Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Two systems of religion vie for the service of pious hearts. These are the traditions of men and the revelation of God. Not infrequently do reverent minds seek to mix and mingle human tradition with Divine teaching. In the Galatian letter, the apostle to the Gentiles reproved, rebuked and exhorted those who sought to return to their vain manner of life received by tradition from their fathers. In this epistle of the apostle the idea that one can serve God acceptably while clinging and cleaving to ancestral religious relics is forever dispelled.

The Galatians had been “called into the grace of Christ” (Gal. 1: 6). They were “children of God by faith,” having been “baptized into Christ” (Gal. 3:26, 27); thus, belonging to Christ, they were Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:29; Rom. 2:28,29). But now they were being “removed” from God (Gal. 1: 6). How was this occurring? They were striving by the law and the traditions of their fathers to be approved of God (Gal. 4: 10; 5:1-4). The source of their authority defiled the sincerity of their service.

Paul, with much personal anguish of spirit, refers to his own past “in the Jews religion.” He recounts and recalls the reasons for his extraordinary success when with exceeding zeal he persecuted the church and the faith. He styles the object of his affections as “the traditions of my fathers” (Gal. 1: 13, 14). One cannot be in the grace of Christ while serving the faith of his family and friends. It remains to this day a choice to all. Choose this day whom ye will serve, whether the tradition of time past or the Leaching of Christ in the present. How long will some stall between their fathers traditions and the Lords teaching? If the Lord be God, follow him!

The Problem Of Source

Are not the teachings of Christ traditions? Yes, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). Christians are to “hold” to “traditions” which they have been taught. The question is not shall we disdain all tradition. The issue is one of source. From whence does the tradition

come? If it comes from the word or the letter of the apostles and prophets, we must hold it, but if it does not, we must banish it. A tradition can come from only two sources. Either it is of God or it is of men.

Colossians 2:8 deals with this problem of source. After exhorting them to be “established in the faith,” Paul Fays, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Note that the source is the key to Pauls admonition. If an item of doctrine or practice originates from men, it is not “after Christ.” if, however, it comes from the teachings of Christ through the apostles, then hold it fast. The word or tradition which the Thessalonians and the Colossians received was not “the word of men,” but “the word of God,” the gospel (1 Thess. 2:13; Col 1: 5). The traditions they were to beware of and to accurse were those authored by men.

1 John 4:1, 6, is a witness to this problem of source as it affects traditions or teachings. John says, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God.” The source of the tradition is again given emphasis. Is it “of God?” So, how can we know whether a tradition is “of God?” John answers, “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” One who will hear the apostles doctrine, ordinance or tradition is of God and knows God. He that will not hear is the spirit or teacher of error. That is exactly parallel to 2 Thess. 2:15 and 2 Tim. 1: 13-hold the traditions which ye have heard of the apostles.

Can you find the tradition of your fathers in the Scriptures? If so, hold it, for it is “of God ” and “after Christ.” If not, “believe (it) not,” for it is error that will corrupt or spoil your soul (Col. 2:8; Jas. 5: 19, 20).

“It Is Easy To Scoff At Truth As Mere Tradition.”

A.T. Robertson, author of the above quote, stroked a string that needs to be strummed. With an utter distaste for human barriers of fellowship and with a total disdain for articles of faith authored by men, “It is easy to scoff at truth as mere tradition.” All saints deplore and despise denominational sects and parties whether they be in or out of the faith. But let no one in his sincerity or in his yearning for unity be led into scoffing at truth as mere human tradition. Not all walls of fellowship are built by men. Some traditions are of God, and when it is determined that a practice is an ordinance delivered by the apostles, let it be kept and defended (1 Cor. 11: 2). Human traditions must be pulled and cast down (2 Cor. 10: 3-5). Every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God must be destroyed. Beware, however, lest you sneer and jeer at the high things of God.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 12, pp.12-13
January 25, 1973

By Paul K. Williams

“Christ has no hands but our hands to do His work today” is how the song begins. Jesus said, “For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves, and entrusted his possessions to them.” Matthew 25:14.

We have been entrusted with the possessions of Jesus. If any gain is to come from them, we must work. God is not going to broadcast the gospel over a powerful loudspeaker from a helicopter. He has entrusted the gospel to us and commanded as to preach to every creature.

The trust Jesus has put in His disciples is an amazing thing. He has bound Himself so that the success or failure of the gospel is up to His followers. He is not playing games, either. he has said, “I trust you to preach to every creature.” Then He has gone away to leave us to do it.

This great trust is a humbling thing. I know too much about myself. I dont think I would trust the success of the gospel to such as me. But Jesus knows even more about me than I do myself. And His trust is proof to me that I can do what He requires. It makes me look for ways to teach and it makes me look to Him for strength.

Christian, you are vital to the cause Christ died for. He depends on you to get the job of teaching done. Dont make excuses. He knows you better than you know yourself. You can do it, and He knows it. Simply respond to His great trust by doing it.

Preach to every creature!

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 12, p. 11
January 25, 1973

By Bill Reeves

This is article four of several reviewing Max Kings Spirit Of Prophecy. He perverts the allegory of Paul, Gal. 4, doing some “allegorizing” of his own about “two sons in Abrahams household at the same time,” and comes up with an “overlapping” of the “Jewish world” and the “Christian world.” His constant play on words is imperative if he is to establish his Preterist-View doctrine. We now notice his “big gun,” mello.

He cites Matt. 16:27; Acts 17:31; 2 Tim. 4: 1; Heb. 10: 27; and Rom. 8:18, and tells us that these texts in the Greek employ the word “mello” which means “about.” For example, concerning Acts 17:31 be says: “Paul told the Athenians to repent and turn to Christ because he was going to judge the world. But when? How soon would that judgment day come? Many feel that there is nothing in the text itself to indicate time, whether near or afar, but to this we can hardly agree. Most Greek interlinear will furnish this reading: because he set a day in which he is about to judge the habitable world in righteousness, by a man whom be appointed.” “Paul said God was about (mello) to judge the world. This word mello, where found in the resent, active, indicative tense signifies, nothinly intention of purpose but also nearness of action, meaning at the point of, or ready to do what has been stated. Had Paul meant to teach judgment of 2000 or more years future, he certainly would not have used mello in any tense, especially in the present tense. Therefore the judgement of the habitable world (oikoumene) was about to take place in Pauls day, and in view of other related scriptures we have every reason to believe Pauls choice of words conveyed the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit.” A-157.

True to Kings style, he stays with the KJV when it suits him, and runs to the Greek text when convenient. Berry uses the word “about” in the texts cited by King (about to come, about to judge, etc.). Now, King, cite Berry on 1 Cor. 15:24! We will cite it for you: “when he shall have given up the kingdom . . .” Yet King confidently says: “I challenge anyone to show that Christ is going to give up the kingdom.”

He knows that no well-known English version employs that precise phrase, “give up,” in 1 Cor. 15:24, but he forgot about Berry, whom he cites when convenient!

Lets now quote Berry, in his dictionary, on mello: “To be about to do, to be on the point of doing . . . the verb may often be adequately rendered by our auxiliaries, will, shall, must; to delay, only Ac. xxii. 16. The participle is used absolutely: to mellon, the future, Lu. xiii. 9; ta mellonta, things to come, Ro. viii. 38.” So, the KJV, the ASV, and the NASV simply say “shall,” or “will” instead of “about to,” in the texts cited by King.

Berry translates phrases built on mello in this fashion, at times: Luke 13:9, “hereafter;” 1 Cor. 3:22, “coming things;” and 1 Tim. 6:19, “for the future.” How near is mello, King, in these passages?

Thayer defines the word thus, “ to be on the point of doing, or suffering something … to intend, have in mind, think to … of those things which will come to pass by fixed necessity or divine appointment … in general, of what is sure to happen.”

King quotes authorities like all false teachers: just that part that suites him! We shall have occasion to notice more of such in later articles.

The word mello appears in the Greek text in Matt. 11: 14, “And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to come.” (ASV). The Greek phrase says, literally, “this is Elijah, the about to come one.” For four hundred years (Mal. 4:5) there was a coming one. Jesus said that John the Baptist was that one. As Thayer says of mello, “of those things which will come to pass by fixed necessity or divine appointment,” so John the Baptist was destined to come. Thats what mello means here! At the time of Jesus speaking, John had already come (v. 18)! That “about to come” lasted four centuries!

Rom. 5:14 employs the word mello and Berrys Interlinear reads: “who is a figure of the coming one.” The KJV reads: “him that was to come.” The ASV and the NASV read the same. Actually, “was” is not in the Greek phrase per se, but is properly supplied by the context (see especially the next verse), because the point is that Adam was a type of Christ in his first coming to die for man! Christ was “about” to come for millenniums-ever since the time of Adam! King would love for every mello passage to indicate something “about” to be in the near future! But when Paul wrote Rom. 5:14, the “about to come one” already had come! So, Kings play-on-words fails again!

So desperate is King for something “about to be” that he takes up the notion of “two comings of Elias” A-162 According to this fancy, John the Baptist was the first one, and the “first born ones or remnant of Israel were the messengers that prepared the way for Christs second coming” A-162 in the destruction of Jerusalem, and were the second of the two Eliases. King bases this on Matt. 17:10-13, affirming that since “come” is present tense, and “shall restore” is future, that there was another Elias to come, future from then, and that the word of Preparation for Christs coming in the destruction of Jerusalem, on the part of the saints, was the fulfillment of the second Elias to come!

Verse 11 is an abstract statement on the part of Christ showing that Elijahs coming precedes in time the coming of the Messiah. As for actual fact, Christ makes it crystal-clear in v. 12 that Elijah had already come in the person of John the Baptist! Johns work of “restoring all things” is set forth in Mal. 4:6 and Luke 1: 17, and that is, in a word, his preaching of repentance (Matt. 3:1-12). So, the “two Elijahs” is another invention of false teachers desperate for a proof.

King has a section on the two Adams. A-212ff Here he confuses or runs together (in his constant play-on-words) Rom. 5:14 and I Cor. 15:22. They are not of the same context, but what matters that to King who is most interested in words? Rom. 5:14 speaks of spiritual death and life, while 1 Cor. 15 of physical. King says, after quoting 1 Cor. 15:22, ” But the question is; when did the second Adam make all in him alive? According to Paul, it was at the resurrection or the coming of Christ, when the natural body was raised a spiritual body. But is this still future? The writer thinks not, for Paul said in his Roman letter (60 A.D.) it was at the point of happening then. Concerning Adam, Paul said, who is a figure of him that was to come, (Rom. 5:14). The literal translation here is, who is a figure of the coming (one). ” A-213

Now lets answer Kings question: If your question is based on 1 Cor. 15:22, the answer is that He has not done it yet! Paul did not say in 1 Cor. 15:22 that Christ was “at the point” of doing something. King ran back to Rom. 5:14 for his mello, and hoped that his readers would not catch him at it! But, if his question is based on Rom. 5:14, the answer is that He did it when he died on the cross, thus making justification possible. Friends, read the verses which follow Rom. 5:14, noting especially v. 18, and in chap. 6, vv. 11, 13, 18, 22. That all happened well before A. D. 70. It had already happened in A.D. 60, if that is when Paul wrote Romans. King presses his limited application of the word mello and tries to get Christ coming in A.D. 70 to do what Paul said He was the coming one to do-justify us sinners! If Paul meant that Christ had not come quite yet, then sinners were not quite yet justified until A. D. 70! What a doctrine!

On page 213 in his book, King refers to a good article in Bible Herald, Vol. 18, No. 3 (commenting on Rom. 5:14-BHR). He says that the writer of that article “completely misses the point.” The writer does not; but King is the one who not only completely misses the point, but also misrepresents the writer at the same time! King very subtly slips in his “about phrase” and says, “Paul did not say Christ was about to come in Adams day . . .” Of course Paid did not, and no one said that lie did say it! King is misrepresenting, as so often lie does when he refers to his opponents positions. The writer in Bible Herald was saying what Paid did say, and that is that Adam was a type of one who was coming from the time of Adam until He finally did come, to die on the cross and make justification possible. That was well before A.D. 60! The “nearness” of fulfillment is no point of Pauls. Pauls point was that Christ was the anti-type of Adam, and as such was the coming one, or about to be one, in order to give life for death. When he came is determined by when he gave that life! V. 18, that “one act of righteousness” refers to the cross of A.D. 33! King ignores the context of Rom. 5 and 6, and jumbles it with that of 1 Cor. 15, to make out a case for his fanciful invention of one “world” rising up out of another one at A.D. -Rt. 3

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 12, pp. 9-11
January 25, 1973

By Cecil Willis

(Editors Note: Last week there was published the first part of a speech which I recently gave on Congregational Cooperation, to which speech Reuel Lemmons responded orally. Since I knew that Lemmons was to comment upon my speech, some special attention is devoted to his position on cooperation, and to some articles, which he has written which, have relevance to the subject upon which we both spoke. The remainder of my speech follows.)

The Point of Disagreement

I think Brother Lemmons and I are in agreement that it is unscriptural for Churches of Christ to cooperate by functioning through any kind of human organization, whether the work involved is benevolent, educational or evangelistic. About a decade ago, Brother Lemmons said:

“Some three or four years ago we expressed the opinion on this page that certain brethren would allow the issue of church support of a private enterprise to be fought out on the orphan home level, where highly emotional values can be brought to bear, and where they can, and do, over shadow reason; and that later, when these brethren thought the time was ripe, the pitch would be made to put the college in the budget upon the basis that church support of a private enterprise has already been proven. The low rumblings of the gathering storm have been heard for some time now, and more recently there have been some flashes of lightning!” (Firm Foundation, May 2, 1961.)

This correct prophecy shortly preceded the nationwide circulation of Batsell Barrett Baxters tract soliciting church contributions for David Lipscomb College. Lipscomb even now is soliciting gifts from congregations of $350,000 “or more” per year. (The Lipscomb Review, Fall Quarter, 1971). The mere fact that Brother Lemmons opposes churches cooperating through a human institution presupposes the fact that he agrees with me that there is a pattern regarding congregational cooperation taught in the New Testament, for if there is no divine order, there can be no disorder! And Brother Lemmons thinks it is disorderly (unscriptural) for churches to cooperate through the board of a college.

Brother Lemmons is even in agreement with me that it is unscriptural for congregations to cooperate in benevolent work through a board of directors. Brother Roy Lanier raised this interesting question in the Firm Foundation a few years ago: “If it was sinful for brethren of a century ago to activate the universal church in forming the missionary society, why is it now right to activate the universal church in forming a benevolent society?” (Feb. 26, 1957.)

Recently Brother Lemmons wrote a good article on the prohibitory nature of Gods silence. He was speaking about what he called “The Music Question,” but his remarks are relevant to our subject today too. Regarding the nature of Gods silence, Brother Lemmons said:

“We believe this principle to be a righteous one. We do not see how anyone really serious about restoring the faith and practice of the first century church can afford to be presumptuous in any area where God has not authorized us to go. This principle has its application in many areas other than the instrumental music area. Because God has not specifically prohibited a missionary society many assume it is all right to have one. Others feel that since God is silent about a super-structure for the pyramidal organization of congregations into a super church machine it is all right to have one. Others feel that Gods provision for congregational church government excludes by its very silence such organizations. To be consistent one would have to apply the authority of God in areas of silence to the instrument question as well as to the church government question. By what logic can one be free in one area not specifically prohibited and bound in another area just as free of specific prohibition.. If the silence of God is enough to forbid the use of the instrument why is not the silence of God enough to forbid the creation of other institutions to do the work of the church? If the lack of any Divine directive is grounds for excluding something from our worship why is not the same lack of Divine directive grounds for excluding nonscriptural organizations from our work9 … if we are bound to interpret the absence of a direct command as a prohibition, many of our own projects are suspect…. Before there can be any degree of unity between the elements that remain we must honestly deal with the question of the authority of God in areas of silence.(Firm Foundation, June 20, 1972.)

Brother Lemmons and I are in agreement that it is unscriptural for churches to cooperate through the board of human organizations, whether the organization is a missionary society, a Bible college, or an orphan home. Incidentally, this position obligates Brother Lemmons to oppose church contributions to the boards of about 20 or 25 of the benevolent institutions catering to Churches of Christ for support.

The issue of the “one-man-missionary society” has now been relegated to a rather minor issue. Operations like that of Don Carlos Janes made them become very unpopular among brethren. The basic disagreement that Brother Lemnons and I have on the subject of congregational cooperation pertains to the sponsoring church, and I therefore propose to devote the remainder of my time to a discussion of that aspect of our subject.

Sponsoring Churches

I just read a lengthy quotation from Brother Lemmons regarding the prohibitory nature Of Gods silence. Let me begin this section of our discussion by calling to your attention the fact that the New Testament is also silent regarding sponsoring churches. Would this fact not also preclude sponsoring churches, just as Brother Lemmons argued that Gods silence excluded human organizations to do the work of the church? Now let me call to your attention some facts pertaining to what a sponsoring church is, when the sponsoring church idea began, from whence it came, and its effect.

Definition: In 1953, G. C. Brewer said: “In sponsoring a missionary, a church simply underwrites his support. It is, therefore, responsible to the missionary for the amount that it takes for his maintenance, and it is also responsible to any brethren, who may be willing to help support the missionary, for the missionarys soundness, for his Christian character, and for his qualifications as a missionary. This whole idea was born because of a very sad condition that existed in the brotherhood forty or fifty years ago.” (Gospel Advocate, Aug. 27, 1953.) The sponsoring church stands between the missionary and his supporting churches, with obligations toward both, and the “whole idea” originated, said Brother Brewer in 1953, 40 or 50 years ago. More about this later.

Origination: William Banowsky tells us where the sponsoring church idea originated. He said it came from looking at denominationalism.

“The absence of an organized missionary society among churches of Christ created several unique handicaps in selection and preparation of qualified missionary workers. Since no official board existed, congregations were free to select and send . . . The lecturers (at ACC–CW) came to desire a missionary procedure, which would more effectively involve the hundreds of small congregations. But they also sought a program whose scope would be more far-reaching than even the best, but isolated efforts of any one large congregation. They could not resist the temptation to shop about and contrast their plight with the obvious strong points in denominational machinery. Thus, they sought for some practical, scriptural means of brotherhood-wide co-ordination without creating an agency for brotherhood wide control … At the Abilene Lectureship, a momentous biblical principle governing missionary methods was articulated and recommended as a remedy for this brotherhood predicament. The principle was described as intercongregational- cooperation without ecclesiastical organization. It greatly expanded the scope of the churchs evangelistic opportunities and led logically to recognition of the special role of the sponsoring congregation as compared with the part to be played by the smaller participating churches.” (The Mirror of a Movement, pp. 273, 274, 313.)

The sponsoring church idea resulted from shopping about and looking at the “strong points in denominational machinery,” and caused brethren to differentiate between sponsoring churches and “the smaller participating churches.”

Effect: What was the result of the inauguration of the sponsoring church concept? Among the effects, according to G. C. Brewer, was the following: “When the Herald of Truth broadcast of Abilene, Texas was proposed, I told the brethren who were soliciting help for the venture that it would put the Lords people before the world as a denomination and this program would be the Church of Christ Hour just as distinctly as we have a Catholic Hour or a Lutheran Hour. The brethren said they would avoid this by calling it the Herald of Truth. This they have done, but they have not avoided the error I feared . . . The greatest grief of my soul as I face eternity is the fact that brethren have seemingly almost universally denominationalized the church. God have mercy on us! ” (Autobiography, pp, 119, 139.) The sponsoring church idea was borrowed from denominationalism, it originated among Churches of Christ about 1900, and it has denominationalized the church.

In order that you may see that the sponsoring church concept has activated the church universal through a single agency, consider this fact. During the first fifty years of the existence of the missionary society, it only handled a total of $860,500.00. U. H. Garrison, The Reformation of the Nineteenth Century, p. 347.) Yet the Herald of Truth, with contributions from more than one-tenth of the churches in the world, in a single year recently announced an annual budget of $2,239,250.00. The Herald of Truth proposed to spend for the brotherhood in one year nearly three times what the missionary society spent f or the brotherhood in its f first fifty years!

The earliest reference I have been able to find among Churches of Christ concerning a sponsoring church was a discussion in Indiana in 1839, but the brethren decided to abandon the idea and created the Indiana State Missionary Society instead. Around 1867 the brethren in Texas were accustomed to holding State Meetings during which a church would be chosen to act as a “receiving, managing, and disbursing evangelistic committee,” to use Carroll Kendricks term, The Austin elders first served in this capacity, the Dallas elders sometimes served, though the Sherman elders served more frequently than any others. At the request of John T. Poe of Texas, David Lipscomb in 1885 commented on this sponsoring church arrangement thus:

“We developed (in a long series of articles) from Scripture that each church kept the direction of its own contribution under its own control through its messengers. So keeping the church and Christians close to their work. They could fully realize that it is their own work. Is this the case with the Sherman arrangement? We may think these are small and indifferent matters. But if a great amount of money is placed under the control of one church, it gives it undue power. It takes the work from the control of, and removes it from the contact of those who raise the means to sustain it.” (Gospel Advocate, 1885, p. 97.)

In 1890 the occasion arose for David Lipscomb to make further comment regarding sponsoring churches, at which time he said:

“I have never published, or approved without publication, the assumption of the elders of one church sending out a man to induce members of other churches to divert their means from their own church treasury, and to take it from the direction of their own elders, and place it under the direction of that one church. I have never approved concentrating the control of all the means and preachers of the state under the authority of the elders of one church. All such concentration of power is destructive of the activity and the true liberties of the church. It tends to exalt the elders of the one church and degrade and dishonor those of the others . . . The whole movement is an effort to concentrate in a few hands the control of the activities and means of the churches. All such courses are subversive of Gods order. ” (Gospel Advocate, 1890, p. 295.)

In 1910 a proposal was made to evangelize Western Tennessee by having the churches of surrounding states to send their funds to the Henderson, Tennessee elders. So Lipscomb said:

“Now what was that but the organization of a society in the elders of this church? The church elders at Henderson constitute a board to collect and pay out the money and control the evangelist for the brethren of West Tennessee, and all the preachers are solicitors for this work. This very same course was pursued in Texas a number of years ago. The elders of the church at Dallas were made the supervisors of the work, received the money, employed the preacher, directed and counseled with him. For a number of years they employed C. M. Wilmeth. He then dropped out of the work and the Texas Missionary Society took the place. Other experiments along the same course have been made. All of them went into society work … All meetings of churches or officers of churches to combine more power than a single church possesses is wrong. Gods power is in Gods churches. He is with them to bless and strengthen their work when they are faithful to him. A Christian, one or more, may visit a church with or without an invitation and seek to stir them up to a faithful discharge of other duties. But for one or more to direct what and how all the churches shall work, or to take charge of their men and money and use it is to assume the authority God has given to each church. Each one needs the work of distributing and using its funds as well as in giving them.” (Gospel Advocate, March 24, 1910, p. 364.)

Conclusion

I have alluded to about all the instances of the sponsoring church concept in practice among Churches of Christ up until 1910, or at least about all the instances known to me. The sponsoring church type of “joint action” in congregational cooperation was but little used, until recently, among Churches of Christ. In the past, the practice met stout opposition among some of the stalwart brethren, and I oppose it today on the same grounds as did they back then. Precisely, I charge that the sponsoring church type of “joint action”:

1. Unscripturally activates the church universal through a single agency. Yet the only functional unit found in the Bible is a congregation.

2. Constitutes an unauthorized federation of churches.

3. Is contrary to the New Testament pattern of congregational cooperation.

4. Involves a perversion of the elders office, function, and authority.

5. Violates the independence, autonomy, and equality of congregations.

A few years ago, Brother Bill Humble preached a fine sermon in Kansas City, which covered some of the same points as those upon which I have touched in this paper. I shall borrow and close with his conclusion: “The end does not justify the means. Gods work must be done, but Gods work must be done in Gods way!” And to that fine statement, I only add my hearty, Amen!

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 12, pp. 3-7
January 25, 1973