Truth Magazine

By Weldon E. Warnock

My article, “A Few ‘Licks’ for Florida College,” was far more powerful than I realized. I thought it was mediocre, to say the most, but evidently I was wrong about its impact. Brother Jeffery Kingry has been provoked by it to write two responses, the second of which appears in this issue. Apparently, he was not satisfied with his first one. I ignored brother Kingry’s first reply, believing that no worthwhile purpose could be served by responding. However, his second article leaves me no choice but to say a few things.

I have re-read my article that has given Brother Kingry such a tizzy and I fail to see where I misrepresented anybody. Jeff said that I misrepresented Brother Royce Chandler. This is news to me! Since when is Royce Chandler spelled, “some brethren,” or “these brethren?” I am sorry that Jeff does not like the way I write, but I write as I see fit and will continue to do so.

It is to my chagrin that brother Royce Chandler’s name has been brought into this matter. Royce is a most dedicated, sincere Christian as well as a capable and competent preacher. I imagine that I know Royce better than Jeff does. He needs no unsolicited defense of himself. He is most able to take up for himself. But Brother Chandler was misunderstood by brethren in the May, 1973 issue of Torch. Brother Chandler wrote, “Secular courses taught by Christians are desirable and almost universally admitted. Why not concentrate on teaching these secular subjects in an atmosphere of belief, and just disband the organized Bible departments? What would it hurt? If the main function of a school is to provide a secular education taught by believers, then what harm would be done to that function by disbanding the Bible department? When we each do our own work, such things as Bible departments or any other questionable organization will have no need to exist.” You can readily see why brethren would get wrong impressions from these excerpts, except brother Kingry, of course.

Granted that Brother Chandler’s article prompted me to write mine, I certainly made it general enough to catch every brother who is opposed to Bible colleges and broad enough to miss Royce if he were misunderstood (which he was). Is not Jeff aware of some preachers who are opposed to the Bible being taught at Florida College, even some young preachers who attended F.C.? Where has he been the past few years? There is nothing wrong with my article and those who defend the Bible college must do so on the same basis that I did. It would be interesting to see Brother Kingry write an article in defense of the Bible department of Florida College and refute those who argue the unscripturalness of such an arrangement. What about doing this for us, Jeff?

One of the board members of Florida College wrote me and said, “Appreciate very much your article, ‘A Few ‘Licks’ for Florida College.’ Those of us on the Board of Directors appreciate your backing of the school in all matters when we are right.” (Jeff, you can guess who the board member was, and if you ask me point blank as you did about Royce, I will tell you who it was, also.) I appreciate the commendable words above and I am happy to be able to commend Florida College to the youth of our day. I am glad that it exists and value all the good it does. We need more to personally get behind the school and lend their moral and financial support. Actually, if Brother Kingry’s approach is indicative of being a staunch friend of Florida College, the school needs no enemies.

A fellow-preacher wrote Jeff a letter, a copy of which was sent to me, “I have just finished reading your article, `Let’s Put It In The Light’ and also recall reading Weldon’s article on Florida College. In my opinion, Weldon’s brief article was both fair and honest. It had several good points; apparently in Weldon’s judgment, the matter was best dealt with generally, and I whole-heartedly concur. I believe you overlooked this important point.” Is it not strange that this brother thought my article was fair and honest, but Jeff thought it was divisive and misrepresentative?

Interesting enough, the article that Brother Kingry is trying to defend (Brother Chandler’s article) is a general article. Brother Chandler wrote, “If that is true and we believe it (that is, the church is perfectly equipped to build itself up, W.E.W.), why do some of us hold so vehemently to the absolute necessity of maintaining a college Bible department for the training of young men to become preachers and elders?” Who did Royce mean by “some of us?” Jeff, did you chastise Royce for his ambiguity? If not, you had better get at it or you show partiality toward brethren. Really, I do not know of any among us who believes in the “absolute necessity” of a college Bible department. I believe the church can get along without such a department, but this is not the reason brethren established a Bible department at Florida College. It exists because of the benefits it affords young men and women. We could get along without Torch and Truth Magazine, as well as all the others, but we must agree that they can be a valuable asset to edification. The same thing is true with college Bible departments.

In conclusion, may I say that “it has come to a sad state of affairs when a supporter and former alumnus of the school” cannot write a general article about the merits and right of the Bible department in the school without being branded as guilty of misrepresentation.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:22, p. 8-9
April 4, 1974

By Jeffery Kingry

It was obvious from the articles “A Few Licks For Florida College” (Truth Magazine, Nov. 22, 1973) that Brother Weldon Warnock was reacting to material that appeared in the May 1973 issue of Torch magazine by Royce Chandler. While in Tampa, Florida for the 1974 Florida College lectures, Brother Warnock confirmed this to me in conversation. But, at the time I wrote my plea to Weldon asking him to be more specific I did not know this. I did not want to fall prey to the very thing I sought to rebuke: Misrepresentation. Brother Warnock has misrepresented Brother Chandler, and in effect labeled all those who agree with what was written by Royce, as being opposed to the school’s inherent right to exist. I can sympathize with Brother Warnock, for he reacted out of a desire to defend something which is very precious to him. No man can find fault with that. But, misrepresenting brethren and what they believe works no good to them, to the school, and does great disservice to Brother Warnock’s own effectiveness as a teacher and a preacher.

The events of the past twenty years should serve to remind us what happens when brethren confuse and mix “issues.” Classical Sommerism is one thing . . . the all sufficiency of the church is another. I would oppose the brother who claimed that an educational institution could not be privately run by a brother. I would oppose the brother who claimed that the educational institution can do anything for the church just as strongly. Brethren Needham and Chandler have not taken a Sommer view towards privately run secular schools, but have addressed themselves to the latter issue. Responses such as Brother Warnock’s, and of some who have recently written me, tend to drive brethren to the Sommer view rather than away from it.

The only way this human institution will remain viable and useful to parents and students is when it is constantly criticized in a constructive manner to keep it useful. It is indicative of the very problem Torch has vocalized that I would feel called upon to state that I am a supporter of the school, a contributor to it, and a solicitor for students. It has come to a sad state of affairs when a supporter and former alumnus of the school cannot criticize how the school may be run, or oppose brethren who would make it a “Church School,” without being branded as a heretic.

There is enough error among us without dividing our forces and resources opposing one another over something made by men’s hands. Brother Warnock expressed to me on the campus of Florida College that he is loathe to become involved in a conflict, and that he has more important work to do. Who is not loathe of conflict? And it is certain that our work is in saving souls and building one another up. Let us follow this road then, and put our affections where they belong, and cease from writing the kind of material which prompted this exchange in the first place.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:22, p. 8
April 4, 1974

By Irvin Himmel

“You are the most narrow-minded person I ever met,” said one who scarcely knows an apostle from an epistle, speaking to a friend who has strong convictions. Enamored with the idea of broad-mindedness, some people are so liberal in their thinking that they try to believe anything and everything and end up believing nothing.

Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). If this statement has any meaning at all, it conveys the thought that Jesus Christ is man’s only access to the Father. Any attempt to reach God apart from the mediatorship of Jesus ignores God’s plan of approach. Was Jesus narrow-minded in presenting this teaching?

John wrote, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4). According to John, all who profess to know the Lord but do not keep his commandments are liars. Only the people who are faithful in keeping his commandments really know the Lord. Was John narrow-minded in making such a statement?

Paul taught, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4:4,5). Today, there are many bodies, numerous faiths, and it is openly declared that one church is as good as another. Was the apostle Paul narrow-minded?

Jude emphatically stated that the faith was “once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). Some modern religions are based on the doctrine of progressive revelation. Their proponents tell us to be broad-minded and accept what has been delivered to the saints through latter-day “prophets.” Was Jude narrow-minded?

Peter wrote that “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21). He urged sinners to “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). People tell me that I am bigoted if I think one must be baptized to be saved. Was Peter narrowminded?

James wrote, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” Most denominations say justification is by faith only. When I say the denominations are wrong on this point and quote James 2:24, people tell me that I am narrow and intolerant. Was James narrow-minded?

Matthew records that Jesus was born of a virgin in fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 1:18-23). Modern theologians tell us in pious tones that we should be liberal-minded and not argue that Jesus was actually virgin-born. Was the apostle Matthew narrow-minded?

The Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). No other explanation is offered for the origin of the universe. Now men tell us we should be open-minded and put human theories on equality with, or even above, the creationist view. Is the Bible narrow?

If it be admitted that such persons as Peter, James, John, Paul, Jude, Matthew, and even Jesus Christ our Lord were narrow, I am in good company when I am charged with being narrow-minded for teaching what they taught. If it be acknowledged that the Bible is narrow, I plead guilty to the same narrowness, for I believe the Bible!

Anyone who restricts his way of life by following rules and laws will be considered narrow-minded by all who dislike such rules and laws. Anyone who insists upon accuracy and exactness, whether in reasoning or in work, will be viewed as narrow-minded by all who are loose and careless. Anyone who thinks, studies, and forms definite conclusions will be labeled narrow-minded by all who in ignorance and indecision vacillate from one state of mind to another. Any who practice moral restraint are considered narrow-minded by people who desire unrestrained carnal indulgence. One who attempts to closely follow a standard will be charged with narrow-mindedness by others who wish to deviate from that standard. A conservative is always narrow-minded to a liberal. A Christian is narrow-minded to the worldly individual and to the unbeliever.

Oh, I almost forgot to mention that the way to heaven is “narrow.” Open your Bible and read Matt. 7:13, 14.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:22, p. 2
April 4, 1974

By Larry R. Houchen

The young generation today often displays a “peace sign” by forming a V-shape with the index finger and the third finger. Although this sign to them is a symbol for making peace, this article is concerned with the making of peace with God.

In the seventh beatitude of Christ’s sermon on the mountain, our Lord said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Matt. 5:9). If we can determine what Christ meant when he utilized the term “peacemaker,” then perhaps we can better understand what it means to make peace with God.

The inspired writer, Matthew, penned these words immediately prior to the text of the beatitudes, “And Jesus was going about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people” (Matt. 4:23). This passage seems to imply that everything Christ taught pointed to his kingdom that was soon to come. If the immediate text said that Christ “proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom,” then it would seem to necessarily follow that the sermon which was preached on the mountain pointed to His kingdom.

Let us now examine a passage which immediately follows the sermon on the mountain. Matthew recorded in 7:28, “The result was that when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were amazed at His teaching.” The sermon, then, is called a “teaching,” or a “doctrine” as some translations render it. Therefore, if Christ was proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom in all Galilee and his remarks in his sermon are referred to as a teaching, was not our Lord referring to making peace with God in using the term “peacemaker”?

Paul says in Romans 10:15, “And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, `How beautiful are the feet of those who bring glad tidings of good things.’ ” Acts 10:36 defines the “glad tidings” in Romans: “The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ.”

Thus far, it can be seen then, that the peacemaker is the peace preacher – the disciple of Christ. Examine now, the passage of Eph. 2:14-18. Verse 14 tells us that Christ is our peace, who broke down the barrier which had existed between Jew and Gentile. The next verse teaches that when Christ established the possibility for both Jew and Gentile to become one new man, in so doing he established peace. Verse 17 says that Christ preached peace to both those who were far away and to those who were near.

Making peace with God, then, means that all who are disciples of Christ must assume the responsibility of being peace preachers. We must concern ourselves with the lost condition of the world and attempt to convert as many souls as possible during our lifetime-so making peace with God.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:21, pp. 12-13
March 24, 1974