Truth Magazine

By Johnie Edwards

There is much misunderstanding as to what the Bible teaches about tongue speaking. This misunderstanding is beginning to creep in among the people of God. Let me call to your attention eight things the Bible teaches about tongue speaking.

(1) Bible Tongues Were Languages. When the apostles spoke in tongues in Acts 2, “the multitude was confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language” (Acts 2:6). There were several different languages represented as Jews had come from all nations to keep the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:51). They heard the apostles speak in their “own tongue, wherein they were born” (Acts 2:8). So, Bible tongues were not just a lot of jabbering but languages which were spoken at the time.

(2) Bible Tongue Speaking Was Associated With The Baptism Of The Holy Spirit. The Lord promised that He would send the Holy Spirit upon the apostles. “And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high” (Lk. 24:49). The Lord renewed this promise in John 14:26. Jesus told the apostles, “Howbeit when the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come” (Jno. 16:13). In Acts 1:4, 5, 8, Jesus again tells the apostles to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit. They wait in Jerusalem. According to Acts 2, the Holy Spirit comes upon the apostles. “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost; and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). Another example of tongue speaking being associated with the baptism of the Holy Spirit is in the case of Cornelius. Peter said, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15). As a result of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, they spoke in tongues. (Acts 10:45-46).

For people today to be able to speak in tongues as was done in the first century, they would first have to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is impossible to receive today!

(3) Bible Tongue Speaking Was Associated With Spiritual Gifts. There are nine spiritual gifts as recorded in 1 Corinthians 12. One of these was tongues, and the interpretation of tongues. (1 Cor. 12:10). These gifts were imparted only by an apostle by the laying on of his hands. There is a case in Acts 19 where Paul taught and baptized about twelve men. “And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied” (Acts 19: 6). For people today to be able to speak in tongues as was done in Bible days, they would have to receive the baptism of the Spirit as we just noticed or have an apostle lay hands on them, neither of which can be done today! Here is proof-positive that Bible tongues do not exist today.

(4) Bible Tongues Were To Be Understood. Read 1 Corinthians 14:2-26. As you read these passages you will observe (a) “except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air” (v. 9) (b) “Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue” (v. 19). If no one understands the tongue in which one is speaking, what good is accomplished?

(5) Purpose of Bible Tongue Speaking. When Jesus told the Apostles to carry out the great commission, he also told them that the, could cast out devils, speak with new tongues, take up serpents, drink deadly things and not be hurt and recover the sick. (Mark 16:15-18) Now, what was the purpose of these things? “And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following” (Mk. 16: 20). Tongue speaking along with these other miracles simply confirmed the word. Paul told the Corinthians “Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not. . .” (1Cor. 14:22). Since the word has now been confirmed (Heb. 2:3), we do not need tongue speaking to confirm it!

(6) Use Of An Interpreter. One of the spiritual gifts was “the interpretation of tongues” (1 Cor. 12: 10). Paul said, “Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret” (1 Cor. 14:13). Again, Paul said, when there was tongue speaking, “let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God” (1 Cor. 14:27-28). If one spoke in a language others did not know and there was no interpreter, it became unfruitful. (1 Cor. 14: 14).

(7 ) Bible Tongue Speaking Was Orderly. “If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that, by course . . .” (I Cor. 14:27). Again it is said, Let all things be done decently and in order” (I Cor. 14:40). What little so called tongue speaking that I have heard, was everything but orderly!

(8) Bible Tongue Speaking Has Ceased. Paul told the Corinthians that “whether there be tongues, they shall cease . . .” (1 Cor. 13-8) He further told them when tongue speaking would cease. He said that tongue speaking would cease “when that which is perfect is come” (1 Cor. 13: 10). That “which is perfect” is the word of God revealed in its completness. (Jas. 1:25) Now that the Word of God has come, now that it has been completed, tongue speaking has ceased. This occurred about A.D. 96 and there has not been a case of Bible tongue speaking since.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 16, pp. 10-11
February 22, 1973

By Bill Reeves

In this eighth and final article in a series on Max Kings The Spirit Of Prophecy, we notice briefly his case for Daniels prophecy on the 70 weeks (9:24-27). King has much to say about this prophecy throughout his book and lectures. The interpretations of this prophecy are legion, and it is not within the province of this short article to go into detail on it. Whether one interprets it in the usual manner, considering it as Messianic (that is, that the 70 weeks, and the six items of v. 24, are fulfilled in Christs first coming and death on the cross-with the additional fact added by Daniel that Jerusalem would be destroyed), or whether one follows Kings “gap” theory (whereby a 30 year gap is put between the 69th and the 70th prophetical week, and the six items are fulfilled within the 7 year period between A. D. 63 and A. D. 70), still Kings Preterist-View doctrine is as foreign to the teachings of the Scriptures as any other man-made doctrine. This has been amply shown in the previous seven articles. It would take seven times seventy to expose every perversion of Scripture to be found in his look!

How anyone could have a knowledge of the mission and work of the Messiah, Christ Jesus, and after reading Dan. 9:24, conclude that these six items were not fulfilled in His first coming and death on the cross, is beyond me. But, King has Christ coming at the end of the 69th week, and then by means of his “gap” theory jumps some 30 years distance, and gets these six items fulfilled between A. D. 63 and A. D. 70. The weakness of his interpretations shows most obviously in spots. For example, on p. 55 he is in trouble trying to fit in the cessation of the sacrifice and oblation. On p. 64 he has to get “righteousness” in too many years after Pentecost, so he invents some expressions and says, this “has reference to the time of Christs coming when things would be so changed that righteousness would be the eternal state of the new world.” What the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70 had to do with working such drastic changes that righteousness would be no longer a non-eternal state, but rather an eternal state, he does not tell us. He cannot! It is just a convenient fabrication.

After leaning so heavily upon his “gap” theory, he has the audacity to refer to our “gap” between ones death and his receiving the glorified or spiritual body in the resurrection day! A-211

In defense of the “gap” theory, King before the Preachers Meeting presented Job 3:6, “As for that night … let it not come into the number of the months.” “He was cut off (referring to Jesus-BHR) A.D. 32, and we have a gap between the 69th and the 70th week. One of the reasons for that gap is, Christ said, “But of the day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only. (Matt. 24:36). Had there been no gap, even the disciples could have figured out from the basis of Daniels 70 weeks exactly when the Lord was going to return in the destruction of Israel.” After trying to make Jobs sufferings typical of the churchs persecution by the Jews before Jerusalem was destroyed, he admits, after citing Job 3: 6, “this is the closest I can come in the Bible to show the gap.

But in his book King refers, in defense of his “gap” theory, to (1) the division which Daniels prophecy makes between the first 69 and the 70th weeks. Yes, but it also makes a division between the first 7 and the next 62! King, wheres the gap there? (2) Acts 3:19-21 (Christs being in heaven after his ascension and until his return in A. D. 70 to restore all things! This is a “gap.”); 2 Pet. 3:9,15 (the period of the longsuffering of God; i.e., between A. D. 33 and A. D. 70-the “gap”); Luke 19:41-44 (time elapsed between Christs being cut off and Jerusalems destruction); Matt. 24:36 and Acts 1: 7 (the secrecy of the time would indicate that the 70th week would not follow immediately the other 69).

Well, these Scriptures mentioned just above by King have no bearing at all upon the issue of whether or not a 70-week unit should have a “gap” in it. King merely accommodates to his “gap” theory what these passages say, and actually perverts the meaning of Acts 3:19-21 and 2 Pet. 3:9, 15. We have already exposed him on 2 Pet. 3, and suffice it to say, with the apostle Peter, that the passage in Acts 3 had to do with those days (v. 240)!

So, there is no more a “gap” between the 69th and 70th weeks, than between the first 7 and the next 62! Daniel said that 70 weeks were decreed (v. 24), but King says 69, plus gaps of several more, plus the 70th, were decreed. As there was no gap in the 70 years of captivity in Babylonia, so none is to be expected in this 70, prophetical-year, unit.

Were not those six items of Dan. 9:24 so messianic in nature, through and through, we might look to other interpretations which would harmonize with the Scriptures. But the Preterist-View of prophecy tears the entire Divine Library of 66 books to shreds!

Premillennialism does not begin to prevert as many Scriptures as Kings doctrine does, and yet he told the preachers: “I think the premillennial issues today are going to force us in this direction (to the Preterist-View-BHR) if we successfully meet them.”

Daniels prophecy tells us (v. 25) that the first seven prophetical years would see the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and that at the end of the next 62 would come the Messiah. Then, after the 62week period, two things would happen (v. 26): the Messiah would be cut off, and the city and the sanctuary would be destroyed. This verse does not tell us how long after the expiration of the 62-week period these two events would happen, but the next verse (27th) does tell us that in the 70th prophetical week (or seven-year period) the Messiah would make a firm covenant with many and in the midst of it (3 and one-half years) he would make the sacrifice and oblation to cease. This is when, evidently, he would be cut off, as referred to in the previous verse, because his death on the cross put an end to the Law and its priesthood (Heb. 4: 12). Was not the veil of the temple rent on that occasion?). The additional information is given in v. 27 concerning the fact of Jerusalems destruction. It is mentioned as following (how long is not stated) the expiration of the 70th week. So, by Daniels prophecy the Jews could know that their capital city would be fully destroyed subsequent to the Messiahs being cut off. Both events are mentioned in v. 26, but in v. 27 only the one is mentioned as occurring in the 70th week: the death of the Messiah, because he was to make the covenant then, and of course he would have to make it before he died, or in his death.

In conclusion, I direct my readers attention (King, note that “readers” is plural and “attention” is singular, and compare it to what you have done to Rom. 8:23 and Phil. 3:21, “our body”!) again to the fact that the whole basis of this Preterist-View heresy is a perversion of Pauls allegory in Gal. 4. Paul, through the Holy Spirit, no more made allegorical the detail of Ishmael and Isaac living in Abrahams household for a short time, than he did the detail of Isaacs being weaned! King goes beyond what Paul makes allegorical and misuses the purpose of the allegory, which he did present.

He then sets out to boldly force literal passages into his own mold of spiritualizing, and dares call one “fleshly” if he does not agree with him. He switches terms and plays with English words, and employs his sophistry in the most subtle of ways. He adds a word or phrase, or otherwise makes some small change, to misrepresent his opponent. He quotes only part of an authority which would appear to agree with his position, and thus leaves wrong impressions. He has built up his own peculiar lingo to support his doctrine. He ignores contexts wholesale, and presses them into his service. His book is difficult to read and monotonously repetitious. Paragraph after paragraph is but a conglomeration of jumbled and unrelated references, which he has arbitrarily applied to fit his doctrine. No one, without Kings help, would ever have guessed that inspired writers were trying to get such a message across!

It is not at all likely that one so committed to a false doctrine, as Brother Max King is, can be salvaged from it, but if anything can be done to rescue him, I pledge all the help I can give to that end. Nothing would make me happier! -Route 3

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 16, pp. 8-9
February 22, 1973

By Cecil Willis

In this series of articles, I have been attempting to show why I referred to Brother Reuel Lemmons, Editor of the Firm Foundation, as being like a Chameleon. Some have criticized me and said that I was being too hard on Brother Lemmons. Brother Lemmons is a man of considerable influence, and I think that much that he teaches and promotes is detrimental to the pristine gospel. Jimmy Lovell, Editor of Action, recently said that Reuel Lemmons is “in my thinking, the most powerful voice in our brotherhood.” (Action, Nov.-Dec., 1972). Lovell added, “I honestly believe that Reuel Lemmons is the most influential person of this generation.” Of course, I have no way of knowing whether Jimmie Lovells opinion of Reuel Lemmons is accurate or not. But unquestionably, Lemmons is a man of considerable influence among brethren. It is for this reason that what he says needs careful examination.

To me, Lemmons has been the most enigmatic man of this generation. Quite frankly, I have never quite understood the man. He seems completely oblivious to his most obvious inconsistencies, which inconsistencies it seems everyone (including his liberal brethren) most clearly see. But Lemmons seems unaware that anything he says contradicts anything else he has said. Certainly men have a right to change when they become convinced they are in error, but Lemmons is not aware of any disparity in his teaching and practice.

Some brethren may still be unaware of the serious disagreement between the Gospel Advocate (which B. C. Goodpasture edits from Nashville, Tennessee) and the Firm Foundation (which Reuel Lemmons edits from Austin, Texas). Both of these are religious journals with a liberal bias. They represent the strongest printed media at the disposal of the liberal (but now sometimes called “mainstream”) element in the church. Each of these publications has a circulation well in excess of 20,000. However, they have some serious and deeply ingrained doctrinal disagreements, but which disagreements they usually try to keep disguised. It is very, very seldom that one of these papers will take an overt swipe at anything said in the other.

Yet the Gospel Advocate (whose influence is mainly East of the Mississippi River) and the Firm Foundation (whose influence is mainly West of the Mississippi River) have serious doctrinal disagreements. For example, the Gospel Advocate openly advocates congregational contributions to liberal arts colleges operated by members of the church, which contributions the Firm Foundation teaches to be sinful. On the other hand, the Firm Foundation teaches that benevolent institutions must be under the oversight of the elders of a local church and therefore must not be under the direction of a Board of Trustees separate and apart from the elders of a local church. But the Gospel Advocate teaches that orphan homes must be overseen by a Board of Trustees separate and apart from the eldership, and must not be overseen by elders “as elders.” Surprisingly, these two papers and brethren who share their widely divergent sentiments get along quite well, and unitedly oppose those of us whom they have labeled “factionists” and “hobbyists,” while we oppose church supported colleges and orphan homes under Boards, as well as sponsoring church arrangements whether in evangelism or benevolence.

Some Correspondence

Last Summer Brother Lemmons wrote about the trip to the Philippines made by Brother Cogdill and me in 1910. He entitled his article about our trip “Butcher Shop.” I replied to his article in Truth Magazine in two articles entitled “Lemmons Butchers the Truth.” William H. Lewis was preaching last Summer at McMinnville, Tennessee. Keep in mind that Tennessee is Gospel Advocate country. Oh brother, is it! ! !

Shortly after the appearance of my reply to Lemmons article, Brother Lewis wrote me: “I read your Editorial in the July t 3, 197 2 issue of Truth Magazine under the subject Lemmons Butchers the Truth. I have some information from his pen I thought you might like to use. I have been dealing with the institutional issue on my radio program here in McMinnville for some time now. Someone sent me the Editorial Butcher Shop by Brother Lemmons, with the statement that I needed the lesson contained therein. That gave me the opportunity to present Brother Lemmons review of Brother Baxters The College in the Budget tract. A local- citizen wrote Brother Lemmons and asked him his position on the church support of colleges and orphan homes. Enclosed is a letter that was given me by Mr. H. B. Roney of this city. I see nothing wrong with you reviewing this letter in Truth Magazine as Brother Lemmons said with regard to this matter. I will appreciate your letting this be known in the community.

Brother H. B. Roney is the President of the City Bank and Trust Company in McMinnville, Tennessee. When Brother Lewis reported that Reuel Lemmons was opposed to the church support of orphan homes under boards and opposed to the church support of colleges like David Lipscomb College of Nashville, apparently Brother Roney just could not believe that Brother Lewis was telling the truth in his representation of Reuel Lemmons. Consequently, Brother Roney wrote Lemmons to ask where he stood on these issues. Brother Roney said: “I would like to ask your stand on the church supporting orphan homes and colleges. Youre being quoted as being against 4 these practices here in this area. . . .” And to oppose church support of colleges and institutional orphan homes in Middle Tennessee (is not popular, to say the least. The preponderance of the Middle Tennessee brethren, influenced by the Gospel Advocate, favor church support of both institutional orphan homes and colleges.

Lemmons Reply

In a June 8, 1972 letter to Brother Roney, Brother Lemmons said: “I thank you so much for your letter of June 5 inquiring of my stand on orphan homes and colleges. There are brethren all over the brotherhood who like to get on radio programs or in pulpits and talk gnawingly about what I believe and practice. They butcher editorials of mine and quote sections out of them that do not represent me at all and their malicious meanness cannot be touched in the way it should be handled by anyone who is a Christian. The man who is quoting me as being against churches supporting orphan homes and colleges, either does not know what he is talking about or is a malicious liar, one of two. There isnt a man living in the brotherhood, including the man on the radio program you mentioned, (who) has done more for orphan homes or colleges than I have. I presently serve on the board of two of our Christian colleges; Abilene Christian College and Pepperdine College. Ads bearing my name in support of Christian colleges appear in every paper in our brotherhood and be knows it. I have raised money for a number of orphan homes and am the personal friend of most of the superintendents, and have supported in every way I know, the church caring for orphans. Any man who quotes me, as being opposed to orphan homes knows he is lying. He could not possibly misunderstand my stand that much. And, I want to insist that you show this letter to the Brother Lewis you mention as preaching over WBMG. If he is sincere, he will apologize for his misrepresentation and will cease to do it. It is absolutely contrary to my belief and to all my writings to quote me as being opposed to colleges or orphan homes. I will appreciate your letting this be known in the community. Yours in the Faith, (Signed) Reuel Lemmons.”

Armed with this categorical statement, Brother Roney then proceeded to make it appear that William Lewis had lied about Lemmons position in opposition to churches supporting colleges and orphan homes. When William Lewis sent me photocopies of the correspondence, I could hardly believe my eyes. Had I misunderstood everything Lemmons had said in a decade of editorials? I admit I have become a little unsure that I ever know what Lemmons really intended to say in his articles. But this letter was explicit. “The man who is quoting me as being against churches supporting orphan homes and colleges, either does not know what he is talking about or is a malicious liar, one of the two.” I did not see how that sentence in Lemmons letter could be misunderstood. It contradicted everything Lemmons ostensibly has stood for regarding church support of colleges and orphan homes under boards.

But McMinnville is Middle Tennessee; it certainly isnt West Texas. So it appears that chameleon Lemmons blends in perfectly with the theological grasses of Middle Tennessee. Bill Lewis is blatantly called a liar, called upon to apologize, and made of ill repute in the city because he supposedly lied about Reuel Lemmons.

When Lewis sent me the correspondence, I replied to Lewis: “Either he did not state in that letter what he believes, or else he did not state in the Firm Foundation what he believes, or else I cannot understand a thing in the world that Reuel Lemmons says.” Being baffled by Lemmons statement, and I am sure Lewis was somewhat chagrined at what appeared to be unqualified documented proof that Lewis lied in representing Lemmons position, I therefore wrote Brother Lemmons for further comment about his statement.

My Letter

In my letter of July 29th, 1972, 1 told Brother Lemmons: “Recently I was sent a quotation from a letter you wrote to H. B. Roney June 8, 1972 in which you are quoted as saying: The man who is quoting me as being against churches supporting orphan homes and colleges, either does not know what he is talking about or is a malicious liar, one of the two.Did you say what it appears you said in that letter? From everything I have read from you, I have gotten the definite impression that you oppose the church support of orphan homes under boards separate and apart from the elders of a church, and that you also oppose the church support of colleges. Sometimes a fellow does not make himself very clear in a letter, and this sentence does not appear to agree with what I understand your position to be on church supported orphan homes under boards and the church support of colleges. I would appreciate any clarification that you feel is needed to correctly represent your position on these two issues. I thought you and I were in agreement in our opposition to church contributions to orphan homes under boards and to the church support of colleges. If I have misunderstood your position, I would like to know of the misunderstanding. On the other hand, if I have correctly understood your position, I cannot understand your statement made to Brother Roney. Brotherly, (Signed) Cecil Willis.”

Lemmons Explains

Brother Lemmons explanation of the statement did not appreciably help the situation. He offered more than one explanation, none of which sufficed. In a letter to me dated August 7th, Brother Lemmons said: “After receiving your letter, I have gone back and reread both the Roney letter and my reply to him and I can clearly understand how what I wrote him would appear contradictory to other things I have said or written in the frame of reference that you brethren are used to. You will note that in my reply to him, I replied only to his inquiry concerning my stand on orphan homes and colleges. You undoubtedly have a copy of the letter that I wrote him and you will note the entire second paragraph relates to my own personal stand concerning orphan homes and colleges. . . .” Now what explanation is that? I wonder whose stand Brother Lemmons thought the brother was interested in when he addressed his letter to Reuel Lemmons. Of course, the statement was an expression of Lemmons personal position. But what does that explanation explain?

Then Brother Lemmons offered this explanation: “. . . I will try to send you a copy of my letter to Roney and you will see through the entire letter that I made reference only to my own personal stand in favor of orphan homes and colleges which is consistent (sic) with all that I have said or written and makes no reference at all to church support from their treasuries of either one.” Now that explanation is just not the truth. Both the inquiry and the answer had to do with church support of colleges and orphan homes, and did not pertain only to Lemmonsprivate stand about whether such organizations had a right to exist or not. Note again Roneys inquiry: “I would like to ask your stand on the church supporting orphan homes and colleges. Youre being quoted as being against these practices in this area. . . .” Furthermore, Lemmons explicitly stated in his response that he was talking about congregational support of these institutions. Listen again: “The man who is quoting me as being against churches supporting orphan homes and colleges, either does not know what he is talking about or is a malicious liar, one of the two.” At no time in this discussion was the point at issue whether it was right for an individual to support a private college or an orphan home. The question and the answer had to do with church support.

Then Brother Lemmons tried a third explanation. It is worse still. Lemmons explained to me: “I did not understand his letter to refer to church treasury support of either, but rather to general church backing of christian education and work connected with caring for orphans.” I do not know why he did not understand Roneys question to refer to “church treasury support.” Roney asked, “I would like to ask your stand on the church supporting orphan homes and colleges”

Brother Lemmons said he understood Roneys question to pertain “to general church backing of Christian education and work connected with caring for orphans.” By “general church backing,” if Brother Lemmons does not refer to congregational treasury support, he must be referring to the church universal acting distributively, which would refer in that context to individual action by Christians rather than to collective (or congregational) action. But that explanation will not work either. If Brother Lemmons had in mind the church universal, look where this position leaves him. He said: “The man who is quoting me as being against churches (note the plurality-CW) supporting orphan homes and colleges. Does Brother Lemmons believe in a plurality of universal churches? This would be rank denominationalism.

Concluding the Matter

So far as I was able to tell, Brother Lemmons never offered any explanation that did not involve him in more difficulties than it resolved. One wonders if Brother Lemmons would have written the same kind of answer to me, or to Glenn Wallace, or to Roy Lanier, Sr. Very conveniently, the answer given fitted the milieu of Middle Tennessee like a glove.

However, Brother Lemmons in his letter to me went on record again as follows: “I have always opposed churches supporting from their treasury, the operation of fine arts colleges. I would not oppose a church contributing to orphan children in a home under a board (note the fine distinction, “to orphan children”-CW), but I do oppose the existence of the board itself. It is the existence of the board and not the home that I consider to be without scriptural foundation. Checking back far enough into my writings on the subject, you will find that I have repeatedly said I am for all the homes but I am against a board arrangement.”

That last statement about being “for all the homes” but “against a board arrangement” is but another instance of Lemmons confusing theological gobbledygook. Why doesnt he just come right out and state that he thinks it is sinful for congregations to contribute to homes overseen by boards (like Boles, Mid-Western, Potter, Tennessee Orphan Home, Childhaven, Schults-Lewis, etc.)? By stating he is “for all the homes,” some may never learn that he thinks it is sinful for congregations to donate to the “homes” under boards, as most of these “homes” East of the Mississippi River have been operated. By doing a little double-talk, he may cause some to be unaware of the serious disagreement among liberal brethren.

Lemmons can be plenty difficult to understand. That is why so many brethren (both liberal and conservative) think of him as being either knowingly inconsistent, or exceedingly naive. And this obliqueness is the reason why I said he had chameleon-like traits. He blends in quite well with his surroundings, or else disguises his position in theological double-talk until it would take a Philadelphia lawyer to tell where he really stands on an issue. Charitably, his friend Jimmie Lovell states that he has the unique quality of being “equally strong on both sides of a question.” While I do not know if Reuel Lemmons is the most influential brother in the brotherhood, I feel quite sure that he is the most paradoxical one.

To conclude this incident, it appears to me that H. B. Roney and Reuel Lemmons now should apologize to Bill Lewis for calling Lewis a liar, when it is now an established fact that Lewis did correctly represent Lemmons position and Lemmons now appears in the unenviable position of misrepresenting himself. What was it that someone said about Lemmons being the only man he knew who could sit in his own lap?

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 16, pp. 3-7
February 22, 1973

By Larry Ray Hafley

Classical modernism, the denial of the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures and all that that denial includes, has been thought to lie outside of grace, outside of remission, redemption, and regeneration in Christ. One cannot, it is assumed, be a defender of the grace of God and at the same time be a modernist. That idea, if untrue, would allow a modernist to lurk in grace without fear of exposure. Since it is thought impossible to be a modernist and be in grace, a modernist in the grace of God would go unexposed. The truth is, as we purpose and propose to show, that tenents of liberal, antisupernatural modernism may indeed be espoused by “conservative” defenders of the system of grace.

Modernism rejects and repudiates the inspiration of the Scriptures. It is needless to speak, as we did in our opening sentence, of the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, for when one denies Scripture as the very word of God, he necessarily destroys its authority. Likewise, when one affirms the inspiration of Scripture, he affirms its authority.

The second consequence of doubting or denying the inspiration of the Bible is to deny absolute truth. Says the modernist, there are no doctrines about which we may be dogmatic; everything is relative. “The modern aversion to Christian dogma is due to the rejection of the authority of Scripture . . . One of the characteristics of modernism is that no doctrine is held to he essential” (John Horsch, Modern Religious Liberalism, p. 45).

Certain men despise the idea that specific, clear-cut doctrines can be shown concerning the work, worship, and organization of the church. These despisers are not all antagonists of grace. They most eloquently defend the existence of God, the Deity of Christ, and the inspiration of Scripture, but they most vehemently deny absolutes. Who are these men? They are the ones who, while claiming to believe the truth regarding the New Testament mold or pattern of the church, deny that such teaching matters with respect to Gods grace and fellowship. This is classical modernism in grace. It is generally undetected as modernism because it avows the inspiration of Scripture, but when it seizes the major plank and platform of anti-supernatural liberalism, i.e., there are no absolute, binding standards of doctrine, it is modernism. “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:20).

The wisdom that declares spiritual fellowship with those whose doctrines and practices pervert and pollute the pattern of the New Testament church is the wisdom of modernism. Not all such men live, move, and have their being in infidel schools. Some of them are professors of Gods gospel of grace. To affirm that doctrine is relative or have no significance is to “gut” and take the teeth out of inspiration. A man who preaches the inspiration of the Scriptures must preach (l) their authority and (2) their traditions or teachings. But some attempt to stand by inspiration and authority but deny the traditions as being of any spiritual moment. This cannot be done. It is the seed of unbelief, the root of infidelity, and the fruit of apostasy.

The only thing about which these relativists and non-absolutists are certain is that doctrine is basically irrelevant or insignificant. If, though, it is true that doctrine is unimportant, then the doctrine that says doctrine is unimportant is unimportant. From this circle or cloverleaf there is no exit ramp.

“Grace In Christ”

“Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:1). Grace is in Christ, but some abide not in Christ-“If a man abide not in me” (Jn. 15:6). Hence, those who depart from Christ, depart from grace, for grace is in Christ Jesus. But how does one depart from Christ? By not abiding or remaining in His word, that is how. “If a man keep my sayings (my word, my doctrine), he shall never see death” (Jn. 8:51). “If a man love me, he will keep my words (my doctrine)” (Jn. 14:21). If he does not love Christ, he will not keep His words. “If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son and in the Father” (1 Jn. 2:24). If the doctrine does not abide in you, you do not abide in the Son and the Father, thus, you do not abide in grace. “See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven” (Heb. 12:25).

Conclusion

To accept in grace and in fellowship those who keep not Christs sayings, those who “refuse him that speaketh,” is to receive those who do not truly love the Lord. That is what the above passages teach. Those who tolerate every wind of doctrine under an umbrella of grace understand “not what they say, nor whereof they affirm.” They take the rudiments of old line modernism and parade them under the elements of grace. Their pious toleration is a Divine abomination. They have a form of grace and godliness but deny the power thereof. From such turn away.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 15, pp. 12-13
February 15, 1973