Truth Magazine

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

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