Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

The apostle Paul once ardently advocated and passionately pursued “the traditions of my fathers,” but in the grace of Christ, he could hold only to the guaranteed gospel, the revelation of Jesus Christ. All else was a perversion to be accursed (Gal. 1:6-12). But what will men, what will family and friends say if I cast aside the heirlooms of pious tradition? “For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10). This constant choice confronts sincere hearts anew in every generation. A central point, therefore, looms like the shadow of a giant oak across the path of pure truth-what shall one retain of traditions both old and new? How can he decide what to accurse and what to espouse?

The Baptism Of John

The baptism of John had not always been of God, that is, it had not been part of the law and the prophets. So, John came with a new innovation. The question of whether it should be snubbed or submitted to revolved and turned on the issue of its source, hence, Jesus inquired, “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?” The answer to that question directs and determines ones attitude and action with respect to any teaching or tradition. It matters not whether it is a tradition of your fathers. Is it of God, or is it of men? When tile problem of source is solved concerning any belief or practice that is the end of all controversy.

Common Or Unclean

In Acts 10, Peter was commanded to raise kill, and eat all manner of beasts. Peter objected in abhorrence, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.” Certain deeds, once common and unclean, have been cleansed. Peter learned that God had cleansed tile unlawful acts of keeping company or coming unto one of another nation (Acts 10:28). What dissolved and resolved the question in Peters mind? “God hath shewed me” (Acts 10:28). In no other way could Peter rightfully alter his faith and habit. Hath “God sliewed” you your course and the traditions of your fathers?

Things once common or unclean were cleansed under the New Testament order. But the reverse is equally true. Things once cleansed are now “common and unclean.” Circumcision, Sabbath keeping and mechanical instruments are examples of this. Though once authorized of God, they are no longer cleansed. “God hath shewed” us this in Galatians 5:1-4. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” And again in Colossians 2:14,16. “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. . . . Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.”

What then prevents us today from instituting new tradition comparable to the baptism of John, or what precludes us from now cleansing things formerly held as unclean? Those are excellent questions. The answer is found in the finality and authority of the revelation of Jesus Christ. The apostles were guided into “all truth” (Jn. 16:13). The faith, tile traditions, have been “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 31. Tile Scriptures completely equip us unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16. 17), and all that is new or that differs is to be accursed and assaulted (Gal. 1:8, 9; 2 Cor. 10:3-5).

Therefore. we cannot (1) account traditions instituted since tile New Testament as cleansed, nor can we (2) call things common or unclean that were cleansed in the teaching of the New Testament. Consequently, one who clings to such doctrines and deeds as infant sprinkling or baby baptism is cleaving to an unclean human tradition or teaching. Conversely, those who scoff at the New Testaments mold or pattern for the work, worship and organization of the church are guilty of calling common and unclean that which God has cleansed. Both postures, however piously they stand, must be reverently and indignantly despised and disposed of by those who love and hold the truth as it is in Jesus.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 13, pp. 6-7
February 1, 1973

By Roy E. Cogdill

It is amazing how little honor some brethren demonstrate in their dealing with those who disagree with them or who oppose what they want to do. Yet it should not astonish us too much when we look back at New Testament scriptures and see the same results and attitudes manifested when the truth was preached in New Testament days. It was demonstrated by the Jews in their treatment of Jesus. They either believed in Him or wanted to kill Him for opposing their traditions and plans. When Paul preached, some who were disposed to eternal life believed and others blasphemed and disputed what he taught and persecuted him. Some even wanted to kill him.

We need not be too much surprised when convictions and conscience impel us to differ with brethren and oppose them and they resent our opposition to the point of hatred, lying about and against us, and seeking any opportunity to disparage and destroy.

In the present day digression of thousands of brethren and churches over the question of institutionalism, such disposition has been demonstrated again and again. In fact, it has been so generally the attitude and practice of those who have made “idols” out of human benevolent and educational societies and intercongregational promotions that it seems sometimes to be almost unanimous. It has been said that there is no honor among thieves and we are nearly persuaded that the same is true of brethren when you stand up in opposition to what they have determined to do.

W. Curtis Porter was a gentle man in spirit and not given to violent or rash statements. You rarely provoked him to an extreme statement, but during the Porter-Woods debate at Paragould, Arkansas, where he met Woods for the second time, he said before one session, … The biggest disappointment in this whole matter to me is the fact that I have yet to find one liberal preacher who will not lie when it will serve his purpose.” I know what he meant and how he felt.

Guy N. Woods wrote a letter to a Filipino liberal preacher telling him of “The State of the Division.” The letter was published in part in the liberal Filipino paper and James Miller, in the last debate with brother Woods rebuked him for the false statements it contained. According to Woods, there were no longer any “anti” preachers who would debate him on the Herald of Truth and the “Orphan Home” question. He had been so victorious in wielding the liberal hatchet that all of us had been vanquished and had taken out and were no longer willing to defend what we believe, preach, and practice. Moreover, he represented the “antis” as dying out and dwindling away. The hope was the mother of that falsehood. No one knows this to be a falsehood better than Guy Woods, and it is not an isolated case of telling them. They have become quite common. None of us has ever refused to meet him and in the last debate I had with him, I presented more than a dozen invitations from churches located in various cities for us to repeat the debate and he refused every one of them. We were invited by both his brethren and mine to discuss the same propositions in Bellflower, California, and he refused unless I would sign other propositions than the ones we had discussed before. I replied that if he would sign an acknowledgement that he had enough of the ones we had debated; I would talk to him about trying to agree on others. I have the correspondence to verify this.

Then the self-esteemed Ruel Lemmons wrote an editorial in the Firm Foundation, which is badly miss-named, in which he related how brother Cecil Willis and I had gone to the Philippine Islands and had gone among the liberal brethren and churches, splitting the churches and deceiving the brethren, doing much harm. He described it as “butchering” the cause of Christ. Brother Lemmons was butchering the truth. There was not a word of truth in it. Brother Willis and I did not visit a single liberal congregation – not one. We did not contact a single liberal preacher. The only liberal preachers we were privileged to see were a few that came to the Mlang meeting and tried to defend their position. This the “American Missionaries” refused to do. But the facts would not keep brother Lemmons from saying what he wanted to say. I do not know his source of information, but he was not over there and could not speak of his own knowledge, so be was repeating some hear say or he was hatching it all up by himself.

He put out the statement about three years ago that the Firm Foundation Pub. Co. owned the copyright to my book, The New Testament Church. He said they had printed the first edition of the book and that when the division came along I began to print and sell the book myself in disregard of their ownership of it. According to him, they had been magnanimous enough to give me no trouble for doing so. I called his hand face to face on this falsehood in the presence of the brother to whom it had been told. I pointed out to him that I published the book first in 1938, paid for it and the binding out of my own pocket and that the Firm Foundation had nothing to do with the first edition or any subsequent edition. They have never even submitted a bid on printing it and have never been asked to do so and have no claim on it whatsoever in any way. He meekly said that George Showalter had told him what he had repeated. Isnt it amazing?

In recent issues of the paper published by the liberal brethren in the Philippines they have been consistent with the spirit of liberalism by filling their publications with falsehoods. They not only falsely accuse those of us who have been over there, but slander every faithful preacher of their own race that does not agree with them on the institutional issues. They are not courageous enough to call names but used fictitious designations – n.n.; v.v.; etc. They have learned well from the American brethren, and the way they tell it every faithful preacher in the Philippine Islands is a scoundrel morally, preaching for the money, bought to preach, etc. This kind of lying is cowardly and vicious. A man is simple who thinks he can convince intelligent people that everyone who opposes their missionary society, benevolent society, and educational society, and other innovations is a scoundrel, while all who accept and defend them are saints.

Such character assassination needs to be indulged in only by those who have no scripture for what they do. Nothing is more apparent than that those who advocate and try to defend their human benevolent and missionary societies have no scripture to stand on.

If one could prove that all on either side of the division over human institutions are vile in character, how would it establish the scripturalness of anything? Why then engage in so much dishonorable misrepresentation? Very evidently they operate on the theory, “If you cannot disprove a mans testimony, discredit the witness.” Honor in dealing with one another seems to be a forgotten principle.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 13, pp. 3-5
February 1, 1973

By Earl E. Robertson

James says, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” (James 1:5)

God is the giver of all things (James 1: 17), and lie must be so recognized by his servants. The child of God who cannot feel this dependency upon God is sorely lacking. He cannot go far in the spiritual life. Like the trusting child, who realizes his limitations and wants, goes to his own parents with petitions with confidence and without embarrassment, Gods children, too, are to come boldly to the throne of God for gifts. (Heb. 4: 15,16).

James says that God gives “Liberally,” and “upbraideth” not. Jesus had taught this beforehand (Matt. 7:7). The term translated “liberally” in the King James Version is from aplos, and is defined “simply, openly, frankly, sincerely” (Thayer, p. 57). This lexicographer further said parenthetically, “Led solely by his desire to bless: All who have scripturally tried him know this to be true to the fullest! Yet, the great point of emphasis is, the beggar may ask with confidence of receiving and know that God Will not upbraid, i.e., he will not remind you later on of what he has done for you. This genitive singular participle is present active, meaning the word carries continuous action. The Lord does not reproach or disgrace us over and over by reminding us of the blessing he gave. This word is used in the New Testament about sixteen times in various forms. Other English words which translate this Greek word are: revile,” Matt. 27: 44; “suffer reproach, 1 Tim. 4: 10. These usages help us to see the import of the word in James 1:5.”

This is a good lesson for all Christians to learn. When we have had the opportunity to help others along the way, do not use this against any of them later. And, too, when the Lord forgives us, he remembers that sin “no more” Heb. 8:12). When we forgive brethren their trespasses, let us too remember them no more.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 13, p. 2
February 1, 1973

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