Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Tuten Jr.

I have been told that most salesmen spend three-fourths of their time looking for someone to sell to (prospecting it is called) and only one fourth of their time in actual selling. This shows us how important good prospecting is to the salesmen. However, a salesman is a good prospector only when he “targets prospects, ” i.e., he looks for a certain type of individual, one with certain qualifications and needs. He knows that if he talks to anyone else, lie is wasting his time. He tries each day to “target in” only oil those who measure up to his standards. Only then does prospecting pay off.

Our Bible speaks of a wise man winning souls (Prov. 11:30). Furthermore, “they that turn many to righteousness” will shine as stars forever (Dan. 12:3). We keep stressing the importance of soul winning. We do a lot of “prospecting” for prospects. Many seem to have little success and become discouraged. Perhaps we have been spending too much time with people who are long-range prospects, or should not (for the present at least) be considered as prospects at all. We need to seek out “target prospects” and zero on these. We will have a lot more success winning souls to Christ if we seek those who are the most interested in the gospel and convert them. We can always come back to those who show little or no interest. In this way we can turn many more to righteousness.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 48, p. 2
October 11, 1973

By Irvin Himmel

Five years ago the opportunity presented itself for my family and me to locate in the lovely little city of Temple Terrace in the Sunshine State. Having spent the first several years of our married life in Florida, my wife and I were happy to return to this area. We since have felt no regrets in making this move.

My work with the church in Temple Terrace has made possible a close observation of Florida’ College. The meetinghouse of the church is diagonally across the street from the campus. A sizeable number of students attend here, but other congregations have just as many students, and some years more, in their attendance. No church in the Tampa area is thought of as “the college church.” For this I rejoice.

My home is about five blocks from the campus. My wife has taught in the music Department of Florida College for three years. I have known several members of the faculty and administration for about a quarter of a century. As an irregular visitor at chapel during the school session, I hear the whole student body singing praises and receiving edification. In the student center I hear the common gripes, lighthearted conversation, and inform although sometimes serious airing of problems.

Since moving to Temple Terrace I have participated actively in the Florida College Alumni Association-four years as vice-president and currently as president. I encouraged the organization of the Tampa Bay Chapter and am a member of it. Working with the alumni has brought me in contact with some sharp criticism of the college from a few former students, and warm praise from others.

My acquaintance with the college dates back to 1949 when I came as a student after graduating at Freed-Hardeman. The school was opening its fourth session. The program was then on a four-year basis. In the spring of 1951 about a dozen students received degrees. We were the second graduating class. After leaving Temple Terrace in the summer of 1951, 1 kept in touch with the college’s program through its publications, friends, and occasional visits to the campus.

I suppose I have had a fair opportunity to see Florida College from the outside and inside, at its best and at its worst, in its triumphs and in its sorrows, by means of its faculty and by means of its students, on crowded lectureship days and on lonely summer days, from the alumni’s point of view and from other viewpoints, through carefully prepared propaganda and through off the-cuff remarks, from a distance and at close range, by observing its products and by studying its record.

Florida College has faults. There are areas of neglect. Decisions sometimes prove unwise. Its board is not infallible. Its administration makes mistakes. No one can guarantee that every faculty member will be tops. Some students turn out to be bad apples. The school is a human institution.

Florida College faces dangers. In stressing spirituality it must not imagine itself a divine organization. In maintaining accreditation it must avoid sacrificing principles. It must be flexible without lowering its standards. It must have adequate financial support or die. In standing ready to defend its aims and objectives it must refrain from being too sensitive to criticism. It must be on guard lest it defeat its purpose for existing.

Every college on earth has faults, struggles with problems, and faces dangers-one kind or another. I am impressed that Florida College acknowledges its faults, works to find solutions to its problems, and shows awareness of the dangers before it.

I do not believe that any man can predict the future of Florida College. Will it remain on its present course or digress there from? Who knows? Who can predict what a particular local church will be in ten years, twenty, fifty, or a hundred? Who can predict what a person is going to do in future years? Who can predict what a periodical may teach in another decade or two?

Although numerous human institutions may render services that are beneficial to God’s people, the survival of the church does not depend on a college, a publishing company, a building contractor, an electric company, the public schools, the postal service, a bank, or even the government of the United States. One may discuss the virtues of a service organization or a particular form of government without leaving the impression that the church would die if that human arrangement ceased. I believe the church of our Lord would go right on with its work if every college in the world closed its doors, or if the public school system shut down, or if the present government of our nation collapsed. I am not advocating that colleges close, public schools cease, nor that the government be overthrown. I am saying that the church of God can function without these forms of education and political government.

Fully aware that Florida College is a human institution with faults, dangers, problems, and an unknown future, and realizing that God’s kingdom does not rest by man-made enterprises, I now desire to describe some qualities, which to my mind make the little school outstanding.

Florida College offers quality education in a wholesome environment. A private school is free from the political governmental control that has turned many public educational institutions into centers for changes in social patterns and lowering of moral values. Popular public sentiment shapes the policies of tax-supported schools. Private educational bodies make their own rules in accordance with their objectives. Compare the dress code at Florida College with the undressing permitted by state universities, or the rides against profanity with the kind of language permitted even in the classroom in state schools, or visit the campus and observe the general student behavior, then pay a visit to a state-operated school.

Florida College employs dedicated men and women. Most administrators, faculty, and staff members, in my judgment, are hard working, self -sacrificing, God-fearing people. Their devotion comes not from the conviction that the school must live or else the church will die; to the contrary, they are loyal to their educational work because they love young people and want to help them prepare for their chosen professions under good moral and spiritual conditions. I admire people who show more concern for the work they do than for the dollars they earn. There are equally dedicated men and women who follow other pursuits.

Florida College practices discipline. Tough decisions fall on the dean of students and the discipline committee. A student who is suspended may think he has been given a raw deal, but if he only knew the heartache and prayerful deliberation that preceded his removal and could realize the necessity of enforcing rules, he would not complain. I have visited chapel on occasion when the whole student body was being informed of some student’s removal and precisely why. No doubt some offenders are never caught, but students understand that the school has a reputation of dealing firmly with infractions of its basic rules.

Florida College enrolls some of the best of young people. There are always a few who were sent to be reformed, a few who goof, a few who go off on wild tangents, and a few who excel in being oddballs. The majority of the 350 to 450 students who come to Temple Terrace each fall prove to be splendid persons while in this community. My association with the students has contributed to my personal appreciation of what the college is doing. A few who reap the benefits of studying at the college afterward come under influences that prompt them to challenge everything for which the school stands.

Florida College seeks to stay in its place. I have been asked if the school does not to some extent dominate the church here. Apparently some critics would be happy if it did. My answer is strongly in the negative. It is my personal conviction that the college officials go out of their way at times to prevent anything that might have resemblance to control over church affairs. And the local churches are vigilant against contributing to the college. Although he meant well, I disagreed with one brother who objected to the Temple Terrace congregation’s letting a few college students use songbooks for gatherings in their dormitories. He thought that was a contribution to the college. Several local high school students had been using the books for singings in their homes, but no one supposed the church was contributing to the public high school! The students wanted the books for personal use in both cases, not for school use. If anything, brethren in this area bend over backwards to keep the church totally separate from educational institutions.

There are good brethren who have written some pretty hard things about colleges, which offer courses in the Bible. They are positive that every such college will go the way of Campbell’s old Bethany. For all I know, this may prove true, and these very preachers may go the way of old Alex by digressing in later life, and the congregations for which they preach may go the way of the old Bethany church, and the periodicals for which they write may later take the liberal route of the old Millennial Harbinger. In the meantime, I must appraise things on the basis of what they are, not on what they may one day become.

Although I do not agree with every turn that Florida College takes, I recommend it to qualified young men and women. It deserves support from people who value its work and who feel a responsibility in educating youth. While others are plugging periodicals, books, tracts, debates, and the like, I am using this means to record my present impressions of a school. If it is wrong to voluntarily write what some will label a “commercial” of an educational enterprise, may God forgive me, and may He show abundant mercy on my good brethren who write such glowing “commercials” of their publishing enterprises!

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 47, pp. 11-13
October 4, 1973

By Ron Halbrook

(Editor’s Note: An introductory article to this series in which Brother Ron Halbrook is reviewing the position of his dear friend, Brother Edward Fudge, appeared in the Sept. 20th issue. If you have access to that introductory article, but have not yet read it, I suggest you do so before reading this article.)

POINT 2: Our brother shows a fundamental split in outlook by his concept of how the Bible teaches or authorizes. We’ve already seen how he apparently discusses violations of divine silence and additions to God’s Word as though they were lawful opinions and part of our. liberty in Christ. He discusses these same practice’s (instruments, socializing, centralizing), not only as opinions within the realm of liberty in Christ, but also under the expression “matters of human inference.” In this context, he explains we must be careful not to exclude anyone from fellowship because of their weakness of intellect-i.e. they might infer the above practices to be scriptural, we might infer them to be unscriptural, and neither position affects fellowship; see his article on faith and opinion referred to above (in Christian Standard, etc.)

Our brother says that the following statement should be read and “reread,” that it embodies “the entire teaching and work” of the Campbells on “unity,” and that it “is suitable for all times”:

“Although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, maybe truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection … no such deductions can be made terms of communion (or fellowship).”

Our brother approvingly quotes, “We dare not, therefore, patronize the rejection of God’s dear children, because they may not be able to see alike in matters of human inference;” then he quotes, “It is cruel to excommunicate a man became of the imbecility of his intellect.” “All things not expressly revealed and enjoined in the word of God” are “matters of human inference” (emphasis original). Thus, the instrument, centralizing, and socializing mentioned are “matters of human inference.” So, we should not be separated in fellowship just because we “may not be able to see alike” regarding instruments, etc. The user of such inventions should not require the non-user “to see alike nor should the non-user forbid the user. Note the reference to weakness of intellect as the cause of not being able to see alike. (* Along this line, we discussed what he called our “human system of interpretation,” especially as he sees it evidenced in our debates with those embracing institutionalism. I told him it is his duty as a gospel preacher to expose and refute this “human system of interpretation” which he says is so much like that of “the scribes and Pharisees.” Once he exposed the false, he could teach us how to handle aright the Word. “No,” he said he could not do that. For one thing, he can only offer his own human system of interpretation, he explained. “Mine is only a more scriptural human system of interpretation,” he said. I pointed out that Christ showed us the Bible teaches by necessary implication when he presented such arguments as Matt. 22:31-32; he responded that perhaps Christ knew how to do this, but we don’t. I pointed out that Ed has no trouble seeing one can take all the Bible says on primary obedience to the gospel, and thus understand the subject; any change is a sin and forbidden, though the particular change not be specified in the Bible. I asked why the same is not true about understanding worship or organization, with changes being sinful; he said, “It’s just not the same!”)

REVIEW: Again, we point out that our brother is using a word, which has two meanings without distinguishing between those meanings. The word is “inference.” He is confusing “necessary implication” (sometimes called necessary inference) with “differences of opinion on matters of speculation” (or, purely human inferences).

The Bible teaches by direct command (Mk. 16:16), divinely approved example (Acts 20: 7), and necessary implication (Matt. 22:23-33). Whatever God says by necessary implication, we must hear by necessary inference. When God prohibits violating His silence or adding to His Word, we must recognize (or infer) that adding instruments, etc., is just as wrong as adding hamburger trimmings to the Supper-though neither is specifically named as sin. These are inferences we must make if we are to recognize the terms of our Lord’s covenant with us! Failing to do so would bury us, in a few years, in an avalanche of human additions, 4 inventions, and traditions; the pure and simple Word of God would be lost in the landslide of human vanities, as the history of the Disciples of Christ denomination demonstrates!

Men sometimes infer when God has not implied. These are the human inferences and speculations, often found in creeds, which the pioneers were fighting (as in the quotes our brother sometimes uses); see Apr. 12, 1973, Gospel Guardian article “God’s Revelation Designed to be Understood-Ill.” God says (1) “Go,” and men infer a complex system of church centralization; (2) “Preach,” and they infer an exclusive hierarchal system; (3) “sing,” and they infer everything from tin buckets to philharmonic orchestras; (4) “fellowship,” and they infer everything from the smell of coffee to the smell of hot tar going on the roof of a new gym. Creeds are largely formalized inferences on predestination, centralization, etc., which are inventions of human inference in matters where God has not implied. God forbids such opinionating, speculating, violating his covenant, and adding to His Word. Such is not necessarily implied, not within our liberty, not within expediency because not within the law of Christ. Such is the sinful invention of men drifting from Christ as the only Head and from the Bible as the only authority (Jn. 10; Eph. 1:22-23; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Our brother’s argument hinges in part on his suggesting God wouldn’t cause one to be lost whose intellect was too weak to infer what God implied. True, but the danger is extreme in saying this means necessary implication isn’t binding. The next step, on the same premise, is to see that one might be too weak to recognize a divinely approved example, and to set that aside as not binding. Then, one might be too weak to recognize a direct command, so it can be set aside. Thus, the Bible is overturned completely. Our brother won’t travel this road to its end in this writer’s judgment, but such teaching will surely start others down a path from which there is often no return.

Dear brother, we do not desire to hurt you, but we long for some appropriate explanation or clarification.

Underpinnings Cut

POINT3: The scriptures urge us not to add to, substitute for, or take from the Lord’s will, truth, gospel, covenant, and doctrine. We are not to violate divine silence. Some pertinent passages are 1 Cor. 1:10, Gal. 1: 8-9, 2 Jn. 9, Jude 3. Others include Acts 15-24; 1 Cor. 4:6,17; 1 Tim. 3:14-15; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; Heb. 1:13; 7:14; and Rev. 22:18-19. Our brother has been cutting some of these underpinnings which have kept us close to the New Testament pattern and which show it is imperative to continue in that pattern.

He has commented on all the passages in the first list, which is why they are given separately. He thinks none of these passages apply to “doctrinal” issues-like instruments, etc. Numerous times he has written that 1 Cor. 1:10 does not require us to teach the same “doctrine,” but only to have “unity of sentiment, of aim, of spirit, of love” (as June 20, 1968 Guardian). 2 Jn. 9 doesn’t require us to continue in the teaching Christ gave through his apostles as per Acts 2:42, but only to certain specific teaching about Christ (Vol. 24, No. 37, G.G.). Gal. 1 and Jude 3 apply only to the “gospel” in the limited sense of first principles relative to primary obedience (as in Vol. 21, No. 44, G.G).

REVIEW: 1 Cor. 1:10. Paul did not write to tell Corinth that (1) it would be “nice” if they could grow into better faith and practice on the name, morals, worship, organization’ and doctrine of the church, but (2) until they got around to it, or even if they finally couldn’t “see eye to eye” with Paul, they would be “the church of God” anyway. All their goodness or rightness on these or any other matters could not make them merit salvation. Yet the security of the believer and identity of the church is plainly conditioned on faithfulness in such matters. The fact is Paul did not merely appeal for good attitudes in aim, spirit, and love for 16 chapters, though that is certainly interwoven in his appeal. Paul appealed in the name, person, and authority of Christ for the brethren to “all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; ” then he required unity in faith and practice on such matters as the name, morals, worship, and doctrine. When he concluded with the appeal to “stand fast in the faith,” he certainly meant to include all that was presented by divine authority in this very epistle (16:13); along with this, he showed the importance of attitude, aim, spirit, and love (vs. 14).

2 Jn. 9. “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” Certainly John was dealing with a particular error, but it is unfounded assumption to claim he meant no other error violates the doctrine of Christ. Does “the doctrine of Christ” mean only “the doctrine Of Jesus living in the flesh”? An atheist could affirm this and thus have “both the Father and the Son.” One objects that the context says “Jesus Christ,” meaning the Lord of glory, came and that an atheist wouldn’t accept that, then we observe that the Lord of glory holds all authority in his own hands (Eph. 1; Matt. 28). Thus any practice promoted without authority is in violation of the doctrine that Jesus Christ came in the flesh to live, die, raise, and reign. The reigning Christ declared his will to inspired men on the subject of worship, and any who persist in changing, adding to, or taking from that will do not recognize Jesus Christ as the Lord of all glory; men must repent of such sin or perish (1 Cor. 11:23, 30; 2 Jn. 9).

“The doctrine of Christ” or “the doctrine of the Lord” is the same as “the right ways of the Lord,” “the faith,” and “the word of God” (Acts 13:5-12). Such doctrine, word, ways, or faith includes all the revelation of God to men, all that distinctly originated in heaven and not of men (1Cor. 11:23; 16:13; Gal. 1: 11-12; 2:11-14). In the very same way, “the doctrine of Balaam” was not simply one particular doctrine about Balaam, but all that he stood for in faith or practice that originated of men and not from heaven;” the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes,” was not one particular doctrine about the Nicolaitans, but was all that certain ones stood for that originated of men (Rev. 2:13-14). “The doctrine of Christ” is “all the counsel of God,” “the gospel of the grace of God,” the message of “the kingdom of God,” the faith and word and ways and will and covenant and truth of God, i.e. all the revelation of God to men (Acts 20:24-27; 13:5-12; 1 Cor. 16:13). The point of 2 Jn. 9 is that all men who are not content to dwell therein sever themselves from God. The point of vs. 10 is that as they persist in their progression beyond divine revelation, they are to be recognized, marked, and severed from the fellowship of faithful brethren.

Gal. 1:8-9. All that Paul taught originated in the Lord; this included both matters of primary obedience and matters of worship and organization. He did not receive his teaching “of man … but by the revelation of Jesus Christ … For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” To neglect or reject any such divine revelation is to leave the gospel, fall from grace, come under condemnation, and die spiritually (Gal.: 6-12; 2:11-14; 5:4; 1 Cor. 11:23-34). Thus, Paul forbids hearing any other messenger or message in Gal. 1:8-9; that prohibition protects all the counsel or revelation of God, not just some particular. segment of it.

Jude 3. Jude likewise points to the necessity of holding inviolate the entire revelation of God. “Ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” If no particular item of “the faith” was dealt with in Jude, “the faith” still would not mean anything less than the total revelation of God. If we identify one or two particular items, we must certainly understand that those few items are a part of “the faith;” but it would be folly to say those few items constitute “the faith” in toto. Jude mentions “turning the grace of God into lasciviousness,” a challenge to the faith.

He also specifies the danger of despising authority-which is challenging divine authority through failing to submit to those who represent that authority. “To the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever” (vs. 25). Civil powers, parents, and the inspired men all represent divine authority (Rom. 13; 1:30; Eph. 6:1; 1 Cor. 2:13; 11:23). “The faith” isn’t limited to faith, repentance, and baptism. When men do not recognize the authority of the inspired men in matters pertaining to the work, worship, and organization of the church, they are undermining “the faith.” We must respond to the trumpet call of Jude 3 as we face innovations in the church! Anything for which there is not a thus-saith-the-Lord is not of the faith nor in the faith.

(*Ed says my review on these passages does not answer the careful exposition of them that he has previously written. In that case, it shouldn’t be too difficult for him to show in writing how I have erred. Will he do it? )

The more of these underpinnings our brother cuts, the more it appears that he doesn’t believe any scripture forbids us to add, to, substitute for, or take from the Lord’s Word concerning his church and related doctrinal matters. If the appearance is correct, the necessary conclusion is: those who centralize, use instruments, etc., are in unity with Christ and should be accepted without question by faithful brethren. If he believes such practices are positively wrong and sinful, let him please clarify and specify exactly what scriptures teach it.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 47, pp. 3-7
October 4, 1973

 

Most of the brethren know that back in 1946 when the last issue of the Bible Banner that would have ever been published had been brought out, I assumed, agreeably with Brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr. responsibility for its publication. With the help of Brother Roy D. Spears, Luther Blackmon, and all of the personal resources I could raise we formed the Roy E. Cogdill Pub. Co., at Lufkin, Texas and established a printing and publishing business. We put the Bible Banner back on a regular monthly basis with the expectation that Brother Wallace would continue to edit it. For a short time he did so and then abandoned the work and moved west.

We were able to keep it going and within a few months at the encouragement of the brethren made it a weekly paper and reverted to the original name of the paper when founded by Brother Wallace, The Gospel Guardian. Brother Yater Tant was selected as editor and Brother Wallace granted the ownership of the paper to the publishing company.

For a number of years as the president of the publishing Company it was my obligation to see to it that payrolls were met, bills paid, and the paper kept alive. Following the battle in the late forties with the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation and the schools over putting the schools in the church budgets we were met in the early 50’s with the combined forces of all liberally minded brethren and churches as they reconnoitered their forces and made their attack through the human benevolent societies (so called orphan homes) and sponsoring church projects (Herald of Truth, etc.)

For some time the Guardian was the only publication available to brethren through which these digressive innovations could be opposed and the battle raged hot and heavy. Many of those thought to be friends could not stand the pressure and deserted the ranks and sold out their convictions for the sake of popularity and a place to preach, among them were some of the men regarded among us as stalwarts including Foy E. Wallace, Jr.

The struggle was a heavy and hard one. Resources were scarce but by the grace of God and the help of a few faithful brethren we were able to persevere and continue to wage the fight. No one of any knowledge of that period will question the fact that the Gospel Guardian stood, steadfastly and unfalteringly and paid whatever cost was necessary to oppose those who would bring into the Lord’s church their unscriptural innovations.

Through the pages of the Gospel Guardian in her unwavering stand much good was done and much of the cause of our Lord was saved from digressions. Other papers were started and joined forces with us in a general rallying for truth and divine authority and saved much more of the church than was saved in the first great digression.

It is sad to me that with such an illustrious past the position and attitude of the Gospel Guardian today is not the same. Everywhere I go I am asked about the uncertain sounds that are being voiced by those in control of the Guardian now and the familiar question asked is  “what has happened to The Guardian?” People who have taken it for years have lost confidence and interest and are no longer subscribers. A good portion of those who yet take it do so because they have taken it through the years.

My concern, and I think it a legitimate one in view of the time, toil, money and effort put into it in the past, is that if it continues in its unstable course it could become a destructive and damaging influence instead of a bulwark against error. I hope and pray it will not.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 47, p. 2
October 4, 1973