Truth Magazine

By C. G. (Colly) Caldwell, III

It is amazing sometimes to listen to advocates of error boasting of their theories as if they had discovered some new truth. It is not unusual at all to hear young men expressing some thought never entertained by them before in terms indicating that they think their positions are new to the world. At least their enthusiasm is admirable. It is very perplexing, however, (and I might add disgusting) to witness older men who claim to be quite familiar with Restoration history gloating over their “discoveries.” In the past few months we have seen this type egotist at work as well.

The patterns of digression toward subjectivism are very similar in many cases. The time period chosen to illustrate that fact is the quarter century following the open rupture resulting from the introduction of the missionary society and instrumental music (1865-1840).

Before looking at nineteenth century history, however, it should be noted that “subjectivism” did not first appear after the missionary society and organ questions arose. Among Christians that type thinking dates back to second century gnosticism. Seeds of it can be seen even in some of the problems Paul warned about at Corinth. It is at the heart of denominationalism.

Progression of Digression

The long discussion leading to the establishment of the American Christian Missionary Society (1849) heralded the departure from Biblical authority. The introduction of the organ into worship brought the appeal for physical stimuli to the emotions one step closer to victory. Early in that dispute which separated Christian churches from churches of Christ, tile question of fellowship was raised. Those who saw that many would not be forced into practicing what they believed to be unscriptural began to ask what should be done with these 11 cantankerous dividers of the church.”

Moses E. Lard was among the first to sense widespread feeling in this direction in 1865. Evidently trying to cut the question off at its root, he suggested that division was impossible 11 among Christian churches.” Brethren could not divide nation-wide, he argued, because the churches are too autonomous. There are no tribunals to declare a division. One problem with Lards thinking was that the very ones bringing about the division had created nationwide organization and thus had taken away local autonomy.

For several years the theoretical aspects of the question of fellowship were discussed. Ben Franklin, in answer to the question, “Do you intend to make the organ a bar of fellowship?” answered, “We do not propose to make it anything. We want simply to have nothing to do with it” (American Christian Review, September, 1872). David Lipscomb, expressing the same idea, denied that division was worse than compromise and said that it “ought to come” if brethren persisted in introducing innovations (Gospel Advocate, December, 1883). Many today have lost the spirit expressed by Lipscomb, wanting unity at all cost on any human grounds. The defense of truth is not being considered by many as a primary test of fellowship with God. Fellowship with God is being sold for union with man!

Jacob Creath, Jr., sounded another warning. “When a man leaves the Bible alone, there is no rest for him this side of Rome. The most that can be said for all those persons who have ceased to the silence of the Bible is that they are only partly in the reformation” (Gospel Advocate, 1875). John F. Rowe called it the “new order of things” as opposed to the “ancient order of things” taught by the “reformers.” The point was that these men recognized that many were no longer interested in what first century Christians did: they were interested in what their “liberty in Christ” would allow them to do. Rowe saw it as a trend toward denominationalism. Men who felt that way about Bible authority were not fighting the denominations any more, he said. In fact they were no longer sure that the denominations were not “denominations” (segments) of the New Testament church. Rowe also saw that that kind of preaching produced weak Christians (American Christian Review, March 1880). He was right! It will today!

The question of “liberty in Christ” was generally coupled with unwarranted emphasis in preaching on “grace.” Every responsible preacher of the Gospel knows that he must emphasize the grace of God in his preaching. He also knows, however, that he must be careful not to leave the impression that Gods grace will overlook irresponsibility in dealing with Gods revealed truth. The term “legalism” was the word used as a slur against those who believed that obedience to the Gospel (including submission after baptism) was coupled with grace in salvation.

David Lipscomb viewed these signs as “Strange Developments” in an article under that title (Gospel Advocate, March, 1884). He could see that what all the talk about “legalism” and “liberty” really meant was that some were going to have their innovations regardless of the lack of New Testament authority and that they were going to give up the written objective standard in deciding who to fellowship (which meant that they would fellowship any baptized person except those who strongly opposed their innovations).

The next step was taken by the Christian Evangelist. In its pages it carried on a campaign to get the brethren to accept the “pious unimmersed” into fellowship. We could preach, its staff wrote, that the Bible teaches immersion to be necessary to salvation but that does not mean that the unimmersed will be lost in hell. I am not kidding you! They really said that! Alexander Proctor in 1878 called immersion a “rite” and said that the New Testament was not concerned with such “ceremonies.”

F. D. Srygley could not possibly conceive of such reasoning (or lack of it). He said that if immersion was necessary to salvation but that one could be saved without it, nobody would be lost and “you may as well convert hell into a calf pasture and be done with it” (Gospel Advocate, January, 1890). The Christian Evangelist came back with the ineffective response, “The church of Christ believes that it is wiser to keep the spirit of a commandment than the letter.” Srygley in his usual inimitable way replied, “This talk about the spirit and the letter of commandments usually comes from men who want to feel goodish, but do as they please in religion.” He added, “The point is, does God require man to conform his life to an external standard, or does lie leave him to determine his own course by an internal light?” (Gospel Advocate, August, 1890). that is the issue in subjectivism! !!!

End Results

One more point. If the subjectivist accepts the logical conclusion of his argument, he will become either a theological liberal, a neo-ortliodox, or an agnostic. R. C. Cave unloaded that bombshell on the brotherhood in St. Louis (1889). Denying the virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Jesus, Cave declared that “the Christian Church makes nothing a test of fellowship but that which a mans own conscience tells him is right and true . . . Strict loyalty to self is the real loyalty to God.” Those who denied it were termed “legalists.” Cave was not alone. Men like Alexander Proctor and G. W. Longan were right with him. Longan went so far as to say that Matthew and Mark were confused” on the second coming of Christ. The Christian Church since has had many defections to modernism and agnosticism. That type thinking, leads nowhere else.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 7, pp. 8-10
December 14, 1972

By Billy W. Moore

There are some who believe in God but who deny that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. They do not accept the New Testament as authentic, inspired of God and authoritative. Such persons accept the Old Testament as the Word of God (consider the orthodox Jew), thus when studying with them we cannot make our appeal unto the New Testament. However, since they will accept the Old Testament as Gods word, we can and must appeal unto it. As we have opportunity to study with such persons we must make them see Jesus in the Old Testament.

Jesus In The 0. T.

This method of preaching Christ was used by inspired men. For example, when Paul came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue, the record says. “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from tile (lead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.” (Acts 17:1-3) When Paul reasoned with them out of the scriptures, of necessity it was the Old Testament scriptures, for this was all the Jews would have had in their synagogues, since the New Testament was not yet written. But what did Paul reason with them out of the scriptures? He was “opening and alleging” certain things. The New American Standard Version says he was “explaining and giving evidence.” But what was he explaining? 1-Into what was he giving evidence? Unto two things: (1) … that Christ must need have suffered,” and (2) Christ must needs have “risen from the dead.”

Christ must need to have suffered. “Christ” from Christos, means “anointed.” W. E. Vine says the word “translates, in the Sept., the word Messiah, a term applied to the priests who were anointed with the holy oil.” The Jews would be familiar with this term. as it had been used with reference to the High Priest (Lev. 4:3, 5, 16), of the prophets, who are called “the anointed of God” (Ps. 105:15), and of their kings, who were anointed (2 Sam. 1: 14; Cf. the anointing of Saul and of David, I Sam. 10: 1 and 16:13).

It is said, “the title . . . the Christ is not used of Christ in the Sept. Version, yet three 7 times the title was expressly accepted by the Lord himself, Matt. 16: 17: Mark 14:61-62; John 4:26.” Furthermore, on the night before his death the Lord referred to himself as “Jesus Christ.” (John 17: 3) When Paul explained and gave evidence to the Jews that “Christ must needs have suffered, he could appeal to such Old Testament passages as Isaiah 53 where the prophet Isaiah described the trial and death of Christ in some detail. We know that the inspired evangelist, Philip, began at this scripture and preached Jesus unto the eunuch of Ethiopia. (See Acts 8:26-39) This is only one of many passages in the Old Testament, which speaks of the suffering of the coming Messiah. Paul could establish beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth had suffered, for this is a well-documented historical fact.

Christ must need to have risen from the dead. Paul explained and gave evidence from the Old Testament scripture that Christ must need to “have risen from the dead.” In the Psalms it was written, “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy On to see corruption.” (Ps. 16: 10) Paul could refer to the recent historical event and establish that Jesus was raised from the dead. He had been seen of many witnesses, above five hundred at one time, during a period of forty days. This was in keeping with what the Old Testament spoke concerning his resurrection. Luke wrote that the resurrection of Christ was established “by many infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3), and Paul would be aware of these proofs. Today we can teach the resurrection of Christ from the Old Testament, as God testified of his resurrection in prophetic words.

When Paul and Silas went to Berea they went into the synagogue of the Jews and preached Jesus. The record says, “these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed . . .” (Acts 17:11-12) When those of Berea “searched the scriptures daily” to see whether the things Paul and Silas preached were so, they searched the Old Testament scriptures. This necessarily infers that Paul and Silas appealed to the Old Testament when they preached Christ unto them. And so can we. Notice that many of them believed as a result of Pauls preaching.

Later, when Paul left Priscilla and Aquila in Ephesus, they heard Apollos preaching. He was “an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures.” After listening to him preach they recognized that he knew only the baptism of John, so they took him unto them “and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” Then Apollos went into Achaia where lie “helped them much which had believed through grace: for he mightily convinced the Jews and that publicly, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.” (Acts 18:24-28) When Apollos showed them “by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ,” he appealed to the Old Testament scriptures. Surely we have established the point that the Old Testament testifies of Jesus, that he is the Christ. We must do the same when confronting those who reject the New Testament. Yea, we do it even with those who accept the New Testament to show the wisdom of God and the accuracy of prophecy. Peter said that the prophets of old spoke of the salvation of souls, and regarding this salvation said “the prophets have inquired and searched diligently … searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow.” Then he added “unto them it was revealed, that not unto them, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them what have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven.” (1Peter 1:9-12)

Thus, the prophets of old spoke not only of Christ and his sufferings, but also of his resurrection and the glory that should follow, yea, even the salvation of your souls. Notice some of the things the prophets of old said concerning Christ.

1. His Birth. Isaiah wrote, “a virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son” (Isa. 7: 14). This promised one was to be “the seed of woman” (Gen. 3:151. and the “seed of Abraham” (Gen. 12:3). He was to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). These promises were fulfilled as matters of fact. Many New Testament references, how their fulfilling.

2. His Life. The life of the Messiah was to be one of purity, holiness and submission unto the Father in heaven. He was to be brought out of Egypt (Hos. 11: 1) -, a harbinger, with the spirit and power of Elijah, was to prepare the way for him (Isa. 40:3-5; Mal. 3:1; 4:5). These matters could be established as having come to pass. He would perform great healings (Isa. 35:6). He was to be the prince of peace. (Is. 9: 6) Cf. Eph. 2: 14 He was to be given an entry into Jerusalem as was given to a king who had been triumphant in battle (Zech. 9:9, Cf. Jn 12:12).

3. His Betrayal. The prophet spoke of his familiar friend lifting up his heel against him. (Ps. 41; Cf. 26: 14) For thirty pieces of silver he was to he sold unto his enemies (Zech. 11: 12; Amos 2:6; Cf. Matt. 26:15).

4. His Trials. False witnesses would accuse him (Ps. 27:12; Cf. Mark 14:53-59). He would be despised and rejected (Isa. 53:3-7-, Cf. Matt 27). Even the rulers would take counsel together against the Lord (Ps. 2: 2; Cf. Acts 4:25-28).

5. His Crucifixion. He would be nailed to a cross (Ps. 22:16). He would be given vinegar to drink (Ps. 69:21; Cf. Matt. 27:34, 35; 97:48). He would be numbered with transgressors (Isa. 53:12; Cf. Luke 22:37). He must suffer alone (Ps. 22: 1; Cf. Matt. 27:46). He made intercession for the transgressors (Isa. 53: 12; Cf. Luke 23:34). He died for our sins (Isa. 53:3-5; Cf. Matt 26:28). But not a bone shall be broken in his body (Ps. 34:20; Cf. John 19:31-37).

6. His Burial. He was to be with the rich in his death f1sa. 53:9; Cf. Matt. 27:60).

7. His Resurrection. His body was not to see corruption (Ps. 16:8-11; CF. John 20: 1-10 and Act-, 2:25-31).

8. His Ascension. He was to ascend on high (Ps. 68:18; Cf. Acts 1:9-11; Eph. 4:9-11).

9. His Kingdom. When he ascended on high he was to be given dominion, glory and a kingdom (Dan. 7:14; Cf. Matt. 28:18-20; 1 Peter 3:22; 1 Tim. 6:15; Heb. 12:28).

10. A New Covenant. The prophets spoke of a new covenant being given wherein provisions would be made that iniquities would be forgiven and sins remembered no more. (Jer. 31:31-34; Cf. Heb. 6:8-13; Acts 2:38) The prophet Moses wrote that every soul must be hearken to this new prophet whom God would raise up among the Israelites. (Deut. 18:15; Cf. Acts 3:23).

Indeed the Old Testament testifies of Jesus. We are missing an opportunity if we do not use it unto this end.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 7, pp. 6-8
December 14, 1973

By Ray Ferris

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Matt. 13:37-50.

If there is anything taught in this parable, it is that there will be people in the kingdom of the Lord in that last day who will be cast “into the furnace of fire.” The same principle is taught in many other passages in the New Testament. The question for those of us who are Christians is: “What kind of a fish am I in the net, and what does it take to make me a bad fish?” If we were to go through the Bible and note how little some of the people did to find themselves in Gods disfavor, it might make us a little more careful of some of the little things we do that are not pleasing to God!

Do you think it pleases God when you deliberately stay at home from any of the services of the church? Do you think He is made to rejoice when you fail to do any work that needs to be done to advance His kingdom in the area where you are? Remember, all that Adam and Eve did was to eat of the forbidden fruit; no doubt they thought it was just a little thing. The church at Laodicea was lukewarm, but they no doubt reasoned that they were not doing any great sins. Are you a worker for the Lord, or one who does no real service – a bad fish? A lot of “good men” (that is, they are not really guilty of gross immorality and outright rebellion) will be bad fish in the Lords eyes!

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 5, p. 13
November 30, 1972

By Terry L. Sumerlin

Though I am one who, like Brother William B. Wright, believes that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cures-i.e. a Christian is wise in marrying a Christian; I do not concur with his conclusion drawn from passages of scripture on the subject. According to Brother Wrights reasoning on certain passages (though his conclusions on the passages and his conclusion to the article did not harmonize), it is sinful for a Christian to marry a non-Christian. This I do not accept. Thus, lets consider his usage of scripture.

Under his heading “An Important Principle,” we find a number of passages taken from the Old Testament to show that the old patriarchs married “their own.” Also, passages are cited in reference to “mixed marriages”- of the children of Israel and the condemnation of such by Nehemiah. To show the lesson we are supposed to get from this, Rom. 15:4 is given: ” . . . whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning. . . .” Yet, I do not believe we are to misuse O.T. passages (or new for that matter) in order to make application where there is not such, as I believe our good brother has honestly done. If one will look closely at Neh. 13:24, he will find the following primary reason given for the condemnation of “mixed marriages” among Israel: “And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod and could not speak in the Jews language, but according to the language of each people.” As I understand it, Nehemiahs condemnation primarily had to do with “mixing of races” so as to provide an impure lineage for Christ (as seems to have been the case with all such O.T. passages); and secondarily with possible spiritual damage as in the case of Solomon, being affected by such a marriage. Yet, the second was not necessitated by the first (consider the marriage of Moses, Num. 12: 1). As to the marriages of the old patriarchs, the fathers also chose wives for their sons. Maybe, this is also “for our learning.”

Moving from this point, though, to the section headed “New Testament Teaching,” lets consider the passage used by Brother Wright in 1 Cor. 9:5. I, too, believe the passage is dealing with a “believing wife,” but I do not agree with the idea that such infers that the unbelieving woman is not an eligible mate for a Christian. Our brothers reasoning on the passage is comparable to saying that because Paul approved eating meats and eating herbs, but said nothing of eating them together, such is sinful! Notice in 1 Cor. 9 Paul says it is approved to be single or marry a Christian. Does the fact that in this place nothing is said about marrying a non Christian, make it wrong? I think not!

Though no specific application is made of 1 Cor. 7:39, I take it that our brother intends to say from this that since widows are to marry Christians (“only in the Lord”), this implies that all Christians are to marry “only in the Lord.” This, I believe. Yet, I do not believe “only in the Lord” means Christian. If such is the meaning of the expression, then children are bound by Eph. 6: 1 to only obeying parents who are Christians, i.e. “in the Lord.” The expression, rather, seems to mean widows are to marry and children are to obey their parents only to the extent that they would not be caused by “obedience” or “marriage” to disobey the Lord. This is a far cry from proving “mixed marriages” wrong.

In connection with what Brother Wright has said on 2 Cor. 6: 14, let me say that if this passage is teaching that marriage of a Christian to a non-Christian is sinful, in itself, one has a serious contradiction between verse 17 of the same chapter (“. . . come out from among them and be ye separate . . .”) and 1 Cor. 7:12-13. The truth of the matter seems to be that the passage is teaching that we should not enter into any agreement, etc., which would give the non Christian the advantage that would cause the Christian to sin. Though such could exist (and often does) in “mixed marriages,” the context seems to indicate that this is not specifically under consideration.

In conclusion I must say that I see something strange in reasoning by which one labors in an article of such length as the one under consideration to prove something in violation of Biblical principles, and then ends it by saying that the individual who marries a non-Christian is to be treated as any other Christian. If I understand the Bible correctly, when one violates Biblical teaching he (she) sins. Yet, the article does not lead one to believe such. Notice: Either the marriage of a Christian to a non-Christian violates Biblical principles and is sin; or such a marriage does not violate Biblical principles. I take the latter! Though a “mixed marriage” might show a lack of judgment; I do not believe it reflects on ones godliness!!!

(Readers are asked to refer to Vol. XVI, No. 46 of Truth Magazine for “The Beginning of Sorrows”)

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 5, pp. 10-1
November 30, 1972