Truth Magazine

By Luther Blackmon

J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, has repeatedly told us that the greatest factors in preventing juvenile delinquency and crime are discipline and the influence of religion in their lives. Statistics show that a very small percentage of the people in our penal institutions have ever attended church regularly. Less than five percent, I believe. But parents are not impressed. Only 51 percent of the people in this country are even “church related,” as they put it. And only a small percentage of the 51 percent attend worship more than three times a year. In the church of Christ, you can find as many who don’t attend as you can find who do. It would be safe to say that less than 25 percent of the youth attend worship except on “special” occasions. The one thing that would exercise the greatest influence in their lives to keep them from crime and delinquency, to say nothing of the salvation of their souls, the parents don’t give them. They give them money to spend, parks, playgrounds, dance halls, country clubs and nearly everything else that appeals to the flesh. But the one thing that has proven most effective, they deny them: The example of godly, church-going, Biblereading parents.

There are many reasons for this. One is the utter spiritual bankruptcy of these parents. They care nothing for God until tragedy strikes them or they think they are going to die. Dad spends $25 or $50 a year for newspapers and knows all about current happenings. Mother may belong to the Book of the Month Club, or spends long hours at canasta or some other game. The children know about science fiction and Elizabeth Taylor. The spend an average of 36 hours a week in front of the T.V. set – smaller children. But the Bible is a keepsake. It is the depository for old pictures and locks of hair. Not much chance of their being lost there because that is one book that is seldom touched. On the Lord’s day these parents are too tired to go to worship. So they wash the car or cut the grass or play a game of golf or visit some friends or play poker while their children observe the fine examples their parents are setting. This sort of conduct is understandable in parents who deny the existence of God, heaven or hell, and who believe that the Bible is folklore. But for parents who recognize that their children have not only a body and an intellect, but also a soul, there is no excuse. There is no city of refuge where they may hide when the day of reckoning comes. Juvenile crime is constantly on the increase. But don’t blame the kids too much. They did not ask for the kind of parents they have.

(Written several years ago)

By James Sanders

Friendship is one of the more noble treasures of life. There is nothing quite like a good friend. When adversity strikes, the good friend is constant. He is the same whether we are in wealth or in need: “A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity” (Prov. 17:17). Friendship improves happiness and abates misery. It doubles our joy and divides our grief (Addison). Two are better than one.

Comfort and Candor

Friends are for comfort but friends are also for candor: “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Prov. 27:6). There is a sincere frankness’ between friends-a frankness tempered with tenderness. Friendship is something that is built through a labor of love. It is the work of a lifetime. We are bound to other men by every ‘sort of tie: by blood, by fear, by admiration, and by circumstances. But friendship finds its bonds in the tenderness of the heart. Friends are truthful. The friend who will not openly rebuke us is not worth the name. And the man who gives counsel without respecting our feelings, likewise is not our friend.

Close friendships are rare and therefore the more precious. Jonathan’s friendship for David was an once-in-alifetime blessing for both. Jonathan loved David as he loved his own soul (1 Sam. 20:16). And when Jonathan died, David lamented, “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women” (2 Sam. 1:26). The death of Jonathan was an irreparable loss. David never again had another friend like Jonathan. “The loss of a friend is like that of a limb; time may heal the anguish of the wound, but the loss cannot be repaired” (Southey). Close friends are rare and are few. A host of acquaintances is not what helps us. A few close friends are better and stand in a class by themselves: “A man of many friends comes to ruin, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother” (Prov. 18:24, NASB).

Warmth and Joy

The warmth of friendship is the best blessing of all. There is that healthy clash between friends which invigorates the soul: “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend” (Prov. 27:17). Friendship is too good to be believed. Remember how your heart leaped the last time you saw the face of an old friend you had not seen in years? Remember your laughter and your tears-and how time itself seemed to stand still? There was neither Winter nor night as both of you relived the memories of the past. This is friendship and friendship at its best. Heaven will be like’ this. When we cross the River of Death, our friends will be on the other shore to welcome us. “At last!” they will shout. But no one will weep for there are no tears in that country (Rev. 21:4). Friendship sharpens the countenance. Friendship touches the heart and makes nobler men of us all. Friendship is one of God’s good gifts.

Because friendship is precious, it needs to be cherished. We take care of our health; we lay up our money and make our roof tight. But we neglect the best property of all-our friends. Friendship must be cherished. It is worthy of respect. It is worthy of courtesy. It is worthy of tact. There are certain bounds beyond which not even a good friend should venture. It is easy to outstay our welcome in more ways than one: “Withdraw thy foot from thy neighbour’s house; lest he be weary of thee, and so hate thee” (Prov. 25:17). Friendship needs to be cherished and never betrayed. The disgrace of Judas lies in that he betrayed a good friend. His deed has ever since lived in infamy. Not even the soldiers who crucified Christ are remembered like Judas. Friendship is a sacred trust.

(Credit should be paid to Derek Kidner, The Proverbs. His comments were most illuminating. The essay, “Friendship,” by Ralph Waldo Emerson was also rich with suggestions. Some of the thoughts and words I used were from the pen of Emerson.)

By Larry Ray Hafley

This scriptural title was used recently “By Rev. Bruce Cummons, Pastor, Massillon Baptist Temple, Massillon, Ohio,” in an essay on John 3:5. “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” The relevance and pertinence of this passage is clear. “The subject and doctrine of the new birth is all-important. Jesus said that except a man be born again, he cannot enter into God.” Thus, the significance and importance of this study is as great as entering into the kingdom of God.

Purpose of This Theme:

“The purpose of this sermon in to clarify the meaning of the words representing the two agents absolutely essential in the new birth, as set forth in John 3:5, namely water and the spirit. (Observe that Cummons considers these two agents “absolutely essential.” Fine, we shall hold to that:) “I especially want to deal with the fifth verse and its proper interpretation.” (Remember, now, whatever is “proper” is Aabsolutely essential.@)

“Water and The Spirit”

1. General Premises: Mr. Cummons rejects the theory that being born of water is a reference to physical birth. In this, he is correct. He arrives at his special and specific conclusion by these general means. First, he reads the text, context, and related passages. Second, he prays. Third, he turns to Greek texts. “Finally, I pull every book off my library shelf that might have a sermon, a paragraph, a sentence, or a word, concerning the text at hand … Following this plan I have put John 3:5 to the test. . . .”

2. Specific Conclusion: Mr. Cummons quotes his “old seminary professor. . .concerning John 3:5: `There is no need for confusion as to the meaning of water in verse 5… water is a symbol of the word of God. Ephesians 5:26 tells us distinctly, ‘The washing of water by the word.’ Titus 3:5 further emphasizes the same truth – ‘the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.’ He tells us it is with the Word, which is the instrument, and the Spirit who is the agent that one is regenerated. Water symbolizes the Word.” (Dr. Louis Entzminger, Studies In John’s Gospel). Cummons quotes A. C. Gaebelein, H. A. Ironside, and Dr. Lehman Straus to the same effect. Then, Cummons comes clean and postulates. “I state clearly that water in John 3:5 is representative of the Word of God.”

So, Cummons states it “clearly.” His authorities do likewise. Ephesians 5:26 and Titus 3:5 are cited to prove (1) that “the words of our Lord have nothing to do with baptism,” and (2) that “Water in this passage (Jn. 3:5) is the figure of the Word of God.”

My, my, that does make it rich! The Lord meant “Word,” but he said “water.” Paul did the same thing in Ephesians 5:26, according to Cummons. Paul said Christ cleansed the church “with the washing of water by the word.” (Eph. 5:26) But Paul meant “Word” when he said “water.” Was the Lord able to say “Word” if he meant “Word?” Why say “water,” if he meant “Word?” Was Paul unable to say “Word” in place of “water?” But if Cummons is correct, we have Paul saying Christ cleansed the church “with the washing of word by the word.” Now, if Paul said “water” but meant “word,” why can I not say in the last phrase when he said “word” he meant “water.” So, with the Hafley and Cummons amendments, Paul said, “with the washing of the word by the water,” and we are back where we started.

Further, if Jesus said “water” in John 3:5 but meant “Word,” how does Cummons know that he actually meant “Spirit” when he said “Spirit” in John 3:5? Just suppose I were to argue that Jesus meant water baptism when he said “Spirit?” If Cummons claims “water” means “Word,” how could he deny Hafley’s hunch that “Spirit” is water baptism?

“Of” Argument

“Rev.” Cummons makes an argument on the preposition “of” that I think little “of.” Says he, “Read John 3:5… Notice that in one instance the little preposition ‘of’ is in italics. This means it was not in the original language but was placed in the text by the translators. Now, if you will read the text, leaving out the italicized word ‘of,’ you will see what I mean by the words ‘water’ and ‘spirit’ being used together to mean one thing.

“‘Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'” “There is only one preposition ‘of’ used with ‘water and spirit.’ Since there is just one preposition governing the entire phrase, this points to the fact that the words ‘water and spirit’ are to be regarded as one thing and not as two separate things. Both of these things joined together as one are absolutely essential to the new birth!” (“Absolutely essential,” eh? Well, we will mark that down.)

Where, oh where, is Cummon’s scholarship? Why did he fail to cite a scholar who says the absence of a second “of” means the two things are actually only one and the same thing. However, 1 John 5:6 says Christ came “by water and blood.” Does the absence of a second “by” mean that water and blood “are to be regarded as one thing?” No, therefore, we wave “by(e), by (e)” to that argument. Compare also Rev. 5:9; 7:9, 11:9 – “of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” “Since there is just one preposition governing the entire phrase,” does this point “to the fact that the words… are to be regarded as one thing and not as two separate things?”

Cummon’s Confusions or Scholars’ Conclusions

Cummons quotes Eph. 5:26 and Titus 3:5 and concludes, “The foregoing texts of Scripture have no reference to baptism! They speak of the word of God… used by the Holy Spirit as one and the same power. . . .” It was Cummons who said “with the help… many. . able scholars” he was given “an insight into the original Greek.” Let us see some “able scholars” Cummons would do well to envy. And lest we forget, the elements of the new birth are ‘absolutely essential.”

John 3:5

“There is not one Christian writer of any antiquity in any language but what understands it of baptism. And if` it be not so understood it is difficult to give an account how a person is born of water, anymore than of wood…. All the ancient Christians (without the exception of one man) do understand that rule of our Savior (John 3:5) ‘Verily,’ verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, ” of baptism…. I believe Calvin was the first that ever denied ,this place to mean baptism. He gave another interpretation, which he confesses to be new” (Wall. History of Infant Baptism, Vol. I, pp. 92, 443).

“There can be no doubt, on any honest interpretation of the words, that gennethenai ek hudatos (born of water) refers to the token or outward sign of baptism – gennethenai ek pneumatos (born of Spirit) to the thing signified, or inward grace of the Holy Spirit. All attempts to get rid of these two plain facts have sprung from doctrinal prejudices, by which the views of expositors have been warped” (Dean Alford, Greek Testament, Vol. I, p. 714).

“The convert is immersed in the material and spiritual elements, rises newborn out of them, and enters into the kingdom. . . .Of the two elements, water signifies the purifying power, spirit the life-giving power: the one removes hindrances, making the baptized ready to receive the other (Acts 2:38; Tit. 3:5). Note that ek is not repeated before pneumatos, so that the two factors are treated as inseparable” (Plummer, Cambridge Greek Testament, The Gospel of John, p. 102).

“. . the necessity of baptism in order to participation in the messianic kingdom (a doctrine against which Calvin in particular, and other expositors of the Reformed Church contend) has certainly its basis in this passage” (H.A.W. Meyer, Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. III, p. 124).

” If brother Vaughn convinced us that born of water refers to anything but the baptism of one previously born of the Spirit, we never knew it,. . It means nothing else, and no Baptist that we ever heard or read of ever believed otherwise until A. Campbell frightened them away from an interpretation that is sustained by the consensus of all scholars of all denominations in all ages” (J. R. Graves, Tennessee Baptist, May 17, 1884.)

“By water, here is evidently signified baptism. Thus the word is used in Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5” (Albert Barnes, Barnes On The New Testament, Luke John, p. 210).

Conclusion

Other authorities could be cited, but the above will suffice. Let it be observed that the Lord’s statement in John 3:5 can be interpreted in light of other things He said concerning entrance into the kingdom of God. In Matthew 7:21, He said that only those who do the will of the Father shall enter into the kingdom. In Matthew 18:3, he said the disciples must be converted before they could enter the kingdom. These are all different wordings of the same fact, i.e., how one obtains entrance to the kingdom of God. One must be converted, do the will of the Father, be born again.

Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). An apostle of Christ, speaking as the Holy Spirit gave him utterance said, “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 2:38). Ananias, a man sent of God, told Saul of Tarsus, “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). So, even if we could exclude baptism in water from John 3:5, we could not wring and wrest it out of these plain statements of Scripture.

In view of this, how can one read either the scholars or the Scriptures and conclude that baptism is anything less than “ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL?”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:43, p. 10-11
September 5, 1974

By Steve Wolfgang

Dear Brother Bill,

It is with a sense of trepidation and not a small amount of chagrin that I compose this letter. I have refrained from doing so since your promotional session in Louisville last December. But after continuing to see, in issue after issue of the Guardian (since I am not one of those who quits reading whatever he disagrees with), journalistic pot-shots, sideswipes, and hit-and-run tactics, under cover of a strange kind of “piety,” I feel a need to register a “second-generation pulse rate.”

As one who has attended and spoken at several “unity forums,” who reads the literature of the “unity faction” in the Restoration Movement (e.g., Mission Messenger, Restoration Review, Integrity, and Mission), and who has had occasion during the course of both private study and formal schoolwork to grapple with the questions implicit in the severing- of fellowship and maintaining the existing ruptures; I can understand (although I do not condone) the inclination of some so-called “second-generation preachers” (including some of my closest friends) to be swept away with all the rhetoric. What I do not understand is how some of the older, more experienced men (including yourself) have apparently been affected as well; I would like to think that you know better. I have respected your ability since the days when you preached in Indianapolis during, my high school years-but I must confess that events of the past several months have left me perplexed, amazed, and frankly, appalled.

First, I fail to understand why you would label a man (Brother Cecil Willis), for all practical purposes, a liar when what is involved is only a memory lapse-and the lapse is yours, Brother Bill, not his (I speak with reference to the alleged “most of the night discussion” in your article, “Editor Willis’ Pleasant Task,” Gospel Guardian, December 6, 1973). I do not know all the details of how late you stayed, but I do know what I saw and heard for myself-a tired, red-eyed Bill Wallace early one morning at Cecil’s home, who, when asked, declined to feel anyone’s pulse on grounds of fatigue due to “being up late last night talking.” (I do not recall the exact words, but this was the gist of the conversation). Now Bill, it may be that your memory, and Cecil’s (and mine, for that matter), are defective, but why label a man-especially one with whom you have worked so closely in the past-a common liar over something like that? I do not agree with everything Cecil has done or does, either-and certainly he can take care of himself-but I fail to find any basis for such a slanderous charge.

While I am on the subject, I recall a comment you made shortly after one of those early “pulse-feeling” trips:”

A visit with Cecil Willis of Truth Magazine, in Marion, Indiana; was a highlight of the Indiana trip. It is always great to visit with him. He is a man of God who has the best interests of the Cause of Christ at heart, always. . we engaged in lively conversation about brotherhood affairs and his counsel is highly beneficial. (“The Pulse of the Brethren (II),” Gospel Guardian. October 9, 1969, p. 362).

What has Cecil done to change so drastically,(into an arrogant power-wielder, manipulating brethren and doing despite to the body of Christ while ascending to the titular headship of a sect, as you have recently portrayed him)?

Second, this entire business of nit-picking and introducing irrelevancies (who was where, when, and with whom; who stayed at Cecil’s home how long; who sold Bibles (or sacked groceries?) in St. Louis during which summer; etc., etc., ad infinitum et nauseam) into the discussion reflects a disappointing unwillingness to deal with issues that have been clearly, and sincerely, called to the, brethren’s attention just dump a kettle of red herrings into the water and you are off the hook, so to speak.

Additionally, the old “rubberstamp” approach’ seems to have resurfaced-just label someone’s argument ‘with an emotionally loaded term and one need not deal with the scriptural principles involved (as in “good works,” “Sommerism,” “anti,” etc.). In this case, substitute labels such as “legalism,” “spiritual , cannibalism,” “sectarianism,” “brotherhood manipulation;” etc., and you are henceforth excused from further discussion. Or, you can publicly and piously proclaim “withdrawal” from open skirmish and continue to pot-shot from behind the trees with every weekly issue. (With articles like, “On False Teachers, Centralization of Power, Works of the Flesh,” “Spiritual Manslaughter,” “Paul and Controversy” “Any Pharisees Around?” “Confused about Calvinism?” “Journalistic Ethics,” etc., etc., who do you think you’re fooling; by proclaiming a “withdrawal”?)

Third, and by far the most bothersome aspect of the controversy, is the apparently pervasive nature of the false teaching being done. What you presented in Louisville as being “Ed Fudge’s positions” seems to have been, at least partially accepted and endorsed as your own. You use the same quotations, interpret key passages (such as Romans 4, 1 John 1, etc.) in the same manner (as in “Confused about Calvinism?”, February 7, 1974; “On Friendly Terms with God,” March 14, 1974; “What is Walking in the Light?”, April 18, 1974; and others), and otherwise seemingly sympathize with Ed’s positions or protect him (why, who knows?) by attempting to classify his view on Calvinistic or Reformation positions (such as the imputation of the personal righteousness of Christ to the believer) as no more important than the means of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, or things practiced privately by individual Christians which do not affect corporate congregational activity, or the means by which God saves men (as in “On False Teachers . . .,” June 13, 1974, and “How Sound are You?”, May 2, 1974). Ignoring for the time being the moot question of whether men such as Burns, Sommer, and Whiteside have been quoted or referred to entirely within context, I am left with the same question I asked Brother Fudge at Lawrenceville, Georgia, in August, 1972; (the answer to which question introduced me to Edward’s “meek and quiet spirit”): “If you accept a person’s premises and use the same scriptures, arguments and quotations to bolster the position, how can you avoid arriving at the same conclusions?” The point is not (as some would like to think) a smear campaign to indict by unfavorable association but similarity of teaching.

It is saddening to me to contemplate the possibility that Bill Wallace has been affected by the rhetoric being flung around today with reference to fellowship, but I don’t think I’m the only one who smells the smoke! As I recall, the only response you made to Cecil’s quotation (“Tell Us It Is Not So,” Truth Magazine, April 26, 1973) of Leroy Garrett’s report that you were “reexamining” your position on fellowship, finding your former position “too difficult to live with” (“Mini-Meeting Trail: Texas Style,” Restoration Review, September, 1972) was to label Leroy as a source “ordinarily considered) unreliable or prejudicial in journalistic reporting” (“We Are Under Attack-(I),” Gospel Guardian, July 19, 1973). Now of course I do not agree with Leroy Garrett on most issues, I suppose, but I see no reason why he should lie about such an occurrence. While he may not be doctrinally “sound,” he is a personable gentleman, at least in my experiences in being around him, and I see no reason to question his veracity. It seems somewhat strange to me that everyone with whom your memory conflicts is out of step–Cecil Willis, Leroy Garrett, Jim Cope, James Adams, Roy Cogdill (as in “Why?”, Gospel Guardian, December 13, 1973)-except Bill Wallace! “Why,” indeed, Brother Bill?

I find it difficult to believe that someone as seasoned and historically well-informed as Bill Wallace cannot see the source and implications of the shopworn Calvinistic concepts which are being utilized to attempt to justify a wider fellowship. But I suppose if everyone could see the implications and end products of his actions, there would be no digressions. Failure or inability to look ahead, to stop digression the only place it can be stopped-in the very beginning-of such is the very stuff of digression.

Can we not discuss the issues, Brother Bill, calmly and fairly, even if others may choose not to do so? Or must we, as you expressed yourself to me several months ago, “fuss for awhile” and then merely attempt to ignore problems and issues by dismissing them as prideful “preacher squabbles”? I pray not. If the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ to the believer is correct and scriptural; if it is, in fact, virtually if not altogether impossible for a Christian to fall “out of the state of grace,” or to cease to “walk in the light;” if we have, in time past, 2 John 9; then let us come out openly and squarely deal with those issues and attendant ones, instead of implicating by innuendo and insinuation (the tactics of false teachers in every age). Certainly, if any issues bear open investigation, these do! May God help us to have eyes to see, ears to hear, and the strength of His might to stand upon His truth!

P.S.

Bill-

I would be interested to have you respond to this Aopen letter” in any way you see fit, even if you choose not to print it in the Guardian (as I suspect you will not). I have contemplated writing it for a good while (it was not composed hastily) and finally just read “too much” in the Guardian. But I would appreciate a response, if only a letter.

Also, you mentioned several issues ago that you had recently been studying some material pertaining to the church in the first half of the twentieth century. Since I am doing the same kind of thing (1900-1940) for my Ph.D dissertation at Vanderbilt, I would be interested to hear any observations you might care to make, or to know of any interesting material you may have come across.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:43, p. 8-9
September 5, 1974