Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

(Editors Note: Recently I spoke in Texas on the subject of Cooperation. Reuel Lemmons, editor of the FIRM FOUNDATION, responded to my remarks. Following is a copy of what I said on that occasion. I did my best to present the truth on the subject, and to expose the various errors promulgated on cooperation.)

The controversy surrounding the subject of church cooperation did not originate among Churches of Christ in the last two or three decades. The imminent historian, Earl West, said: “The question of how congregations may cooperate in their work and still maintain their independence is not only one of the oldest to come from the restoration movement but the most enduring.” (The Life and Times of David Lipscomb, p. 133.) This subject constantly has been before the brotherhood for well over one hundred years.

In 1855 Tolbert Fanning said: “In establishing The Gospel Advocate, I determined, by the help of the Lord, to give the subject of Cooperation a thorough examination. I do not pretend to say how it has been brought about, but I have for years believed that a change must take place in our views of cooperation, before we can labor to each others advantage, or to the honor of God.” (Gospel Advocate, Oct. 1855, p. 110.) The issue is still before us, and hence these discussions this day.

Definition

The word “cooperation” is a key word in this controversy, yet the exact word is not found in either the King James Version or the American Standard Version. The word “cooperation” consists of two parts, “co” meaning “together or with,” and “operation” which mean “a working.” Thus when we speak of “cooperation,” we mean “a working together of two or more units in the production of a common effect or the achievement of a common purpose.

Websters New International Dictionary (The Merriam Series) defines “cooperation” as “act of cooperation: joint operation; concurrent effort or labor. ” The terms “joint operation” and “concurrent effort or labor” are significant, for they aptly describe the two basic kinds of congregational cooperation that have been proposed among Churches of Christ. One of these kinds of cooperation is found in the New Testament; the other kind is lawless, and hence sinful (I Jno. 3:4).

In “joint operation,” the congregations involved pool their resources into a common treasury, and then centralize the control of the pooled treasury. Sometimes the pooling has been done in a human institution (such as the missionary society), sometimes in the hands of one man who came to be called “a one-man missionary society,” and sometimes in the hands of a large church, which has come to be called a “sponsoring church.” But in all “Joint operations, inevitably there are the pooling of resources and the centralization of control.

In the other type of cooperation, there is “concurrent effort or labor.” This aptly describes the type of congregational cooperation to be found in the New Testament. Several congregations may work together for a common goal; they may act simultaneously. Hence, the action is concurrent, but they nevertheless act independently. There is neither pooling of resources nor centralization of control.

Some brethren, who are ignorant of both Bible teaching and dictionary definitions, would deny that independent but concurrent action on the part of congregations is congregational cooperation at all. Thus some refer to those of us who advocate independent but concurrent action as “Anti-cooperationists.” On this point, H. Leo Boles said:

“To operate means to work, and to cooperate means to work together to the same end. There can be no working together of churches without the churches themselves working. Churches that do not work cannot work together; churches that do not operate cannot cooperate. Every church in the universe that operates or works according to the will of God cooperates or works together with every other church in the universe that is working according to the same rule. Churches which are fulfilling their mission separate and independent of other churches nevertheless are cooperating with all other churches that fulfill their mission. It seems that we ought to see this that we ought to recognize this fundamental truth. This is the only church cooperation that is taught in the New Testament. ” (Gospel Advocate, Jan. 28, 1932, p. 114.)

Brother Bill Humble, now Dean of Abilene Christian College was my Church History professor at Florida Christian College in the early 1950s, and a good teacher he was too, I might add. Brother Humble said: “Lipscomb believed that when churches worked under the same divine laws, they were cooperating with one another and with God, though separated by thousands of miles.” (Preceptor, March, 1955, p. 15.) Brother Humble in 1953 was editing a section in the Preceptor, which he called “Restoration and Reaction.” In this column, he re-printed some articles on “Congregational Cooperation” which had been written by Earl West, and which also appeared in the Gospel Advocate and Gospel Guardian. In commending these articles by West, Brother Humble said: “. . . Earl West . . . is, in my estimation, the outstanding student of restoration history in the church today . . We believe that the Advocate has rendered a valuable service to the brotherhood in presenting these articles . . . ” (Preceptor, June, 1953, p. 17.)

In this series of articles, Brother West said:

“The third type of congregational cooperation is more difficult to describe. . . . The chief promoter was David Lipscomb. It was the belief that the congregations of the Lord, in their individual and local and scriptural way was true cooperative work…. Lipscomb was convicted that much of the controversy over cooperation was due to a lack of understanding of what constituted cooperation. Two congregations, although a thousand miles apart, each pursuing its own independent course in the work of the Lord are necessarily cooperating. Their work is cooperative. ” (Preceptor, June, 1953, p. 17.)

Later in this series Brother West said:

“When ten thousand local congregations, all following the same divine laws, all working earnestly to save souls, each in Christian love caring for its own needy-when congregations do this, they are necessarily cooperating for all are doing the work God intended and in the way God intended. Not being able to see any human machinery, they may be unconscious of cooperating, but churches functioning are necessarily and unavoidably cooperating. (Preceptor, July, 1953, p. 17.)

A few months earlier, Brother West had said: They dont have to pool their money. They dont have to put it under the oversight of a designated central church. . . . What do you mean by cooperation, anyway? It is simply working together by the same set of rules.” (Sermon delivered at Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, May, 1953.)

I have gone to some length to show that independent but concurrent action is recognized by the dictionary as a legitimate usage of the word “cooperation,” and also to show that historically this fact has been recognized by the most imminent historians among us. Thus one is betraying an ignorance of the usage of the word “cooperation” when he refers to those of us who believe in independent but concurrent action by congregations as “Anti-cooperationists.”

New Testament Teaching

Let us now come to a discussion of some of the New Testament teaching pertinent to this discussion on congregational cooperation. The New Testament compares the church to the Tabernacle and to the Temple of the Old Testament. The Tabernacle was built according to a pattern designed by God (Ex. 29:1-9; 25:40; 27:8). The Hebrews writer states that Christ is “a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man” (Heb. 8:2). The Hebrews writer further states that Christ serves in “the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands” (Heb. 9: 11).

But the Lords church is also likened unto the Old Testament Temple (See Eph. 2:20-22; 1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 2 Cor. 6:16). However, God charged Solomon to follow the “pattern” in erecting the Temple (See 1 Chron. 28:9-19). I, therefore, at this point appropriate the lengthy but well-chosen words of Brother Humble, as he wrote regarding the divine pattern:

“It is inconceivable that God would lavish such care upon the tabernacle and temple and not bestow at least equal care upon the church, particularly when we consider the fact that they were temporary and the church permanent, they were physical and the church spiritual, and that they were of little worth compared with the blood-purchased church of the Lord. . . . The tabernacle is a type (shadow) of the church; therefore since there is a pattern for the tabernacle, there must have been a pattern for the church! Alexander Campbell once argued in a discussion of worship that where there is no order, there can be no disorder; and this same principle could be extended to prove that God has a pattern for every essential characteristic of the New Testament church. Where there is no pattern, there can be no violation of the pattern  Though discussions become heated, the very fact that discussions are being carried on indicates that we still believe in the necessity of determining just what the pattern requires. If the time ever comes that we assume the it makes no difference attitude and discussions cease, complete harmony might result; but the peace would not be worth the price. Our cause would be lost…. A century ago brethren were involved in controversy regarding the missionary society; they were asking one another whether such an organization was included in the pattern. Though the world laughed and though division came, brethren were determined to follow the plan, and follow it they did! Today another generation of likeminded brethren are again discussing the question of how to do missionary work. Instead of accusing one another of being antimissionary or pro-society, would it not be better to dedicate ourselves anew to answering the question, What does the blue-print say? – and this without bitterness, malice, and hate?” (Preceptor, Oct., 1953, pp. 10, 11.)

I submit to you once more the premise advanced by Brother Alexander Campbell: if there is no divine order, then there can be no disorder! If the New Testament supplies no information as to how congregations cooperated, then any type of congregational cooperation, from the missionary society on up, or down, would be acceptable. Let us therefore take a hurried look at what is taught in the New Testament regarding how congregations worked together. I propose that the following abbreviated points summarize what the New Testament teaches regarding how churches cooperated.

1. Churches helped each other in time of emergency by contributing directly to the church or churches, which needed relief. (Rom. 15: 26; 1 Cor. 16: 1-4.) There were needy saints in Jerusalem, and churches in Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia sent to their relief. See also Acts 11: 27-30 for the record of Antiochs relief sent to the Judean churches.

2. Many churches contributed to one church in time of need. (2 Cor. 8, 9.) Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia were provinces, and the churches of these provinces sent to Jerusalem to relieve the need of the destitute saints there.

3. Each church made up its own “bounty,” selected its own “messengers,” and sent its “bounty” by its “messengers” directly to the church in need. (2 Cor. 8, 9; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; Rom. 15:26.) Paul mentioned that “whomsoever ye shall approve” should “carry your bounty unto Jerusalem.”

4. A church with “power” (ability) gave to a church in “want” in order to produce mutual freedom from want, or as Paul put it, “equality.” (2 Cor. 8:13-15.) The only time one can read about one church sending funds to another church for any purpose at all was to relieve the physical “want” of members of the church to which the funds were sent.

5. Individuals, not churches, served as messengers. (1 Cor. 16:1-4.)

6. Messengers served only in the capacity of delivering the contribution from the contributing church to the intended recipient. (Acts 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16-1-4; Phil. 4:10-18.)

7. Several churches assisted in supporting an evangelist, each communicating directly with him. (Phil. 4:10-18; 2 Cor. 11:8.) As J. C. McQuiddy phrased it, “The Scriptures establish clearly that in New Testament times the church communicated directly with the missionary in the field.” (Gospel Advocate, March 17, 1910, pp. 328, 329.) He also cited Phil. 4:15-17 to prove his affirmation, even as I have done.

So far as I am able to ascertain, anything more than what has just been recited, which is taught by man on the subject of cooperation, emanates from human wisdom, rather than

from the Wisdom that is from above. From the teaching of scriptures, we affirm that all congregations were independent, equal, and autonomous. (Acts 14:23; 20:28; Phil. 1: 1; 1 Pet. 5: 1-4.) Secular history verifies these points. Mosheim said: “All the churches, in those primitive times, were independent bodies; or none of them subject to the jurisdiction of any other…. it is as clear as the noon-day, that all Christian churches had equal rights, and were in all respects on a footing of equality.” (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 1, p. 72). Other historians, such as Lyman Coleman, agree with the testimony of Mosheim.

(To be concluded next week)

 

“Were You Successful?”

Paul K. Williams

Transvaal, Republic of South Africa

Charles Goodall returned home after going on a personal call. His wife said, “Were you successful?” The prospect had not been baptized, but Charles replied, “Yes, I was successful.” He had been successful in doing what the Lord commanded. He had preached the gospel to the man.

Our measurement of success is often by the wrong yardstick. Of course we want to baptize people, but not everyone who is taught will obey. The “failure rate” of Jesus was phenomenal. By far the majority of the ones He taught were not converted. And He does not expect us to baptize every one we teach. He counts us a success when we teach the gospel, whether we baptize the ones taught or not. But we must teach.

“When I say to the wicked, You shall surely die; and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself.” (Ezekiel 3:18-19).

Every time you teach someone the gospel, you are successful in carrying out the command of Jesus. Every time you sit at home watching television when you could be teaching someone, you are a failure! This is an urgent business. Your soul is at stake as well as the souls of those creatures who have never heard the gospel.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 11, pp. 3-6
January 18, 1973

By Earl E. Robertson

Our Lord Jesus Christ ever stressed the fact that for a sinner to come to him in obedience he must first be taught the gospel. There just is not any way to Christ without learning of him. It would appear under some circumstances a stress has been made to “baptize” before proper indoctrination. An effort for harvest before sufficient toil does not produce the desired end; neither does “baptism” before one is taught the truth. Churches have suffered much due to this error. Yes, we are anxious for sinners to obey the Lord, but it is so necessary that they “know the truth” (John 8:32) to be made free and run smoothly as a Saint in the Kingdom of God. The untaught “baptized” cannot but create problems.

To come to Christ, he says: “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me. . . ” (Matt. 11: 29). Again, he says: “No man can come to me, except the father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, and they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (John 6:44,45). All of this reveals why the Master would say, “Go preach the gospel” (Mark 16:15). Inasmuch as men cannot believe in him of whom they have not heard, it is necessary that they be taught Christ . . . understand his will … that they might be saved in him. Cf. Rom. 10: 14,17: Acts 16:31-34.

The parable of the Sower (Luke 8) emphasizes the function and purpose of seed; the call of Paul to the apostleship of Christ reveals also his work and its design (Acts 26:16-18). Peter speaks also, saying, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). The passage says they were “called” out of darkness. This call was the instruction they received through apostolic teaching. Colossians 1:13 also say the same thing. So, the call necessitates teaching. “The eyes of your understanding (heart) being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints” (Eph. 1:18).

All of this means that each preacher and each Bible teacher must be patient and willing to keep on teaching and teaching. In doing this we are doing what the Lord wants. After this let us be satisfied for his increase (1 Cor. 3:5-7). Then the labors of our hearts and hands will be able with Paul to give intelligent response to the questions concerning their hope: “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day” (2 Tim. 1: 12).

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 11, p. 2
January 18, 1973

By Roy E. Cogdill

On Sunday morning, November 20, 1922, at Hobart, Oklahoma, as a boy of fifteen, I preached my first gospel sermon. That was fifty years ago and that is a long time. I was then in my last year of high school, taking some of the first year of college at the same time, and was attending a school operated by the brethren called Western Oklahoma Christian College at Cordell, Oklahoma.

From that time on I preached almost every Sunday through the rest of the school year. The next summer I preached for the church at Mountain View, Okla., and held two meetings. From this beginning, I have been constantly busy for fifty years preaching the gospel. I love to preach and think the greatest compliment ever paid me was a lady who said, “I am not going to tell you that was the greatest sermon I ever heard or that you are the greatest preacher I ever heard, but I do want to tell you that I believe you enjoy preaching more than any one that I have ever heard.”

There have been several occasions in my life when the temptation came to turn aside from preaching and get into some profession or business that offered tempting financial reward, but it has never been a problem to make the decision that I would continue to give my full time to preaching the word of the Lord. A time or two in my life, due to circumstances, it has been necessary for brief intervals to “make tents” in order to provide a living for my family, but they have not been but few and there was never any difficulty in turning from such to a full time program of preaching when the emergency was ended. I am grateful for the fact that I have never turned aside from the course I began so early in life. I have received much encouragement and have been dealt with generously, for the most part, by my brethren and such has always meant much to me.

As I look back over these fifty years, they are wonderfully rewarding and for them I am very grateful. There have been, of course, many disappointments, heartaches, and trials, but these are far outweighed by the satisfaction of having spent a half-century of continued and determined effort to faithfully serve God by preaching and teaching His Word.

A man cannot honestly examine the past without recognizing that he has made many mistakes and often erred in judgment. There are many things that I would do differently, if they could be recalled. There is tremendous satisfaction though in honesty of purpose and the knowledge that there has never been a vicious attitude of heart. Then how gratifying is the knowledge that in every error and mistake there has always been the readiness to try to correct and overcome the mistake made.

I am glad and grateful, as I think back over the years, I can say, as far as I know my own heart, I have no personal malice or ill feeling in my heart against any. Whatever disappointments have come or whatever injury or indignity may have been suffered, the result has been, with any resentment, soon forgotten and no bitterness or grudge has lingered.

Perhaps the most strengthening and satisfying factor in all the memories that come flooding my mind from the past is the honest belief in my own heart that no matter what the circumstances or cost, I have stood by my convictions and have not sold out my conscience by betraying the truth or compromising with error. I have earnestly tried to preach and contend for what I have believed to be the truth through these years without compromise. As I face the future I pray that it may continue to be so. Nothing has been sadder to me than to witness some stalwart servant of the Lord live to reach such years in which he destroys all for which he ever stood. I pray that I may not do so.

That does not mean that I have not erred in what I have believed and taught. On more than one occasion I have found myself out of harmony with what I have learned to be the truth and been brought to alter my position to bring it in harmony with the truth I learned. I intend to continue to learn and whenever I learn anything that is contrary to what I have believed, I will make whatever change may be demanded by truth. I pray that God may continue to give me the strength to do so. It does mean, though, that my convictions and conscience have not been for sale. Personal popularity, the influence of even the closest of friends, personal ambition to be a “big preacher,” financial advantage, nor any other personal consideration has been a determining factor in any stand taken or position occupied, or in any course of action.

On the other hand, there is the persuasion that in many cases a vastly different course would have been taken had such things entered into the decision. I have never rejoiced in making enemies but I have never weighed the preaching of the gospel by the measuring of its impression or result. Preaching it has been my obligation and the results of truth belong to God. I heard a man once brag publicly that he had been preaching the gospel for more than thirty years and if he had an enemy in the world, he did not know anything about it. Jesus seemed to think that such was not something to boast of but that it condemned.

The other side of the picture is that a great deal of misrepresentation, personal abuse, slander, loss of friendship and favor, and other attending consequences could have and would have been avoided if convictions and conscience had not been the price demanded in taking another course. Battles have had to be fought that made bitter enemies but truth cannot be sold out for the sake of friendship. “Let God be found true and every man a liar.” None of these experiences has been pleasant. I love my friends as dearly as anyone and a fight has always been unpleasant to me, but serving my God and “contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints” is every Christians greatest obligation.

One of the most rewarding aspects of this half century of gospel preaching has been the testimonials that have come in the evidences of the good that have been accomplished. Some of it has been apparent but much of it will “follow after.” Churches have been planted to grow and flourish. Multitudes have been converted to the, Lord. How many people have been baptized under my preaching, I do not know. I have rot kept count but God knows. The Holy Spirit did not even see fit to remind Paul of how many he had baptized at Corinth, so I guess the number is not too important. Disciples and small, weak churches have been edified and built up). Many young men and some older ones have been encouraged to preach the gospel. Much good has been done that was not immediate or visible at the time. I am constantly coming in contact with people, almost everywhere I go, who tell me that they learned the truth from some sermon they heard me preach or from something I have written. Dozens have told me that they learned the truth on present day issues from the debates I have held. I would not have known of this bad they not borne such witness personally. All of this has convinced me long ago that when truth is preached or taught, we are doing much more good than we can see or know. For all of this I am grateful.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 10, pp.7-9
January 11, 1973

By Cecil Willis

Beginning in this issue is a series of articles, which I have asked Bill Reeves to write; reviewing a new book by Brother Max King entitled The Spirit of Prophecy. Some of our readers will not see the need for such a series of articles. Others already have written me wanting to know why we have not already reviewed this false doctrine.

It is amazing how different our religious environments can be, even in this one country. In the South, one must be very familiar with Baptist doctrine, particularly of the Southern Convention variety. But in Wisconsin, one needs acquaintance with the errors of continental Lutheranism. Adjacent to where I live, there are about 20 congregations of people who not only do not believe that water baptism is essential to salvation, but who also do not practice it. To my knowledge, there are only three religious bodies in the United States who do not practice something, which they call water baptism.

In Texas and California, the institutional fight occurred and was all over at least a decade ago. Some write wondering why we continue beating a “dead horse” through the pages of Truth Magazine, as we continue to try to point out the truth on this issue. These brethren are just unaware of the fact that there are sizable elements of this nation where the institutional fight is just beginning to be made. There are hundreds of congregations in the North that I think could be salvaged for truth, with proper teaching. Furthermore, at all times approximately one-third of the people who receive Truth Magazine are people who do not pay for it themselves, which usually means that the paper is being sent to them by a friend to try to enlighten them on the institutional question. So we must continue to teach on it.

Brother Max R. King of Warren, Ohio published in 1971 a new book entitled The Spirit of Prophecy. Brother Kings book is one of the most tedious, boring, and redundant books that I ever read. It certainly was not one of those books that “I could hardly lay down… It contains as much error as any book of its size I have ever read. Like neo-orthodoxy, it uses many biblical terms, but nearly all of them are being used with changed definitions.

Max King is not very well known personally, but his father-in-law, C. D. Beagle, is well known throughout the Ohio Valley region. Brother Beagle wrote the introduction to Brother Kings book. In this “Introduction,” Brother Beagle states that Kings is “the most enlightening book ever written about Bible prophecy and its fulfillment.” He also states that as you read it, “a whole new view of the scriptures will open up before you.”

The Beagles (father and two sons), along with Brother King, are avidly seeking to advance the errors taught in this book. I had a conversation a few months ago with Edgar Beagle, who preaches for the liberal church in Mansfield, Ohio. He indicated that they had gotten a very good reception to their new teaching at the Freed-Hardeman Lectures, held last spring.

It is going to be interesting to see how elastic a view of fellowship some of the Ohio Valley brethren and churches hold. They have withdrawn from those of us who oppose so strongly the church support of colleges, which they purport also to oppose, while they cannot heap enough praise upon Batsell Barrett Baxter, B. C. Goodpasture, Willard Collins, etc. who advocate the church support of colleges. They will not even let one of us lead a prayer during one of their services, but they use the above-mentioned liberal men for their gospel meetings and lecture programs. It will be very interesting to see what their disposition will be now toward the Beagles and Max King and the others who have accepted this fantastic view of prophecy, which Bill Reeves correctly labels as “Preterist” In substance, they take the position that all prophecy already has been fulfilled. Let me quote just enough from Kings book to verify this charge, and then let you read the carefully written series of articles by Bill Reeves. King takes the position that the heavens and earth that were to pass away were the Jewish system, and the new heavens and earth are the Christian system. “It is these two worlds which constitute a major portion of Bible teaching, and occupy a prominent place in prophecy. Failure to see these two worlds as they unfold in the scripture, and to make proper distinction of them, is a major source of error in the interpretation and application of scripture” (p. 33). He makes the second coming of Christ refer only to His coming to destroy the Jewish system and temple. “When the temple is destroyed, the world ends. The ending of the world is the coming of Christ. The coming of Christ is the fall of Jerusalem, or the destruction of the temple, etc…. All would come to pass before that generation passed into history, and that included the coming of Christ, as well as the passing of heaven and earth” (p. 39).

Furthermore, he makes all the spiritual blessings which we have in Christ refer to the setting up of a new order after the destruction of Jerusalem. “The adoption, the redemption of the body, the inheritance, resurrection to life, and manifestation as sons of God were all a part of the promise which was made sure unto all the seed through the faith of Christ, and was received when Ishmael was cast out. This time came at the fall of Jerusalem” (p. 60).

It gets worse the further you go into the book. But remember, Brother C. D. Beagle states that it is “the most enlightening book ever written about Bible prophecy and its fulfillment.” My appraisal of the book varies from his somewhat. It is the worst jumbled up mess on Bible prophecy that I ever read, whether written by saint or sinner.

King says, “The New Testament saints from Pentecost to the fall of Judaism, lived in an incomplete and temporary world.” (p. 65). “Prophecy found its complete fulfillment in the second coming of Christ, and now may be regarded as closed and consummated” (p. 65). The apostle Paul spoke of some false teachers in his time who also said, “that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some” (2 Tim. 2:18).

King states, “The last days, therefore, never apply to the Christian age, but always to the closing period of the Jewish age, which ran from Pentecost to the fall of Jerusalem” (p. 79). After stating again that “the end of the Jewish world was the second coming of Christ.. King then declares that “We are now in that world which is to come. We are in the eternal kingdom of Christ, and instead of being in the last days we are in eternal days, world without end (Eph. 3: 21 J.” (p. 81). He therefore declares that the resurrection and judgment are past already, and that we are living in heaven now.

You would think that such a false teacher would have a little difficulty making many converts, but apparently nearly the whole, large liberal church in Mansfield has “bought the package,” for they tolerate a man who believes and teaches this. They have even had Max King down for a series to enlighten them upon this new doctrine. The church where Brother King preaches (Warren, Ohio) is purported to believe it, and I guess the one where C. D. Beagle preaches also believes it, for they permit him to preach there and they will not permit those of us who oppose the church support of colleges and other human institutions even to lead a prayer there.

One ill-prepared young liberal preacher is reported to have debated these subjects with Brother King at Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, an Akron suburb. According to the eyewitness account, which I received, the young but unprepared liberal preacher got his pants tanned by King at Cuyahoga Falls.

If you are not bothered by any error comparable to that propagated by King in these parts, be thankful. Meanwhile, be patient while Brother Reeves exposes this false doctrine for the heresy that it is.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 9, pp. 3-5
January 4, 1973