Truth Magazine

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

Among the intelligensia of the modern denominational world there have rarely been those who seriously questioned as improper their usage of such Biblical terms as “fellowship,” “pastor,” “church,” etc. Such terminology is employed frequently by Baptists, Catholics, Pentecostals, et at., without the slightest consideration as to their proper scriptural application. “Fellowship” may be anything from a wiener roast to a ping-pong tournament; a “pastor” is anything from a supreme lord to an errand boy; and the 14 church,” of course, is some mystical representation of “true believers” from “all denominations,” which may or may not (according to one’s particular misinterpretation) “reign a thousand years upon the earth with Jesus.” Obviously such careless and incorrect usage is reprehensible and sinful. Yet, the denominationalists have no premium upon the misuse of scriptural terminology; the Lord’s people must also beware the possibility and probability of such error.

We have come to a point in time, which is not uncommon in the chronicle of the called out body of God. Members among us are guilty of the same error of which sectarians have been accused. History is replete with examples of men who chose to wander precariously far from proper diction with regard to the word of God and fulfilled their destiny in an apostate body. Such men are with us still, Those who utter such epithets as “keepers of orthodoxy,” or “brotherhood watchdog” at the expression of concern for their views; those who, with a gnostic arrogance, ridicule sermons on the “language of Ashdod” as obsolete, irrelevant, or unnecessary; those who would super-piously “wink” with contempt to a like-minded comrade upon hearing a lesson on the true I church; these are the harbingers for a generation of audacious, presumptuous recantation of the revealed truth.

The fact that the Lord’s people today, as they have been historically accustomed to do, “looked upon the other kingdoms about them” and desired their monstrous ecclesiastical superstructure, their high television ratings in the markets of the major cities, their magnificent “cathedrals,” and their freewheeling, ” Key ’73 ” ecumenicism is no surprise in light of their capricious concept of Scriptural diction. Whereas Paul and Silas passed the “Scriptural test” of the Bereans who searched the Scriptures to see if their doctrine was true, our modern day “apostles” would miserably fail. With the advent of the modern speech translation and the widespread acceptance of its corrupt text, there is no exegetical bridge that can span the abyss between what God said and what these “versions” purport Him to have said.

Perhaps there is no better example of a distorted usage of a Biblical word than the term “Christian.” Found but three times in the New Testament, one is yet inundated with rash, careless employment of this noun. Indeed it is significant that in The Random House Dictionary of the English Language that “Christian” is listed first as an adjective and then a noun! Hence, we have “Christian scholarship… Christian campuses,” “Christian publications,” “Christian ministries,” and most absurd of all “Christian churches.” It is no wonder, in lieu of its perverted presence upon the lips of so many, that its true meaning, so full of deep significance and beauty, is lost in a maelstrom of sectarian usage. “Christian” is lent to every needy cause, every praiseworthy organization, yet this writer must hold to the old maxim, “If you can’t baptize it, you can’t call it Christian! ” We hear much of “accommodating language;” “Churches of Christ minister,” “Christendom,” even “church of Christ Church (!),” are familiar terms to all, descriptive perhaps, convenient perhaps, but Scriptural? Hardly.

We are witnessing a time when many utter a cry for unity but really speak of union. We see a period in which many enunciate fellowship, but really mouth ecumenism. We hear exhortations of love, but the admonition is really compromise. We encounter those who claim they offer understanding, compassion, and concern, but truly they countenance error, duplicity, and infidelity. Such semantic somersaulting and theological term switching is reminiscent of our modern cults, but no less indicative of the drift of so-called brethren.

Any fledgling restoration effort is doomed from the outset lest it determine beforehand to employ consistently and conscientiously God’s word in God’s words. Let all those who disparage the usage of labels such as “liberal,” “sound,” or “orthodoxy,” consider the accuracy of their own vocabulary. Let those wise in their own conceit ponder the exhortation of the God Of the universe, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.” Let those who so often deny to anyone “a perfect understanding of the Scriptures,” yet claim the ability themselves through their words and deeds, hear the admonition of Paul, “Wherefore let him who thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” We need not shrink from “calling Bible things by Bible names,” nor timidly refrain from “speaking where the Bible speaks and remaining silent where the Bible is silent,” because of the apostate wails of a few. But, we must deeply fear to pervert Scriptural terminology to suit our own peculiar concepts of what a Christian or the blood-bought body of Christ really is.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 34, pp. 12-13
June 28, 1973

By Cecil Willis

In two previous articles, I have been discussing the statement of Brother William Wallace that some of us older preachers are “turning off” some of the “second generation” preachers. In previous articles, I have freely conceded that Truth Magazine is “turning off” some of these “second generation” preachers, but I have pointed out which ones of these “second generation” preachers we are “turning off.

At the close of the article last week, we were discussing the position advocated by Ronnie Compton and Phillip Kight that apostolic examples are not binding. We quoted from an article mimeographed and circulated by them. The article was entitled “Establishing Bible Authority.” In this article these two young preachers stated, “We are firmly convinced that God requires only that His children believe and obey His commandments, not the hay and stubble of human opinion about unexplained New Testament examples . . . We may only demand compliance with principles which are presented as imperatives and declarations in Holy Writ. This is our conviction.” I might add that another “second generation” preacher, Keith Ward, already has replied to this error being promulgated by our misinformed young brethren. (See Searching the Scriptures, April 1973).

In private discussion with these young brethren (Compton and Kight), they stated that they thought we were reacting too strongly to their teaching, in view of their youth. I told them that I had difficulty ascertaining their age merely by the shape of their typewriter keys. Furthermore, I have never felt that a false teacher who is doing widespread harm by his teaching ought to be spared, whether he is young or old. Actually, I wish these young brethren would consider their youth, and hold their “fire” for a few years. They might spare themselves some grief, and eliminate the harm, which they now are doing. If they were wrestling with these problems privately and were not disseminating their error among other young preachers, I would be disposed to leave them to their musing. But when a young man steps out into the man’s world as a public teacher of religious doctrine, he must be prepared to defend what he teaches. This is true whether this brother be twenty or seventy. I believe it was former President Harry Truman who suggested that if one cannot stand the heat, he had better stay out of the kitchen. Such is my sentiment toward these young brethren.

Certainly I get no pleasure out of reviewing, and publicly marking, young preacher boys. But when considerable harm is being done by their false teaching, I see no alternative but to respond to their error. Unless these two young men make radical changes in the direction they are going, it is my considered opinion that they will never preach a day for a sound church. I certainly could not recommend either of them now, and the error they have taught must be retracted and corrected before I could recommend that any faithful church use them.

A photocopy of a letter from Brother Ronnie Compton is in my hand. In this letter he further explicates the precise application he makes of his newly discovered hermeneutical rule that apostolic examples are not binding. This letter is eight pages long, single-spaced, and legal size pages. In this letter, Ronnie raises a number of questions. He asks: “Is it possible that N. T. examples (which are unexplained in context) could have been recorded for another reason than to serve as a binding pattern for Christians today?” “If such is possible, should we reject as brethren (to be associated with in all areas which do not involve a sacrifice of conviction) those who do not regard (because of lack of authority, they say) controversial N. T. examples as a binding pattern for Christians today?”

Which New Testament examples does Brother Compton have in mind? He cites repeatedly Acts 20:7 and Acts 11:27-30 as instances of apostolic examples that he is not sure are binding. Perhaps before we go further, we should read these two passages. One pertains to taking the Lord’s Supper on the first day, and the other pertains to sending benevolence funds to the elders of destitute churches. Acts 20:7 reads: “And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight.” Acts 11:27-30 reads: “Now in these days there came down prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be a great famine over all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius. And the disciple s, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judea: which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.”

Now these are the specific passages that Brother Compton has in mind as he asks his questions regarding the binding nature of apostolic examples. So let us read further from his rhetorical questions. “What does Luke himself have to say about the debated examples he recorded, for example, in Acts 20:7 and 11:27-30?” “Does Luke explain anything in the immediate context of Acts 20: 7, which is thought by some to limit our observance of the Lord’s Supper to the 1st day of the week, and which is not viewed by others as binding but merely as an inspired, informative, historical record?” “Does Luke explain anything in the immediate context of Acts 11: 27-30, which is thought by some to limit our monetary giving to another church to the realm of emergency benevolence, and which is not understood by others as binding but only as an inspired, informative, record?” “Is it possible for a person to still hold to his view that 20:7 and 11:27-30 are binding, while at the same time realizing his belief is at the best a probability and not absolutely proved, due to the fact that the examples are unexplained by any inspired man, and to the fact that there are no commandments in the N. T. which require 1st day observance of the Lord’s Supper or limit monetary giving to another church to the realm of benevolence?” “Is it possible for us to scripturally receive a brother (as God received us by grace – Rom. 14: 1; 15:7) who through no fault of his own (or the N. T.) does not understand that Acts 20:7 and 11:27-30 are binding? (since we ‘are not under law, but under grace,’Rom. 6:14) (and since we have no authority to put him away)?” Further our young brother asks his fellow-young preachers, “Is it possible that Acts 11:27-30 is an example authorizing churches to send money to another church for benevolence or evangelism as some brethren conclude?” “Is it possible that Luke 22:7, 14-20 is an example authorizing us to observe the Lord’s Supper on Thursday, or another day besides the 1st day of the week? (let us remember that Luke wrote both Luke and Acts, and Luke did not explain either example)?”

Is it not clear what this young brother is going to do with his newly discovered hermeneutical principle? He is going to make eating the Lord’s Supper on the first day or on Thursday an “optional expedient,” as his Abilene Christian College Professor, J. D. Thomas, would express it. These young men have even indicated in private discussions that they do not think the usage of mechanical instruments of music in our worship should be a barrier to fellowship. As another “second generation” preacher expressed it to me, “They have bought the whole Ketchersidian ball of wax.”

These, brethren, are the “second generation” preachers whom Truth Magazine has “turned off”, and whom some of the Gospel Guardian writers think we can bring back to the truth “if intellectual honesty and good-will are manifested.” Well, I have witnessed the efforts of the likes of James W. Adams, Melvin Curry, Harry Pickup, Jr., Lindy McDaniel, and others to whom I would attribute both “intellectual honesty and good-will,” and our young neophytes merely progress further in their error and in their propagation of it. My observation of the discussions indicated that a little “intellectual honesty and good will” might be in order from our young neophytes. I witnessed one of them as he heatedly asked James Adams, “Brother Adams, have you ever considered the meaning of ekklesia???” And I might add that the “bombastic pomposity” of this twenty-year-old brother made it a little bit difficult for an otherwise “cool” James Adams to contain himself!

These young brethren tell us that its the writings of Brother Edward Fudge that have been such a help to them. Even if that be not the case, it would appear that we could enlist the “intellectual honesty and good-will” of Edward and Bill to try to reclaim these young men, rather than to give them a sympathetic pat on the back and to tell them how badly they think they have been treated by us older fellows. Whether these false teachers are twenty or twice twenty, I believe it is criminal negligence for us to sit by idly and let them affect scores of other young Christians, including not a few young preachers. If opposing error taught by these whom Brother Adams has correctly labeled “young neophytes” “turns them off” to Truth Magazine, then “turned off” they must be. But it should be made very clear which second generation of preachers is being turned off by Truth Magazine.

I might add that I have some personal ties to one of these young men whom I have named in these articles that make it very difficult for me to say what has been said. But my concern for truth and the purity of the Lord’s church far exceeds any personal ties that I have with any person on earth. Rather than merely to “turn off” some’ of these “second generation” preachers, we would much prefer to see them again “turn to” the truth as it is in Jesus.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 34, pp. 3-6
June 28, 1973

By Mason Harris

Someone has said, “Work is the inevitable condition of human life, the true source of human welfare.” (Leo Tolstoy) Probably the most unhappy people on earth are those who have nothing worthwhile to do, -and this applies in many instances with as much truth to the wealthy “Club woman” at the top of the social ladder as to the bum at the bottom. Congenial and useful work is the secret of mental and physical well-being.

It has been said, “If a man does not work, neither shall he eat.” History may give credit to one of our founding fathers for this rule, but actually an apostle of our Lord penned these words to a group of Christians who were not working at all, but had become busybodies and were walking disorderly. (2 Thess. 3: 10)

This rule was a maxim among the Jews. It is founded in obvious justice, and is in accordance with the great law under which our Creator has placed us. That rule says, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread” (Gen. 3:19). This rule, as stated by Paul, extends to all who are able to work for a living, and binds us not to contribute to their support if they will not labor for it. No one can be justified in assisting a lazy man.

Our welfare society seems to have missed the point in Paul’s teaching. He gave a rule by which people could regulate their lives. They had the right to choose whether they would feast or starve, and it would be settled on the simple issue as to whether or not they would work. How simple!

Of course, this rule did not apply to the handicapped that were physically or mentally unable to work-or where no opportunity for work existed. There were provisions for such. But no provision was to be made for the lazy and indifferent. If they preferred starvation to work, it was their own choice to make and none should interfere. In no possible circumstances are we to foster indolence. Weak and foolish administration of funds for charitable purposes has too often fostered the poverty it aimed at curing. Indiscriminate giving is here forbidden. Let everybody learn the simple lesson that “you have to milk the cow to get the milk; and you have to fight off the bees to get the honey.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 34, p. 2
June 28, 1973

By Edward 0. Bragwell

A new and dangerous dogma seems to be surfacing in the church. It is really old liberal denominational dogma in new garb. It seems to thrive more near college campuses, but is by no means confined there. We have detected it in the writings, speeches and conversations of some brethren lately. Some consider its promoters to be intellectuals. Fortunately, its influence has been felt but little in the average congregation.

These folks are similar to the Pharisee of old, but a little different. They trust in themselves that they are highly spiritual, humble and thank God that they are not as their brethren, proud, narrow, legalistic, negative, partisan, pharisaical and fossilized. They read their Bibles often, gaining new insights into its meaning to their lives through rapport with those of “other fellowships.” They have learned that there is more to learn at the feet (or from the books) of theological liberals than from those who demand a “thus saith the Lord” for all things. They use some old words to most members of the church, but with new connotations.

“Pharisaism”

If one affirms that his practice is Scriptural while other practices are unscriptural, then he is charged with “Pharisaism.” Luke 18 is given as the proof-text.

The Pharisee was not rebuked by Jesus because he said the publican and sinners were wrong. If so. Jesus would have been pharisaical in saying the Pharisee was wrong. The Pharisee did not feel the need for God’s forgiving mercy. He thought himself to have been righteous by virtue of his perfect obedience. He felt himself to be above sin!

The remedy for real Pharisaism is not to lack confidence that we are members of the Lords church-the very one found in the Bible, if we have obeyed the gospel and worship in spirit and truth. It is not to question the exclusiveness of God’s way. It is found in Galatians 6: 1 and similar passages, i.e., that while we point out the faults of others and point them to the New Testament pattern that we must remember that we are but forgiven sinners-that we must ever be considering ourselves lest we too be tempted.

“Party – spirit”‘

If one insists that another become just like him in religious matters then he is often said to have the “party-spirit.” Is it a cardinal sin to insist that another conform to the same religious rules as ourselves? Paul said that he wished that “all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.” (Acts 26:29). Paul did not, nor should we, desire a personal following. But he believed what he was doing strongly enough to want everyone to conform to that way so should we. When I go out to evangelize (call it “proselyte”, if you like I, I try to get folks to believe what I believe, obey what I obey, be what I am and worship as I do. I am not ashamed of it. Why? Because I believe what I preach with all my heart. Is that the “party-spirit?” Not if I point to Christ as authority. Not if I seek to get people to follow Christ and not man. Not if I refuse to lead a personal following. Not if I do not seek to rally folks around one point of doctrine to the neglect or exclusion of all other points.

“Know-it-all”

If one affirms with certainty any point of religious doctrine, then he is duped a “know-it all.” One point in the new dogma seems to e that if one admits that there are some things he does not know about the Bible, then he must cease to be positive about any thing.

It will come as no surprise to my readers that I do not know all about any subject. I know enough mathematics to have taught for a brief time in high school, but there is a lot about math that I do not know. My own children, three of whom are in high school, will verify that! But, I do know that A= rr2 is not the formula f or computing compound interest. If one of my students had so used it I would have marked him Wrong! Suppose lie had protested, “Do you think you know all there is to know about math’? If you do not, how can you be so dead sure that A= rr 2 Will not compute compound interest? What right have, on to say that I am wrong since you admit that you don’t know all the answers’ Frankly, I would have still marked him wrong and probably done a little more than that if he had called me a -know-it all.”

“Legalism”

More and more the terms, “legalism” and “legalist,” are popping tip in the writings of some brethren and in much the same contexts as used by liberal denominational writers for years. It is applied to one who insists that obedience has something to do with our salvation.

The Bible does say that salvation is “not of ourselves.” It is not “of works” or “debt.” (Eph. 2:8,9; Rom. 4: 1-5). We simply cannot earn salvation-from past sins or eternally. But that is a far cry from saying that our salvation does not depend on our obedience to the law of Christ. It certainly does so depend. “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth….” (1 Peter 1:22). “. . . He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” (Heb. 5:9). Call it legalism, law depending, or whatever – our salvation is conditioned on obedience.

It is not really a question of “legalism,” but whether God’s merciful blessings are conditional or unconditional. If preaching the conditions makes void the grace of God, then every New Testament preacher voided God’s grace. After we have done all within our power to keep God’s law, then our salvation will still be by grace and not of merit because we sin and must have God’s forgiveness. But even God’s forgiveness is conditional (Acts 2:38; 1 John 1:7 9).

It is both unscriptural and misleading to say that salvation does not depend on law in any sense. It was the “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” that made us free from the “Law of sin and death.” (Rom. 8:31. We are told to “fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 0:2). We are “under law to Christ” (1 Cor. 9: 21). We are to strive “lawfully” or according to law. (2 Tim. 9:5).

Our failure, at times, to emphasize God’s grace is no excuse for swinging to the other extreme of doing away with dependence upon law in any sense. Calvinists have made that mistake for years.

If the exponents of the new dogma would read their Bibles more and denominational oriented books less, they might even become more tolerant of those of us “ho insist that the way is narrow. They might even find that some have gone before them have masterfully answered the very positions that they are now expounding. If they would spend more time in rapport with experienced gospel preachers and less time with those who are “ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” they might just be a little more understanding of those who still insist on “mark(ing) them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine . . .” (Rom. 10: 17). Anyway, one with an open mind ought to be willing to give it a try.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 33, pp. 9-11
June 21, 1973