Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

Inasmuch as some of our brethren have begun to advocate “unconditional grace,” at least for certain sins of Christians, it might therefore be helpful if we pause again to discuss the characteristics of God which made necessary the death of Christ, and made provision for the “word of his grace” (Acts 20:32). There are some brethren who now are teaching that Christians somehow can receive forgiveness of “sins of ignorance,” and “sins that result from the weakness of the flesh” without meeting the terms of what has been called “God’s Second Law of Pardon.” These brethren simply mean that a Christian can be saved in spite of his guilt of certain sins, and without obeying God’s law of forgiveness which entails repentance, confession, and prayer. Through this means, some of our brethren are maintaining that one can be saved, even though he may have died “with sin on his soul.”

These brethren have made up their own category of sins, much like the Catholics have their “mortal” and “venial” sins. Some of our brethren therefore are concluding that if men are ignorant of the fact that institutionalism and instrumental music in worship are sinful (and hence they have neither repented of these sins, nor confessed them), they nonetheless will be admitted into heaven in spite of the fact that they died with these sins “on their soul.” What these brethren have not yet spelled out explicitly for us, but which is the inevitable consequence of their position, is that these people who die with these “sins on their soul” are going to be saved in spite of their guilt of these sins. It therefore follows that if such sinners can still have fellowship with God, both now and eternally, then they certainly should be kept in our fellowship here on earth. Brethren: Do not ever forget that this is what all this theological maneuvering is about! This is why we are hearing so much about “sins of ignorance,” and “sins that result from the weakness of the flesh,” and then the “imputation of the perfect righteousness” of Christ is introduced. These brethren, who are either deluded or deceiving, have not been forced to state explicitly publicly that what they are getting at is that we should be fellowshiping the liberal brethren and certain ones in the Christian Church. But this is the inherent implication of their position, and I predict will eventually be the overt pronouncements which they will draw from these minute theological differentiations which they are making.

Such brethren do the nature of God no credit. Perhaps it is done without knowing it (maybe theirs is a “sin of ignorance”), but they have most severely reflected upon the character of God. They have indicted both His holiness and His justice, as we shall later show.

God’s attributes are those inherent qualities which make God to be God. The Bible in many places speaks of the importance of us knowing God (Ps. 100:3; Heb. 8:11; 2 Tim. 1:12; Heb. 10:30). Very protracted lessons could be given on the characteristics of God. However, it is not my intention now to deal with all the characteristics of God which are revealed in His Word. There are some things that can be learned about God from observing His creation (Ps. 19:1, 2; Rom. 1:20), but Paul says those traits learned from nature are limited to “his everlasting power and divinity.” The Psalmist said we can learn of the “glory” of God from observing the heavens. However, Jesus taught that the person (i.e., His characteristics) and His will can only be learned by revelation through Christ (Matt. 11:27). But when we learn of God’s characteristics from His revelation, we then will be able to understand why Christ died for our sins, and why God cannot wink at sin or pass-by unforgiven sins. The affirmation that He can do either constitutes a very serious reflection upon His infinite holiness and justice.

God’s Holiness

The Bible speaks of the infinite holiness of God (Ps. 111:9; Isa. 6:1-3; Rev. 4:7, 8). Man is commanded to be holy, even as God is holy (1 Pet. 1:15; Lev. 11:44). We may speak of holy men, but we only speak of man’s relative holiness. But God is perfect; in Him is no sin at all (Ps. 18:30; Matt. 5:48). In fact, God’s holiness is such that if He sinned, He would not be God! Sinlessness is a part of the definition of Jehovah. Paul said that God “cannot lie” (Tit. 1:1, 2). The Lord Jesus Christ is the only person in the flesh who ever lived without sin (Heb. 4:14, 15; 1 Pet. 2:21, 22). Since Jesus lived a perfect life, some of our brethren have concluded that His perfect righteousness will be credited to our account. Implicit in this position being advocated by some of our brethren is the rankest form of Calvinistic “election” (partiality). The perfect life of Christ was that which qualified Him to be a perfect sacrifice for sin. The priests of the Old Testament had to offer sacrifices first for their own sins, and then for the sins of the people. But Jesus was “holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners” (Heb. 7:26). If our Lord had not lived a sinless life, He would not have been qualified to die for our sins. Instead, He would have deserved to die for His own sins. The grounds of our forgiveness is the appropriation of that which He accomplished in His death. His perfect life merely qualified Him as a perfect sacrifice.

A profound thought inheres in the statement that God is infinitely holy. It implies that God is the standard of holiness, truth, beauty, etc. The thought of the infinite holiness of God causes one to reflect upon one of the profoundest thoughts that legitimately may be called philosophical. If God is not the standard of holiness, would you mind telling me what is? If God is not the standard of holiness, then there must be some standard external to Him. On occasions I have heard even brethren ask some questions that made me cringe. On many occasions, I have heard brethren say, “But how could an infinitely holy God do a thing like this?” Such a question implies that there is some standard of holiness external to God, and to which even He must conform. If there is, will somebody please tell me what it is?

Plato had in his philosophical system a “World of Ideas” which was above his god which he called the Demiurge. I sometimes have felt that some brethren may have borrowed this concept from the Greeks. For perhaps twenty years, I have been unable to “buy” the differentiation that some brethren make between “moral” and “positive” law, which differentiation was evidently lifted from Brother Benjamin Franklin. No doubt he borrowed it from some other source. When brethren talk about “moral” and “positive” law, they usually state that “positive” law becomes law simply because God has commanded it. But they tell us that “moral” law has always been right. What made it right? Who made it right? Is not “moral law” law simply because it comports to God’s infinite holiness? And are not violations of this “moral law” sin simply because they violate and contradict God’s infinite holiness?

Some atheists are “moral” in spite of their atheism. There is absolutely nothing in atheism that will make a man moral. Moral atheists have borrowed their standard of morality, whether they wish to acknowledge it or not. Why should one not steal? Why should one not kill? Why should one not commit adultery? Many rationalizations may be given, but all of these questions have but one answer: Man should not kill, steal, or commit adultery simply because God said not to do these things. The truth of the matter is that one cannot even meaningfully use the word “ought” without implying God. This “oughtness” is what man has termed “ethics.” The philosophers call it the “categorical imperative,” or the “divine imperative.” God’s will ought to be obeyed because God is God, the eternal and infinite standard of holiness.

But the tragedy in man’s history is that he violated God’s infinite holiness; man violated God’s will. From the Garden of Eden down to this moment, the Lord Jesus Christ is the only accountable being who ever lived on earth completely without sin. Paul concluded in Romans 3, “we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin” (3:9). Man has violated God’s holiness. But God’s holiness is such that sin cannot be tolerated in His presence. Thus Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden and cut off from the presence of God. Sin separates man from God (Isa. 59:1, 2). It is precisely for this reason, good brethren, that God cannot admit into His eternal presence those who “die with sin on their soul,” and it matters not whether these sins are “sins of ignorance,” or “sins that result from the weakness of the flesh.” And our brethren need to be made to see that they have compromised God’s eternal and infinite holiness by advocating that He will accept into His presence persons who “die with sin on their soul.” If He will, why did He banish Adam and Eve from His presence? If some brethren could be caused to see this point, it would stop some of the theological contortions through which some are going in their effort to get some who “die with sin on their soul” saved, even though they do not repent, confess, and pray . . . even though they do not comply with God’s “Second Law of Pardon.”

God’s Justice

God’s holiness having been violated, God’s justice demanded that these violators be punished. The Bible states that “Jehovah is a God of justice” (Isa. 30:18). Indeed, “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of thy throne” (Ps. 89:14). But what is “justice”? Isn’t it a little uncanny the way we bandy words about, and assume that we all understand them . . . until some fellow stops us and asks us to give a definition of the word we have used? Take the word, “justice.” What does that mean? The courts of law may take a good while in order to give a comprehensive definition of that word. But it did not take the apostle Paul very long to define “justice.” While discussing the “righteous judgment of God,” Paul said that He “will render to every man according to his work” (Rom. 2:5, 6). To the faithful who have been redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb, God will render “eternal life.” But to those who “obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness,” God will render “wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish” (Rom. 2:7-9).

Just as God is infinitely holy, so also is He infinitely just. God will “bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Ecc. 12:13). Sir William Blackstone is sometimes referred to as the “Father of English Law.” Blackstone said that where there is no penalty attached for the violation of the law, there is neither respect for the law, nor for the law-giver. Parents, you had better copy that down for future and frequent reference. Every time a parent permits flagrant disregard of his law, he not only is causing his child to disrespect his law, but the child likewise will disrespect the law-giver, who in this case is the parent. The failure to extract punishment when law is disregarded is basically what causes what we may call the ills of our society. Failure to punish those who disobey law is what causes chaos in our streets, disorder in our schools, defiance in our homes, and corruption in the church.

God’s law had been violated. The penalty stated was “thou shalt die” (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23). Until the death of Christ, the full penalty for sin had not been paid, for there was no adequate sin-offering. The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin (Heb. 10:1-4), and God could not indefinitely “wink-at” or overlook sin. Something more had to be done, or else man was hopelessly and eternally ruined. God’s justice demanded hell!

God’s Mercy

But God’s justice was tempered by His great mercy. “Justice and Mercy met and kissed in the death of Jesus.” God was rich in mercy and love (Eph. 2:4). But God’s characteristics cannot work against themselves. God cannot violate His own character. Though great in love and rich in mercy, this love and mercy would not permit those who had defiled His holiness to escape His justice. The unalterable character of God is seen in His answer to the plaintive cry of Jesus as He contemplated the cross, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matt. 26:39). But God’s nature was such that His saving mercy could not be extended to fallen man unless the penalty was paid for man’s sin. Thus Jesus became a “propitiation” (1 Jno. 2:1, 2), a “ransom” (1 Tim. 2:5, 6) for our sins.

But God’s saving grace was not unconditionally extended. There were some terms that had to be met by man. These conditions are revealed in the gospel. But we must remember that there are not only conditions to be met by the alien sinner, but there also are conditions to be met by the Christian who has sinned. Those of our brethren who would step-forth and extend God’s mercy and His clemency beyond that which He has promised had better be careful, lest they put themselves “in the place of God” (Gen. 50:19; 2 Thess. 2:1-4). The person who has not obeyed the gospel is lost, not just because he did not obey the gospel, but because he has sinned, and God’s justice will not permit Him to overlook sin. The Christian who sins, but who does not repent, confess, and pray, is lost, not just because he has not repented, confessed, and prayed, but because he has sinned! And God’s justice could not over-look sin. If it could have, then God would have let the cup of suffering pass from Jesus. But because of God’s violated holiness, and God’s justice demanding hell, God’s great mercy provided His Son, a Perfect Sacrifice for man’s sins. Thus, with the joy of man’s salvation in view, Jesus endured the cross, and despised (set at nought) the shame (Heb. 12:1, 2).

Why Did Christ Die?

The apostle Paul, in the book of Romans, addresses himself precisely to the answering of the question, “Why did Christ die?” Paul’s answer is found in Rom. 3:21-26. All had sinned (v. 23), so God “by his grace” (v. 24) sent forth Jesus “to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood” (v. 25) to show “his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime” (v. 25). God’s way of making a sinful man righteous again in His sight is revealed in the gospel (Rom. 1:16, 17).

But precisely, “Why did Christ die?” Paul says it was for two reasons: “that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26). But God’s justice would not permit Him to be the “justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus” without Jesus’ death on the cross. Remember: This is the conclusion of Paul in the Book of Romans, the book which is so badly being abused and misrepresented by some brethren who are frantically trying to figure someway to get a man saved who “dies with sin on his soul.” Without any intention to appear irreverent, let me suggest that when these brethren get this figured out, they should advise God on how they did it.

Man violated the holiness of God. God’s justice demanded Hell. But God’s mercy and love interceded and tempered His justice, and provided Heaven and the way of escape revealed in the gospel. God’s justice could not proffer forgiveness unconditionally, but some of the brethren can. If God can forgive unconditionally a Christian who “dies with sin on his soul,” would somebody please tell me why this same God could not unconditionally forgive an alien who “dies with sin on his soul”? Now if God un(‘011ditionally forgives one, but does not unconditionally forgive another, then God is a respecter of persons. But the Roman letter denies that. Paul said, “for there is no respect of persons with God” (Rom. 2:11).

If God’s nature will permit Him to accept a person who “dies with sin on his soul,” “then Christ died for nought” (Gal. 2:21). Men who seek to devise by theological maneuver some way for God to accept one who “dies with sin on his soul” actually are casting the most serious kind of reflection upon the infinite holiness, and the infinite justice of God, and they thereby vitiate the atoning death of Christ.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:26, p. 3-6
May 2, 1974

By Jeffery Kingry

Is strictly exegetical discourse on the Word of God a legitimate method of teaching (An explanation or critical interpretation of a text)? Definitely. But what if there is a controversy surrounding a particular subject? Is it enough to merely quote the passages and claim “They mean what they say”? I believe the teacher, in this case, has fallen down on the job.

Scripture is not merely ink and paper-“The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (Jno. 6:63). The Word of God has been given “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). When applied to practical living, God’s word makes a man complete and perfectly equips him to do God’s will (2 Tim. 3:17). It is the responsibility of the teacher therefore, to use the Word to give people what they need (Tit. 1:5; 2 Cor. 12:19-21). Whether the word be used to rebuke sin, prick a conscience, console, or build up a soul, the teacher must give what is needed to the listener. While David stood guilty of adultery, guile, murder, and deception, the prophet Nathan did not lecture him with an exegetical monologue on the Mosaical laws concerning Marriage-Divorce-Remarriage. He told David, “thou art the man” (2 Sam. 12:7)! Anything less would have been a cop-out.

Let us look to the Master Teacher as an example (1 Jno. 2:6; Eph. 4:13, 15). He taught the people who had the law of God and knew it. They could quote large portions of the text from memory, and there was a group of men called “the scribes and Pharisees” who did little except sit about and give profound exegesis to the people from the law. One commentator has said “Philo of Alexandria declares (ca. A.D. 40) that the Jews learned to read their scriptures from childhood, and Josephus (ca. A.D. 90) says young Jews learned their laws as well as their own names” (E. J. Goodspeed, A Life of Christ, p. 34). In a day before book, chapter, and verse divisions, concordances, and reference libraries, the people knew the scriptures well. As Paul commented to young Timothy, “that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures. . .” (2 Tim. 3:15). How and what did Jesus teach these Jews? He gave them what they needed. An example might be the sermon on the mount. Each of the beatitudes was contained in word and principle in the old law. Instead of saying “Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:3), why did he not merely give an exegesis of Psalms 51:17 or Isa. 57:15? Instead Jesus took the law and made application of the truth: “Ye have heard it said of them of old time. . . Thou shalt not kill . . . Thou shalt not commit adultery . . . Thou shalt not forswear thyself . . . An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth . . . love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy” (Matt. 5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43). Why did not Jesus merely “state something in scriptural terms fairly used according to their context” without any comment on “local and temporal circumstances and situations” as is suggested by one brother (E. Fudge, “A Few Remarks,” Gospel Guardian, Vol. 25 (July 19, 1973), p. 172)? Jesus was not interested in a dry exegetical dissertation on the scriptures he quoted. He took the “local and temporal circumstances and situations” and made specific application to the people’s needs. His purpose was to communicate truth in such a way as to affect living. After hearing the words of Jesus the people knew how to give, pray, serve, live, and work for God in this world (Matt. 6). When Jesus finished making application directly to the people, “the people were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matt. 7:28, 29). Jesus’s teaching was astonishing in that he took the scriptures that they were all comfortable with, the concepts that they had cherished so long, and using language that was understandable and applicable showed their true relevance. He used local events that they were all familiar with: Sacrifice in the temple (5:23, 24), the regional court of the Sanhedrin (5:25, 26), the turn of the seasons (5:45). Jesus used local and temporal characters that all were familiar with: The publicans (5:46-48), the hypocritical philanthropist (6:2), the long faced ascetic (6:5, 7,16). Jesus used relationships that were common to all: Master-servant (6:24), Father-child (7:9-12). He made use of their bodies, the nature about them, the animals, the architecture in their lives to illustrate to them what they needed to know. The Jews knew the words in the scripture, but obviously not the applications.

This same usage of the word of God to communicate truth is demonstrated throughout the rest of the N.T. Every quotation and allusion from the O.T. as used in the New is drawn on as a substantiative authority to prove a point-to make an argument-to teach the truth. There is no expository exegesis without purpose in application in all of the N.T.

Peter quoted Joel 2:28-32 to argue the case of the Apostles, that indeed their actions were a fulfillment of the prophet, and their message was divine (Acts 2:17-21). Stephen used many passages from the old testament when he “disputed” with the scholars of his day (Acts 6:9, 10; 7). He used them to support his message of Christ’s resurrection, and to show the unfolding purpose of God in history, despite the disobedience of the Jews. The conclusion of his sermon would be what some might call “ungodly, unchristian, and unbecoming vilification of persons, misrepresentations of the grossest sort, and pawning of subjective and sometimes biased opinions” (E. Fudge, Ibid, p. 173). Anyway, I am sure the Jewish council and the High Priest thought so, for the “applying specifics” that Stephen made was “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost, as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have your fathers not persecuted? And they have slain them which showed before the coming of the Just One: Of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers! Who have received the law by the disposition of angels and have not kept it” (Acts 7:51-53)! These were strong words and applications that cost Stephen his life. We must be careful that we do not make the same mistake Stephen did-he should have stuck to a strict exegesis of the topic in point and left the conclusions to the court.

Conclusion

There is no controversy that men of God must “devote their time to an intense study of the word of God, and to stating in preaching and print what it actually says” (E. Fudge, Ibid). But as William Barclay puts it, “There is a time when the student and the saint must come down from the study or the cell to put what they have gained in private into practice in public.” Teaching that looks to some place other than the need of man to get right with God, that ignores specific sin, or overlooks error is both useless and deceptive. The purpose of the teacher is to communicate truth that it might bring forth a change on the part of the listener. Anything less is a failure to make all men reflect the Lord, both within and without (Eph. 4:11-13).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:25, p. 12-13
April 24, 1974

By Ronald D. Howes

Deep within the framework of Jehovah’s Witness belief is an unreasonable and unrelenting opposition to the idea that God will punish the wicked eternally. This drives them to wrest the scriptures beyond our wildest imagination.

“. . . when Jesus said that persons would be thrown into Gehenna for their bad deeds, what did he mean? Not that they would be tormented forever.” (Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, p. 44)

A. . . The heartwarming prospect is that then hell, man kinds’ common grave, will be emptied of its unconscious dead. Some receive a resurrection to heavenly glory as spirit creatures . . . . the vast majority of mankind will be brought back to enjoy life on a restored earthly paradise.” (op. cit., p. 45).

There are two separate parts to this problem which must be exposed. First, this is how they will present it to you, “Is it reasonable to suppose that God would go to all the trouble of making this a paradise for Adam and Eve, just to burn it up the last day?” And secondly, does the Bible bear out the idea that God will torment the wicked dead? The first problem works like this. “One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever” (Eccl. 1:4). “Who laid the foundation of the earth, that it should not be removed forever?” (Ps. 104:5). With some small amount of satisfaction they will guide the unsuspecting prospect through these two scriptures and loudly proclaim “Now, your Church may not teach this . . . but this is what the Bible says.” Anyone hit over the head with these two verses for the first time will feel the bruise for a long time.

The solution to this is seen in the fact that the Bible does not always use the term “forever,” and “everlasting” or combinations of these words, to mean what we think of in the word “infinity.” The New World Translation which was put out by the Watchtower for the Witnesses is the very best thing to use in this case. Their translation of the Hebrew word for “eternal” or “everlasting” or “forever” is generally given with this phrase, “till time indefinite.” A few comparisons of this term will clear the air..

Subject How Long? But

The priesthood of Aaron(Ex. 30:21) “till time indefinite” It ended Heb. 10:9-12

The sacrifices of the Law(Lev. 16:34 NWT) “till time indefinite” They ended Heb. 10:9-12

The Earth (Eccl. 1:4, Ps. 104:5) “till time indefinite” Will End Heb. 12:27 2 Pet. 3:10-12 Ps. 102:25-26

The phrase “till time indefinite” catches the sense of the original word. According to God’s word, the sacrifices, the priesthood, and the earth were established in their respective areas, “to an indefinite time” but we can see that they all did or will end.

Jehovah’s Witnesses like to make fine distinctions in definitions, and build whole systems of belief on those fine definitions. Note that in 2 Peter 3 is a comparison of the first destruction of the world, with the impending destruction of the earth. Just skipping, through these verses, a Witness would be quick to point, out to the unsuspecting prospect that God is going to destroy the world which they define as “this system of things,” meaning of course the civilization and works of man on the face of the earth. But Peter bears out a distinction here, fine enough; to make even the Witnesses tremble. He says God destroyed the “World” (that system of things) by water. But, He is going to destroy the earth (the planet, the earth, the dirt) with fire, and the works therein, to the surprise of some.

Having firmly established the impending destruction of this planet, one needs to progress to the problem of life after death. Remember though that the Witnesses do not believe in the existence of an immortal spirit or soul. There are enough scriptures on the prospect of pain and suffering of the wicked after death to silence the objections of even the Watchtower servants. The Witnesses say, “There is no life after death, therefore there can be no Hell.” The parables of our Lord abound with direct statements about the future state of the wicked. Matt. 8:11, 12: “the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matt. 22:13: “bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Rev. 14:9-11: “if any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God . . . and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angles . . . and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night . . . .”

The classic illustration of the future state of the dead is Superior To A n found in Luke 16:19-31, where the Lord tells the events surrounding the lives and deaths of the Rich Man and Argument? Lazarus. Witnesses are quick to point out that this is an illustration, or parable and that it does not mean what it says.

. . . Jesus was giving a parable or illustration and was not speaking of a literal place of torment …. In this illustration the rich man stood for the class of religious leaders who rejected and later killed Jesus. Lazarus pictured the common people who accepted God’s Son . . . this illustration does not teach that some dead persons are tormented in a literal fiery hell.” (The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, p. 42.)

There are several problems with what they say about these verses though, and the first one is that what they say is wrong. Unless Jesus gave the parable to confuse everyone, it will be like the other parables and teach the truth about some moral question or problem. In verse 30 even the Rich Man admits that he is in the place of the dead; why then won’t the Witnesses? We can readily admit that some parts may be figurative, like Abraham’s bosom or the cooling water, but Jesus does not lie or try to deceive men. Do not allow the opposition to erase this teaching off the page of inspiration by just saying that it is figurative. Whether literal or figurative, it is the truth and must be accepted.

The proponents of Watchtower theology object to a God who would torment and punish, but the basis for this belief is not found in Luke 16 “. . . work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). Why? Certainly not to escape a paradise earth, but the flames of a terrible hell.

Next: The Watchtower Gospel (Part 111): Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:25, p. 8-9
April 25, 1974

By Cecil Willis

Truth Magazine is now well into its eighteenth year of publication. Throughout its history, it has never had any financial undergirding so as to guarantee its permanence. One might say that Truth Magazine has had a tenuous existence. However, I am not even sure that for a paper to have a tenuous existence is bad. There often comes a time when the cause of Christ would be better off if a particular paper were to fold up. History has been replete with instances of papers that served a detrimental rather than a helpful purpose.

But be that as it may, let me state that Truth Magazine appears to have more reasons to expect to continue than at any time in my association with it. When I became Editor of the paper in 1962, I really was not sure that the paper could continue throughout even one year. But a number of close friends and interested brethren rallied to our need to assist us in perpetuating what had been a useful teaching instrument. With the effort being made to complete the publication of the new “Truth In Life” Bible class literature series, more indebtedness by far is being incurred than at any time in our history. However, we have every reason to think that this indebtedness will, over a period of years, retire itself. It may surprise some brethren greatly to hear me state it, but it my opinion that it might well take fifteen years for this indebtedness being incurred to retire itself through the sale of the class literature. But it appears that the literature is going to be well received and will be widely used. We already have had to reprint the first quarter of the series, and have doubled our orders for succeeding quarters.

The only thing a religious journal like Truth Magazine has to sell and to result in its perpetuation is its contents. Thus we are ever indebted to those men on our staff and to other brethren who supply us the articles we publish. Without exception, these brethren serve without financial remuneration of any kind. In fact, most of them spend a good bit of their own money as they seek to expand the readership of Truth Magazine. Those of us who are charged with the day-to-day operation of the paper, the bookstore, and the Cogdill Foundation know how much we depend on our staff for our continued existence, and we deeply appreciate the years of faithful service so many brethren have rendered by supplying articles and encouraging others to subscribe. Some men who are not on the staff officially work as hard to promote the paper as do those of us who are on the staff, and these brethren likewise are much appreciated and by their efforts put us much in debt to them.

In recent years our editorial staff has been somewhat depleted, and we thus are making some plans now to add some other men to our writing staff. William Wallace, James P. Needham, and Connie W. Adams all have left the staff of Truth Magazine in order to edit other papers. All of them worked long and hard to promote Truth Magazine, and all of them were men of great ability. No paper could lose men of their competence without missing them.

In like manner, the toll of years has cut into the functioning capability of some on our staff. Brother Luther Blackmon apparently is rendered permanently incapable of writing any more articles. He was among the most popular of our writers. I might mention that I intend to leave Brother Blackmon’s name on our Masthead and will make an effort periodically to publish some writings from him that have not heretofore been published in anything other than church bulletins, which had very limited circulation. You will enjoy the spice of his pen as some of these articles are published.

Roy Cogdill was 67 years old April 24th. I might add that Luther Blackmon was 67 years old March 24th. During the last year Brother Cogdill has been severely hampered in his preaching endeavors and in his desire to write by malignancies in two parts of his body. The doctors give him every reason to believe that the growth of these malignancies has been curtailed. We therefore expect that Brother Cogdill will be able to write for several years to come. I do have plans, however, to occasionally run some articles that he has written in years long gone by, but which articles have not heretofore been published.

But it stands to reason that Brother Cogdill cannot any longer bear the heavy writing and preaching load that he has borne for so many years. Even if he could do so, those of us who consider ourselves to be his friends would prefer to see him voluntarily lighten his work load and slow his pace a bit in order to extend the years of his usefulness. No man among us more universally commands the respect for his soundness and ability than Roy Cogdill. But the necessity of him slowing down also limits the amount that he can write for Truth Magazine. Brother Cogdill now is finishing two class books in the “Truth In Life” series that I think will be invaluable for students for many years to come. He is writing a six month series of lessons, which will be published in two quarters, for a survey of the New Testament book-by-book for High School Students. He has all the lessons through 1 John finished.

But in addition to that, Brother Cogdill has five books in preliminary manuscript state. At least three of these books are transcriptions of series of related lessons that he has preached in gospel meetings, and constitute some of the richest preaching that he ever did. I often have said that when Roy Cogdill covered a subject in a sermon, I felt it had been’ more completely covered than any other man I ever heard. Sometimes I even could tell it had been completely covered by the seat of my pants! We hope to get into the publication of these books sometime later this year.

Except for Brother James W. Adams, who is 58 years old, the remainder of our staff of writers are nearly the same age. O. C. Birdwell, Irvin Himmel, Earl Robertson, Jimmy Tuten, Ferrell Jenkins and I are all about the same age. Ferrell would appreciate my telling you that he is a little younger than the rest of us. I think all of those men just mentioned are in their 40s. Presently Brother Larry Hafley is the youngest man on our staff, and he is just in his early 30s. Brother Adams’ health appears to be good, and we expect him to be the Dean of our editorial staff for some years to come, and hopefully Brother Cogdill can write substantially for the paper. Upon the wisdom and experience of these two men I have depended heavily for several years.

Basically we have men of two different generations on the staff of Truth Magazine. We have Luther Blackmon, Roy Cogdill and James Adams in one age group, and then we have the bulk of the remainder of our staff in a slightly younger age group. As we plan for the future, we feel the need now to reach back and bring on to our staff yet a third generation of preachers and writers. Sometimes brethren, as they grow a little older, seem to think that there are no young men of great ability coming on to replace them. Certainly that cannot be said of our time. There are a host of extraordinarily competent brethren who are younger than most of us. These young men do not lack for ability, knowledge, or fortitude. Indeed, they are the future for the church. And in like manner, they must bear the load for the future of a journal like Truth Magazine. As we look toward the future, we are looking to this younger group of men as the source for replenishing our staff. There is no dearth of competent young men. We could add 50 to our staff, if we were disposed to do so, and not compromise in soundness, ability, work out-put, or quality. But we cannot add that many. Even now we are in the process of talking with some younger men to see if they would be interested in “pitching in” with us to make Truth Magazine a better paper now and to guarantee its perpetuation. Some announcements regarding new staff writers will be made in a few months.

At this time, we want to announce the addition of Brother Mike Willis to the staff as one of our Associate Editors. Mike is my youngest brother; in fact, he is fifteen years younger than I. Brethren who know us both only casually often mistake him for my son. That never hurts my feelings, for I think so highly of him that I would be very glad to have him as a son. The Bible teaches that one should be humble but I must confess that having three faithful brothers who preach the gospel makes me very pleased. I am the oldest of three brothers and three sisters. My brother, Don, preaches for the Bellaire church in Houston, Texas. My next brother, Lewis, preaches for the Olsen Park church in Amarillo, Texas.

It was not my suggestion that Mike be appointed to our staff as an Associate Editor. It was first recommended by one of our staff members, and then approved by the others. Of course, I was very pleased by the recommendation, and most heartily concurred in his selection. At the time when Mike was growing up, my parents were having a period of ill health. They then owned a small grocery store. Mike almost was the manager and operator for a few years, while he was about High School age. He worked long hours both before and after school, in addition to active involvement in a High School athletic program. Yet he graduated as valedictorian of his class. During this period of time, he developed what I consider to be very good work habits which continue to be a valuable asset to him in his work as a gospel preacher. I have sometimes said that gospel preaching is about 10% ability and 90% work. Nearly any man can preach the gospel if he is willing to pay the price in expended labor for preparation. Of course, not all men would preach with equal ability due to varying inherent capabilities.

While at Florida College as a student, Mike not only carried a full college load, but much of the time worked a complete eight-hour shift in the school’s woodwork shop. He worked from 5 P. M. until 2 A. M. So he knows what work is. Mike moved to Indiana in 1967. Since then, he has worked with the church in Alexandria and Mooresville, and just recently moved to work with the church at Traders Point, a Northwestern suburb of Indianapolis. Mike has proved himself to be a very capable worker in personal evangelism. He also has good pulpit ability, and I think has demonstrated competent writing skills. He now serves as “Book Review” man for Truth Magazine. This job requires that he maintain a rigid reading schedule. Meanwhile, he has been working on a Master’s Degree, which he soon will have completed.

Mike will be the only one of our Associate Editors who is very close by. As best I can remember, no one has gotten out a single issue of Truth Magazine without my help since I became editor. But it obviously may sometime be essential that someone do so. Frequently my work schedule has been such that it would have been a real boon if someone could have done the proofing and paste-up for an issue of Truth Magazine. Even when I make prolonged trips (such as the trip to the Philippines in 1970), it has been essential that I prepare in advance enough issues of the paper to last until I return. Sometimes the paper has been delayed due to my work and travel schedule, or to my being temporarily indisposed with sickness. I am hoping that Mike can work into the editorial position a little to at least assist in keeping the paper on schedule. However, I know he would want me to tell you not to blame him every time it is late. It is likely that I will continue to prepare each issue of the paper, unless some very unusual circumstance exists.

Most of our editorial conferring has been done by telephone and by rare occasions to visit together personally. In some ways, the position on our staff of “Associate Editor” is a misnomer. Editorial conferences have not been very feasible, except on very important matters and on an infrequent basis. It is my hope that Mike will stay close-by enough to be able physically to help with some of the editorial work. But whether he does that or not, he will make a valuable addition to our regular staff of Associate Editors.

We are going to create a new title for some who are going to be placed on the staff. Rather than to add others to the category of what we have called “Associate Editors,” we are going to add six to ten younger men to our writing force as “Staff Writers.” We hope to have these men chosen and their agreement to serve ready to announce within no more than six months.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:25, p. 3-5
April 25,1974