Truth Magazine

By Tom Oglesby

In a recent issue (April 11, 1974 of Truth Magazine), Cecil Willis quoted and severely criticized a short article which he credits to “an Ohio brother.” Since I am the author of the article, I think it appropriate that some response by made from my hand.

When a fellow has been “written up,” his first impulse might be emotionally to treat the matter as a personal insult. That is especially so if he feels he has been treated unfairly and if the criticizing journal and writer are ones for which he has great respect. I will have to admit that when I first read Brother Willis’ editorial, I was somewhat personally indignant. But that feeling has passed and now I want to make some thoughtful and reasoned comments about this editorial as a whole.

Brother Willis has always been a good writer, but he truly waxed eloquent in his descriptive verbiage of those who are apparently delinquent in their responsibilities as viewed by him. Note some of the descriptive terminology: “. . latecomers. . cowards . . . do not want to committed. . . waving the white flag … crying crocodile tears … down-right yellow … waited until everyone lined up before … (deciding) … which side I am going to be on … gain an ignoble record … ride the fence bury your head in the sand Brother Willis is usually very clear in his writing, but in this instance, I am not quite sure which of these adjectives and terms apply to me and which apply only to other brethren who have been deficient gospel defenders in past controversies. Like the fellow who was called a “loquacious homo sapien,” I am not sure if I have been insulted or not!

Let me give you some of the background for the article which I wrote. (It probably would be good if you would turn back to the April I I issue and re-read it). Several, months ago I began corresponding with a fellow about a possible debate on instrumental music. When no agreement about an oral debate appeared feasible, I suggested a written debate with the Gospel Guardian carrying the debate for the benefit of non-instrumental brethren and another journal carrying it for those who use the instrument. This correspondence began before the first exchanges were being made between Truth Magazine and Gospel Guardian. After the exchanges began, the fellow with whom I had been corresponding questioned whether or not I would be comfortable writing in the Gospel Guardian and about the same time the incident occurred to which reference was made in my short article. It was in this context that I wrote the article quoted by Brother Willis.

Since Brother Willis did not “review” my article but simply used it as a starter for his own, I wonder what part of it he considered to be in error. Cecil, you inferred that something was wrong with the article, but you really did not tell us what it was. Exactly what statement did you disagree with? When a man is called on the carpet, he appreciates knowing what he has done wrong!

Brother Willis writes: “. . someone might get the impression that some of us connected With Truth Magazine have asked this brother to line up with Truth Magazine.” I realize that. 1 can sometimes be dense and that I am not the brightest among the preaching brethren, but I just can not see where a fellow would get such an impression regarding Truth Magazine anymore than he would regarding Gospel Guardian. Cecil, did you get the impression that the Guardian has tried to line me up on their side? Aw shucks, Cecil, aren’t you getting a little sensitive? The only impression I tried to give is that when a fellow lines up on the side of the Lord, preaches truth and condemns error, he is fulfilling his responsibility to God!

Actually, there are a few things in Brother Willis’s article that bother me a lot more than his misuse of my article. I am afraid the blanket condemnation of men who did not immediately jump into past controversies did a great disservice to a number of brethren whose honesty and sincerity would not allow them to jump into a controversy just because this preacher or that preacher was already waging the battle. Many of these men burned the midnight oil for many months so that they could determine by their own study the truth on those matters. To reproach them as cowards and to question their spiritual courage is irresponsible and unfair. No doubt there were some who held back in spite of convictions until the battle had ebbed, but I am not about to accept that as being typical of most conservative preachers.

Cecil, your article gendered several questions in my mind that I would like you to give your attention to. First of all, do you question my position on grace and fellowship? If you do, I will be glad to straighten that out with a series of articles on either or both subjects. But you do not really need that. All you have to do is check with the brethren with whom I work. I believe they know where I stand just as anyone who has heard me speak on the subjects would know. In the past year, I have before witnesses marked and branded as a troublemaker the only person recently associated with the Bedford church who has been tainted with Ketchersideism. The Bedford church in unison has with my approval and encouragement publicly marked this man. Is this the way a man straddles the fence?

Secondly, do you mean by the tenor of your article that any man who has not jumped into print one way or another on the status of Edward Fudge or the Gospel Guardian has gone soft? Have we suddenly become spiritual patsies because our names have not yet appeared in print consigning these men to the conservative scrapheap? Have we all heard both sides to the extent that we can say we have given both a fair hearing? I may be slower than most, Cecil, but please give me time to study these matters (i. e. the soundness of the men involved; not the issues of grace and fellowship themselves) without being too anxious to question my motives. God knows that I am not stalling or straddling the fence but I simply will not be forced into a position on a man’s soundness without fully satisfying myself that I have reached the truth. I am sure some of you quicker thinking brethren are frustrated at the snail’s pace at which some of us reason, but we must come to our own judgment on the matter!

I am confident that I have lined up with the truth on the matter of fellowship and grace. I just imagine that I am also lined up with Cecil Willis when it comes to those two subjects and a great many others. But the time just has not come when another man is going to make my decisions for me, nor determine the amount of time or information I am going to need to make a decision. Should that day come, I think I would just move over with the liberals or the sectarians where the financial plums are bigger and convictions are not a drag on one’s behavior.

Cecil, may I speak frankly to you as friend to friend and brother to brother? I know the personal risk I run in being so critical of you because many brethren, myself included, greatly respect your work and efforts for the truth. But your article of April 11 bordered on pomposity and gave the appearance of one who sounded the charge, and then became indignant because all did not follow immediately. As stated in my previous article, I will “. . go on doing my local work as best I can, attacking error and false doctrine wherever I see it and hope that most of my brethren will do the same.”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:35, p. 2-3
July 11, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

Modern views of the conscience of man and the Scriptures of God are weighted in favor of conscience. The discerner and interpreter of truth is the conscience. The verdict of conscience is supreme, and if it seems to be out of harmony with the understanding of Scripture, then Scripture must be re-evaluated so as to coincide with conscience. This reverence for private conscience is another form of idolatry. If personal judgments supercede the word of God as supreme authority, the underlying roots of infidelity and moral anarchy will be enthroned under the guise of an inner, spiritual and reasonable faith. In this, each man is God and each, mind is the Bible. Under this system, the word of the Lord is a force at the mercy of the choice and caprice of the individual. Thus the spirit of conscience usurps and assumes the throne of authority. As judge he reigns and rules the congress of his own inner kingdom. He, invested with full power, decides the merits of the past and legislates and dictates the course of the future. The only court of appeal is himself.

It may be thought that the above reflects solely the idea of unbelievers, but it does not. Misunderstanding of grace and liberty in Christ causes one to unwittingly reject the authority of the Bible. Subverters and perverters of the work, worship and organization of the churches of Christ are allowed unscriptural liberties with the function of local congregations on the basis of their conscientious love and zeal. A mere conscientious love and zeal is not, however, an acceptable substitute for scriptural, conscientious love and zeal-let that not be forgotten.

Conscientious Sin

If human conscience is the hand that molds and forms the clay of divine Scripture, there could never be sincere sins of ignorance. In John 16:1-3, the Lord warned, “The time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” Were those guilty before God who murdered the Master’s men thinking they did God service? Was one Saul of Tarsus innocent when he truly “thought with (himself) that (he) ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth?” (Acts 26:9) All whose con-, science said make “havoc of the church” were innocent if the conscience be the Supreme Court, but later Saul said of this conscientious behavior, I am “chief of sinners.” A distorted conscience. in light of the Scripture, can never alter the nature of sin or make it lawful. Conscience may call evil good, and good evil, and put darkness for light and light for darkness and put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter, but it cannot change the truth with respect to what is good, light, and sweet.

Authoritative Doctrine

The outstanding fact of the sermon on the mount was not its wooing call to conscience, nor its appeal to hearts steeped in righteous judgments, as well it might have been, but the significant feature was astonishment “at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority” (Matt. 7:28, 29). Let that seep and sink in the next time you are tempted to sentimentalize sin or excuse ‘error. “He that loveth me not, keepeth not my sayings” (Jn. 14:24). “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love” (Jn. 15: 10). “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (I Jn. 2:4).

Therefore, those who, in the name of love, liberty, conscience or unity, attempt to set aside the pattern of the Scriptures in any area of the life of a Christian or the labor of the church are guilty of iniquity or lawlessness. Their sincerity does not justify them. Their clear conscience does not soften or lessen the havoc of the church.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:34, p. 13-14
June 27, 1974

By James Sanders

The church at Ephesus had an illustrious history. The Lord Himself praised her labors, her toils and her patience. Ephesus had tried those who claimed to be apostles and had proved them liars. But something was amiss; Ephesus no longer had the flush of enthusiasm she had once enjoyed. The church at Ephesus had left her first love (Rev. 2:4). The preaching continued as it always had-the doctrine was sound and the application of the Text sure. But something had gone wrong. The church was working-even the Lord spoke of her labors and toils. Attendance, perhaps, was good-but something was missing. That something was the kindness of her youth, the love of her espousals (Jer. 2:2). Ephesus had left her first love.

But the Lord would allure her and speak comfortably unto her (Hos. 2:14). He would lead Ephesus along the way back home:

“Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent and do the first works; or else I will come quickly unto thee, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent” (Rev. 2:5).

First, He says Remember. Memory is the treasure house of the mind. It is here that precious monuments and joys are kept and preserved. Memory is the first step back home. The prodigal son remembered and so returned to his father (Luke 15:17). The first step of the way back home is to realize that something has gone wrong. As long as there is a memory which can wet the eyes with tears, there is hope for the wayward and the prodigal.

Second, He says Repent. Repentance is the most difficult step of all. Repentance is the humbling of the heart; it is the admission that the fault is ours and ours alone. The prodigal’s response was, “I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned.” Repentance demands that we face ourselves, our failures and our falls. There are many who take the first step of remembrance but never trod the path of true repentance.

Third, He says Do. The step of repentance is not meant to drive a man to despair. Rather he is to bring forth fruits meet for or worthy of repentance (Mt. 3:8). Repentance that does not compel a man to change his life is useless. Doing is the last step on the return journey.

Application

Christian reader, when was the last time you prayed earnestly? Can you remember what it was once like to sing psalms which would pluck the very strings of the heart? Would you not like to go back home again? When was the last time you really got something out of worship-when was the last time you put something in it? “All of God’s children get weary when they roam-don’t it make you want to go home@ – now?

Truth Magazine, XVIII:34, p. 12
June 24, 1974

By Terry L. Sumerlin

Solomon said, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6). There have been, as most recognize, the following two views taken on this passage: (1) there are exceptions to the statement; (2) there are no exceptions to the statement. Of the two views, I accept the first. In order to establish this position, I direct your attention to two lines of reasoning.

If it is impossible for one to depart from “the way” once he is brought up in it, then: 1. How is it possible that the strange woman of Prov. 2:17 is spoken of as having departed “from the guide of her youth”? 2. How would one account for the conversion of the Jews on the day of Pentecost? They left the law under which they had been reared for a better one – the gospel. 3. The Baptist doctrine of “impossibility of apostasy” is true. If a child is reared properly, according to this theory, he is heaven bound and always in grace! 4. One is forced to conclude that it would be possible for a parent to be condemned for things which occurred after his own death. By this I mean, if a child who was faithful while his parent lived became wicked after the parent died, to be consistent with the theory, fault in rearing the child would be placed to the parent’s account after his death 5. It must be equally true that those who have not been trained up in the way they should go, can never go in that way.

If there are no exceptions to Prov. 22:6, it seems we must interpret, the following verses similarly: (1) “None that go unto her return again, neither take they hold of the paths of life” (Prov. 2:19). Is this the sin unto death of are there exceptions to this? Is it possible for one to regain spirituality after patronizing the strange woman? (2) “Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord” (Prov. 18:22). Solomon also said that it is better to dwell on the housetop than with a contentious woman (Prov. 21:9; 25:24). Would a person say one who had found a contentious wife had found a good thing? (3) “A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly” (Prov. 18:24). Have you not known people who were not particularly friendly who had friends? I have! (4) “He that tilleth his land shall have plenty of bread” (Prov. 28:19). There are those tilling land all over the world that are starving.

The point which I am trying to establish is this: Truth is not violated when there is an exception to a proverb. A proverb is such that it allows exceptions – for it is merely setting forth a general truth. This seems to be the idea in the passage before us as well as in the ones from which I have illustrated. Yet, while I believe my position on the passage relating to training a child is correct, let me hasten to say that such does nothing to change the parents’ responsibility to “bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:34, p. 12
June 27, 1974