be as modest as they pretend), many of us profitably could use such a book. If you think this is a good idea and worth pursuing further write me. If you do not write, the idea will die with this last line of this article.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 3, p. 35
November 21, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Tennessee: “There is one Lord (Eph. 4:5 Jesus). Why did the early church call the Father, `Lord’ (Acts 4:26)? If the Father and the Son both are Lord, then what about the one baptism? Can it also be water and Holy Spirit baptism?”

REPLY:

Do you see the argument our querist has confronted and presented? Ephesians 4:5 says there is “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” A Pentecostal has evidently argued, “If the `one Lord’ is two persons (The Father and the Son are called `Lord,’ Acts 2:36; 4:26), why can it not also be true that `one baptism’ is water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism? If two persons are `one Lord,’ does it not follow that two elements, water and the Holy Spirit, may be `one baptism?’ ” With this argument, the Pentecostal seeks to establish Holy Spirit baptism. This is obviously the background of our inquirer’s question.

It is true that both the Father and the Son are addressed as Lord, but the “one Lord” of Ephesians 4:5 is Jesus. The apostle proceeds to refer to the “One God and Father” (Eph. 4:6). Compare 1 Corinthians 8:6, “But to us there is but one God the Father . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ.” Christ has been crowned as Lord or Ruler by the Father (Acts 2:36; Eph. 1:20-23). He is the “One Lord.”

However, if the “One Lord” includes the entirety of persons in the Godhead, as it very well may on occasion, it is at least a unity of nature, substance, character, purpose and work. Such oneness cannot be found in water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism. See the chart below.

FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT ARE ONE IN:

1. Nature – Deity

2. Substance – Spirit

3. Character – Holy

4. Purpose – Salvation

5. Work – Gospel

WATER AND HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM ARE TWO IN:

2. Purpose – Water baptism to save and Holy Spirit to reveal truth

3. Administration – Water baptism by man and Holy Spirit baptism by God

4. Time – Administered at different times (Acts 2:1-4, 38, 41; 10:44-48)

A Similar Argument

The fact that Jesus and the Father are called Lord “proves” that water baptism .and Holy Spirit baptism constitute the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5, according to Pentecostal doctrine. In Acts 5:3, 4, and 9, the Holy Spirit is referred to as “Lord.” So reasoning like. the Pentecostal, I see three who are the “one Lord.” Now, may I not argue that three baptisms, namely, the baptism of John, the baptism of Christ, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit are the “one baptism” of our text? Why not? Pentecostals will not accept the baptism of John and neither will I, but with their logic, one could “prove” that it is part of the “one baptism.” What proves too much, proves nothing; hence, their argument fails.

Two Immersions

The Pentecostal argument falls because it is two immersions. One is in water and the other is in the Spirit. Baptism is immersion; one immersion, one baptism. Another immersion in the Spirit (another element) is a second immersion, a second baptism.

To argue that two persons, Father and Son, are “One Lord” in an attempt to justify two immersions, two baptisms, as “one baptism” is to reason inconsistently. In order to have a parallel, two persons, Father and Son, must be one person. If two persons could be “one person,” we might be able to reason that two baptisms are “one baptism.” So, the parallel runs together. Two persons who are “one Lord,” one in authority, is not parallel to two baptisms which are called “one Baptism.” The parallel could only be established if the two persons were one person, not one Lord, and the two baptisms were one baptism. That last sentence is a confusing absurdity, but such are the consequences of false doctrine.

Jesus is the “One Lord,” and water baptism is the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 3, p. 34
November 21, 1974

By Larry Ray Haflay

 

Well, I see in Time Magazine, April 29, 1974, that “The 2.8 million member Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod continues to be racked by dissension between moderates and conservatives over a cluster of issues involving among other matters, literal biblical interpretations.” One cannot read about the “Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod” in the Bible, so he must keep abreast of it from the news magazines. Being a lowly member of the church of Christ (heavenly Jerusalem synod), I do not find it disturbing to hear that the Lutherans are being “racked” up. It is not that I am low on compassion, but some “conservative” souls enmeshed in “a cluster of issues” may decide to pick up the New Testament and find their way out of their “dissension” torn denominational dress. Who is to say that there are not a few honest, earnest truth seekers amongst “The 2.8 million member Lutheran Church?” Stranger things have happened.

 

Did someone remark that the devil must be behind the “dissension between moderates and conservatives?” I think not. Why would the devil want to stir up a good thing? He would rather have the Lutherans quiet and content in their peaceful human creeds and ceremonies. Now, some moderate-conservative, or possibly even a conservative-moderate, is liable to literally interpret his way out of the Synod bound religion into that of the New Testament order. If the devil ever finds out which one- of his imps instigated the dissension, he will convict him of sin, digression and iniquity and attempt to have him banished to heaven!

 

Which brings me to my subject of the liberal, institutional church of Christ (Abilene-Nashville Synod), which “continues to be racked by dissension. . .over a cluster of issues involving among other matters, literal biblical interpretations.” The conservatives among the liberals are on their hind legs seeking to slap down their modernistic children. Some of the “where-there-is-no-pattern” brethren of the 50’s and 60’s are the “give us Bible authority or give us death” patriots of the 70’s. The ultra-liberals will give them death. (Just ask W. L. Totty, a case in point.) Bible authority is something the youthful sages were bred and raised to avoid and evade concerning church support of human organizations, sponsoring church agencies, and church supported entertainment and recreation. Guy N. Woods, W. L. Totty, B. C. Goodpasture, and other pathetic first-generation-liberals are now the “antis” to their offspring.

 

For a time, at least, the old liberals will eloquently defend their cause against innovations of their innovations. Challenges for debate will be hurled by the older generation. Some will agree to meet the old, liberal war horses in conflict. And they will be skinned and hung out to dry. But time is on the side of the forces of error. The tide is coming in. It cannot be detained and restrained. It will further wreck the ship and erode the shore. It took. twenty-five years for the liberals to grow their crop. That crop is nigh unto doing some plowing and planting of its own. Their seeds are pious and popular. They will bear wild fruit. As the Missionary Society bore its children who in turn begat the Christian Church, the Father of the present day “Disciples,” so the Benevolent Society has borne its children. The children of this new age will also father further apostasy. Give them twenty-five years, and you will see; unless, of course, you are blinded by tears over what has happened-again.

 

Truth Magazine XVIII: 2, p. 29
November 14, 1974