Truth Magazine

By Bill Reeves

King versus Jesus, on Matt. 22:23-33. King, like the Sadducees of old, denies a general resurrection of individual dead bodies.” A-194 No wonder, then, that this passage gives him trouble. But, give King credit: he does meet it head on in his book, although he employs his customary sophistry to set aside its obvious import.

He blames the Pharisees “fleshly concepts” for the Sadducees unbelief. The Sadducees “rejection of the resurrection was due largely to the fleshly concepts taught and believed in that day.” A-217 Where did you learn that, King? Made it up, didnt you? Paul was a Pharisee! (Acts 23:7,8, “1 am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question … For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit.”)

“They reasoned that if the fleshly body were going to be resurrected in the last day . . .” A 217 Yes, the fleshly body will be resurrected in the last day, but it will not be raised a fleshly body (I Cor. 15:44). King very astutely misrepresents us repeatedly by referring to a “fleshly resurrection,” rather than to a bodily resurrection. He knows there is a difference.

“But Jesus informed them that their problem existed in their ignorance of the nature of the resurrection.” A-217 Note how subtly King inserts the word “nature” into the discussion. Ah, but he is subtle! No, King, the Sadducees did not deny the nature of the resurrection; they denied the fact of it! Read v. 23 and Acts 23:8, again, and notice also 26:8, 23. Those Sadducees affirmed: “there is no resurrection,” just exactly like King affirms: there is no “general resurrection of individual dead bodies.” King tries to slip the word “nature” into the discussion and pin Sadduceeism on us!

King speaks of the Sadducees first error being that of not knowing the Scriptures, and their second one, that of not knowing the power of God. He is wrong again; they had but one error in this context: they denied the fact of the resurrection! Jesus says that in so denying it they showed both their ignorance of the Scriptures and of the power of God. I emphasize “power” to alert the readers of Kings book to the smoothness and subtlety of deceit he employs throughout it, for concluding matters, he says, “Thus, the failure of the Sadducees to know their scriptures and the promise (emphasis mine-BHR) of God . . . ” A-218 See how he switches terms in order to condition his readers minds to his position? (He had just above written about the resurrection being for fulfilling to Abraham and to his seed the promise of a new heaven and earth, meaning his A.D. 70 doctrine).

It would take a book to expose the twisting and perverting of all the Scriptures, which King has set forth in The Spirit Of Prophecy. These few articles can take up only some samples of this play-on-words artist!

How King is hurting on Luke 20:27-40! Let us look at his pitiful attempt to explain it away.” Jesus in this passage talks about “this world” (aion, age) and “that world,” and Kings Preterist-View doctrine has to give such expressions a constant application: namely, the “Jewish world” and the “Christian world” (as of A.D. 70!). But Jesus is talking about life now on earth, and the life in heaven after this life is no more, because he talked about a time when they when people marry, and a time when they will no more be doing so. If Jesus is talking about what King is, then since A. D. 70 there is to be no more marriage (and how could we possibly have gotten from A. D. 70 until now without marriage!). King knows this and we now look at his perversion of Rom. 14:17, designed to help him out of his predicament.

He writes: “The statement that those in the world to come would neither marry nor be given in marriage is not, as it would appear on the surface, a denial of marriage or physical life in the Christian age. Rather, it has the meaning of Pauls statement that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost (Rom. 14:17). Jesus was not teaching that the citizens of the world to come do not marry” anymore than Paul taught that citizens of the kingdom do not eat or drink. The point being debated is the nature of the world that was to come. The children of this world (Jewish) were constituted as such by physical birth, being the fleshly seed of Abraham. Thus, the citizens of this world were propagated by marriage or fleshly procreation. But such would not be true in the world to come (the Christian age). Jesus said those who would be worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, would not do so by physical means or methods. It was not the kind of world that could be entered by flesh and blood (1 Cor. 15:50) . . . Neither can they die any more because they are the children of the resurrection, refers to the spiritual state of redeemed man, and not his physical state.” A237,238

King can crowd more error, sophistry and perversion into one paragraph than anyone I have ever known! Let us note some of these:

(1) (Denying marriage or physical life in the Christian age. Of course what Jesus said is no such denial, for the simple reason that Jesus was not talking about the “Christian age.” Jesus does deny that there will be marrying in the world to come. Since marriage is not denied us now, “that world” is not now! How King is hedging, here!

(2) (Citizens of the kingdom do not eat or drink). Rom. 14:17 has nothing in the world to do with the subject of Lk. 20:27-40. Jesus is talking about the world to follow the one we are living in now, and Paul is talking about our conduct as citizens of the kingdom now. What we eat and drink, or do not eat and drink, is not the basis of our conduct in the church, Paul says, in a context dealing with matters of indifference. But, incidentally, look what King has done: cited a text concerning conduct in the kingdom before A. D. 70! King, if he has a parallel at all, will have to affirm that Paul says, “for the kingdom of God will not be (after A. D. 4 0) eating and drinking, but righteousness . . .”

(3) (The point being debated is the nature of the world to come). This is Kings desperate invention. As he did in handling Matt. 22, here he slips in the idea of “nature.” This is not Christs point! Christ is not talking about how to get into the world to come: whether by literal marriage or not! Thats ridiculous, and King knows that he is perverting this context. Just which words of Jesus, King, do you cite to show that Jesus was talking about proper means or methods of attaining to that world? Jesus spoke of what people would not be doing once they did attain to it: they would not be marrying, giving in marriage, nor dying (present tense in the Greek text, which indicates continual, habitual action). King makes Jesus say that N. T. saints, of before A. D. 70, would not be able to get into Kings complete and perfect something, coming when Jerusalem would be destroyed, by means of the marriage act!

(4) (“Neither can they die any more” does not refer to physical death). King expects us to accept this forced conclusion, in spite of the context of Luke 20:27-40. He slips in some texts dealing with spiritual death, and hopes we will not detect his tactics, his switching of terms! Well, the simple truth of the matter is that (a) the Sadducees, “they that say there is no resurrection,” period! came to Jesus and propounded a case in which seven men died physically. Do you see that, King? Of course you do. (b) Then the woman died, also and that physically! (c) Jesus claimed that in the resurrection they do not do that anymore, King. They do not die! physically! Jesus said, they cannot. Why? Because they are like the angels, who do not die.

King represents us as “waiting for some miracle of spiritual renewal or transformation to take place in physical death,” A-238 and in doing so, misrepresents us! Let us ask: King is that the way you used to express it when for years you taught on the resurrection what we teach now? Before you left the truth, did you preach it like that? In those terms? For your benefit, I will tell you what we are waiting for: we are waiting for the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven, who shall fashion anew (Greek, changing what is outward and shiftingVincent, p. 889; change the figure of-Thayer, p. 406) the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of His glory (Phil. 3: 20,2 1). We do not expect this at the moment of each ones death, for at death we sleep in Jesus and rest, but when He comes from heaven. Thess. 1:10; 4:16, 17; Heb. 9:28; 1 Cor. 15:20-23). The next time you write a book, brother, at least represent us correctly, regardless of what you teach!

“To put the new heaven and earth in contrast with this material world, making it essential for all material elements of creation to be destroyed before the new world can be created, misses the whole scheme of redemption, as well as the very nature of it. The world that failed to accomplish redemption, becoming a ministration of death was the one the new heaven and earth followed, bringing a ministration of life and righteousness. Any careful student of the Bible should be able to readily identify these two worlds and pinpoint the ending of the one and the beginning of the other.” A-239

The new heavens and new earth will follow the dissolution of the elements of the material creation; Peter says so in the third chapter of the second book. Such does not miss the “whole scheme of redemption.” Kings Preterist-View is the culprit, because it makes a “ministration of death” (Judaism, as he calls it) continue some 37 years after Christ nailed the Law to across, and postpones the “ministration of life and righteousness” 37 years too long! People dead in sin had been made alive in Christ; the unrighteous had been made righteous, for 37 years before Jerusalem was destroyed. Among a host of Scriptures on the subject, consider Gal. 3:8, 21, 22, 24.

The two covenants did not overlap for some 37 years. A change was made (Heb. 7:12). He took away the first in order to establish the second (10:9). By means of that second one, which replaced the first one, the Hebrew brethren had already been sanctified (9:10), years before A. D. 70. Even a careless student of the Bible can see that the cross of Christ, and not A. D. 70, is the turning point in Gods scheme of redemption. That is why Paul told the Corinthians that they were in Christ Jesus, who had been made unto them wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption fl Cor. 1:30). Paul had gone to Corinth to preach Christ and Him crucified, and not the Preterist-View of Prophecy, and so, when he wrote them later he could say what he did in that above-mentioned text!

Our last article will be on Daniels 70 Weeks.King leans heavily upon it. -Route 3

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 15, pp. 9-11
February 15, 1973

By Cecil Willis

In last week’s editorial I was explaining why I had referred to Brother Lemmons, Editor of the Firm Foundation, as being chameleon-like. He is the perfect will-of-the-wisp. Just when you think you have him pinned down so that you understand what he really believes, he writes something that sounds just the opposite.

Having read nearly everything Brother Lemmons has written for at least a decade, I thought that I understood that he was categorically opposed to congregations contributing to liberal arts colleges and to orphan homes under a board of trustees other than the elders of a local church. But watch next week for some paradoxical statements from him.

Colleges and Orphan Homes

In an editorial March 21, 1972, Brother Lemmons said: “Now a college board, or an orphan home board for that matter, is larger than the local church and it is smaller than the church universal…. We have never met anyone who would seriously attempt to justify the existence of these boards by the scriptures. . . . Unless a church can support a work that is not its own, through a board which is larger than the local congregation and smaller than ‘the church universal, then colleges are not eligible for church treasury funds. . . . This is the reason why we have opposed the operation of children’s homes under boards rather than elderships…. If it can be done tinder a board with church support, then let us apologize to the Christian church for opposition to boards. . . . Just address yourself to the task of proving by the Scriptures that boards are a scriptural arrangement through which the church can do its work. If this can be proven, all opposition to the arrangement will cease, and, as an added serendipity, we will, after we have apologized to the Christian church for a century of opposition to them, find ourselves much nearer union with them. These boards are scriptural or unscriptural; right or wrong. We ought to be able to decide which. It is not right to ignore the issue because it is the basis of much contention.’

Brother Lemmons sounds clear enough on this issue here, doesn’t he? Yet somehow he never quite gets around to naming the organizations specifically which he thinks it is unscriptural and thus sinful for churches to support, especially as it pertains to orphan homes or homes for the aged. You would think Brother Lemmons would prepare and publish a list of these institutions overseen by boards, which he professes to believe it is sinful for churches to support.

But Brother Lemmons has said a good deal more on this subject: “We have predicted before that the attempt would be made to fight this battle on the grounds of the orphan home, and try to establish a precedent for the church contributing to a competitive human institution, based upon our universal sympathy for orphan children, and that having accomplished this step, the next would be to try to put the college in the budget.” (Firm Foundation, 1964, article quoted -in full in Truth Magazine, June, 1964.) Lemmons was then replying to the tract Questions and Issues of the Day by Batsell Barret Baxter, which advocated the church support of liberal arts colleges like David Lipscomb College and Abilene Christian College, and which tract was liberally distributed by the thousands throughout the brotherhood.

Lemmons went on to charge Baxter with trying to use the emotionally laden orphan home issue as a ploy by which to get the colleges in the church budgets. Lemmons said: “This is the course taken by Brother Baxter, and those who would seek the goal of the college in the church budget. He argues the orphan home and then draws college conclusions. It would help him and others to see their error if they would argue first the college in the church budget and draw orphan home conclusions. . . . This entire college-in-the-budget question hinges upon whether the church can support a human organization ‘which is doing a good work that God wants done.’ It has been my contention from the beginning that brethren are not so much interested in church support of homes under boards, but they are interested in contending for that in order to ease into a campaign for church support of colleges. . . . Brother Baxter, and those associated with him in this movement, are violating the faith, perverting the gospel, and if division of the church throughout the nation results from this controversy, he and his associates must bear the shame and disgrace for bringing it about.”

Again, you may say, Lemmons stands plenty strong on these issues. But you see, you have so far only seen one color of the chameleon. The other color I will show you later on in this series. Nearly a decade after Baxter and the college-in the-budget brethren began their all-out crusade to get congregational support of the colleges, hundreds of thousands of dollars annually now are pouring into college coffers from congregational budgets, and Lemmons and his stalwarts are standing by relatively quiet while such goes on. They certainly have not separated themselves from Baxter and his Herald of Truth crowd, as Lemmons earlier intimated might well happen if a concerted effort should be made to secure congregational contributions for colleges. David Lipscomb College, where Baxter is Chairman of the Bible Department, publicizes widely that they are counting on “at least” $350,000 a year from congregational contributions. Meanwhile, Lemmons continues to promote Baxter and the Herald of Truth upon which he is the principal speaker, and simultaneously continues to castigate those of us who oppose & Herald of Truth and colleges in the budget as butcherers of the Lord’s Body See Firm Foundation. April 11, 1972).

In 1966 Brother Lemmons said: “. . . In recent efforts to’down anti-ism’ there has been a loosening up to the point where almost anything goes. For example, deliberate brethren will note that in a matter of a few score months we have gone ‘board crazy.’ We doubt if the number of ‘board’ arrangements for various ‘projects’ over the past 2,000 years has equaled the number such arrangements created in the past five years. Many of these are at least questionable. They are not essential for doing the Lord’s work, and they furnish fuel for the fires of sectarianism. Some brethren object, and they have a right to. A complete disregard for these objections drives a wedge, and each will blame the other for splitting the log. We are not as careful as we once were to do Bible things in Bible ways. Isn’t it time for all concerned to seriously consider the possibility of finding mutual ground, and the unity that goes with that?” (Firm Foundation, February 1, 1966).

Lemmons sounded nearly the same warning in 1968, as he editorialized: “So long as brethren insist on tapping the church treasury for the support of institutions that are not the church and not doing the work of the church we will feel constrained to reply to them. These are the very arguments made by the missionary society brethren many years ago and the college in-the-budget brethren more recently. We have no intention of letting the issue go by default… If caring for orphans is a work of the church that a benevolent society has taken over, then these brethren make their own institutions inherently wrong, just as they make the missionary society inherently wrong. Nothing then could make them right. Unless they take the position that preaching the gospel is a work of the church, while caring for orphans is not a work of the church, there is a deadly and we do mean deadly-parallel between the two.” (Firm Foundation, October 29, 1968.)

Why Brother Lemmons cannot see that the same arguments used to defend the orphan homes under boards are the very ones used to defend the sponsoring church arrangements, I do not know. It can be documented historically that church support for missionary societies, colleges, orphan homes under boards, and sponsoring churches are defended by virtually the same arguments. Brother Lemmons assays to oppose congregational support of orphan homes under boards, missionary societies and colleges, and yet wants to accept sponsoring churches. This is what he means by standing in the middle-of-the-road.

In 1967 Lemmons directly charged, as he did in the statement just quoted, that orphan homes under boards are parallel to missionary societies. Here is what he said: “We have repeated the observation many times on this page that brethren seem to be going ‘Board Crazy.’ Many brethren seem to think that most any work of the church can be set up separate and apart from the supervision of the Elders of the church under a Board of Directors and that there is nothing wrong with it. We have always maintained that the church is all sufficient to do any work that God gave the church to do. We believe that the church is its own missionary society, and we believe that the church is its own benevolent society. We continue to maintain that if a thing is the work of the church that it should be done under the Elders of the church. While there may be some slight differences between separate corporations operated under Boards of Trustees and the Missionary Society, the similarities between the two are entirely too great to ignore. ” (Firm Foundation, September 26, 1967.)

Now these statements from Lemmons all sound clear enough. In fact, he sounds like one of those whom he opprobriously labels the “anti orphan faction,” and “hobbyists.” There seems to be no uncertainty about where he stands. But then he turns around and lends his influence to those who practice what he condemns and opposes those of us who oppose what he opposes. In this article you have only seen one “hue” of the chameleon Lemmons. I will show you another color he shows on other occasions in an article to follow.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 15, pp. 3-5
February 15, 1973

By James Sanders

Imparting the Living Oracles to young minds is one of the greatest challenges in the world. It is of unspeakable importance. What is taught in childhood will be seen in manhood and read in eternity. Nothing is more rewarding or more fearful than teaching children.

Children have an almost natural yearning for knowledge. They are born with enthusiasm. But often that enthusiasm is stifled by dull illustrations or poor preparation on the part of the teacher. Lessons need to be filled with ideas but not stuffed with facts. Teaching should inspire and awaken the interest of the student. Do not tell everything; make the student think. He will remember the point longer that way. This is what the master Teacher did. The Lord would often lead His disciple to a conclusion; He never forced lessons upon them, which they were not prepared to learn. Do not overlook illustrations-they are the windows of effective teaching. Fresh illustrations and thorough preparation have no substitutes.

Above all, remember that the servant of the Lord must be patient (2 Tim. 2:24). Especially is this so with young minds so fresh from God. Everything is new to them. Children are not miniature adults-they are children. Often this escapes us in our teaching. We become vexed and sometimes even impatient because our students are not learning. But the next time you find yourself disheartened, sit down and try to write with your left hand and then remember that a child is all left hand.

In teaching others, two things are paramount. Ezekiels commission to the captive house of Israel illustrates both points:

1. First, this prophet of God was told to open his mouth and eat the scroll of the Lord and then go speak unto Israel (Ezek. 3: 1). Ezekiel first had to fully understand the Word of the Lord before he was qualified to teach it to others. So it is with us today. We must know before we can teach. And what is set before us in the Scriptures we must eat.

2. Second, Ezekiel sat where they sat (Ezek. 3:15). We must understand those we teach. We must sit where they sit.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 15, p. 2
February 15, 1973

By Dennis Lynd

Ecumenicity is the current theme of many religious groups in the world. “Unity with diversity” is the resounding cry, which will be an ensign under whom all religious bodies will gather in sacred harmony. Love will be a cure-all. Factions, heresies and party spirits will no longer divide the religious world. Unity is something that our Savior prayed for (John 17) and that every Christian is to strive for (Eph. 4:1-3). However, before we launch into this effort, perhaps there are a few things we should consider about this plea for “unity with diversity.”

Denominational View: “Diversity in unity and unity in diversity is the law of God in history as well as in nature.” Behind this concept, Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church suggests that “Every Protestant denomination has its own field of usefulness, and the cause of Christianity itself would be seriously weakened and contracted by the extinction of any one of them.” He maintains that “The spirit of narrowness, bigotry and exclusiveness must give way at last to a spirit of evangelical catholicity, which leaves each denomination free to work out its own mission according to its special charisma, and equally free to co-operate in a noble rivalry with all other denominations for the glory of the common Master . . . .” “Every denomination and sect has to furnish some stones for the building of the temple of God.” “And out of the greatest human discord God will bring the richest concord.” This presents the spirit of denominationalism at its taproot.

View in Mission Messenger: Several religious groups in the United States share a common heritage in the restoration movement of the last century. Spearheading the drive for ecumenicity among these peoples is the Mission Messenger, edited by Carl Ketcherside. In an article entitled “Unity With Diversity,” Patrick Phillips sets forth 76 points of controversy over which fellowship is not usually severed. Then he presents 30 issues over which fellowship usually is cut off. Among these he mentions premillennialism, speaking in tongues, institutionalism, and polygamy. Phillips blames these divisions on “lack of love,” “party spirit,” “refusing to accept Scriptural teaching on

Christian liberty and tolerance,” and “failing to limit disfellowshipping to Scriptural grounds.” The writer suggested that we should re-examine each of the 30 differences and “re-determine whether or not a break in fellowship was Scriptural.” The author continues, “I venture to suggest that if we did this we might have unity among believers over night.” “May God help us to realize that there is such a thing as unity in diversity. “

Scriptural View: “But now are they many members, yet but one body.” The Bible teaches that the individual members (people) contribute to the good of the unit, or one body (i.e. church Cf. 1 Cor. 12). This is “unity with diversity.” A Christian cannot unite with any doctrine that would bring in divers bodies, Spirits, faiths, etc. (Eph. 4). There has been a body of doctrine given that we must contend for earnestly (Jude 3). Our love for God and His Truth must have precedence over out love for man and unity (Matt. 22:36ff).

How many times must the ranks of Christs legions be decimated before old errors such as denominationalism are recognized for what they are? The doctrines of Ketcherside are the marijuana to the heroin of denominationalism. One might at first be taken by the hallucinations of “love” and “spirituality” but in the end he finds his mind fogged, convictions lost and his spiritual health in shambles.

Notes

1. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 7 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), pp. 49-50.

2. Patrick Phillips, “Unity With Diversity” found in Carl Ketcherside, One Great Chapter (Saint Louis, Mo.: Mission Messenger, 1971), pp. 75ff.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 14, p. 13
February 8, 1973