Truth Magazine

By Weldon E. Warnock

Let us begin by defining conscience. William by Hendriksen states, “Conscience is mans moral Billy W. Moore intuition, his moral self in the act of passing judgment upon his own state, emotions, and thoughts, also upon his own words and actions whether these be viewed as past, present, or future.” (Commentary on I & II Tim. & Titus, p. 62) W. E. Vine says, “That process of thought which distinguishes what it considers morally good or bad, commending the good, condemning the bad, and so prompting to do the former, and avoid the latter.” From this we see that conscience is both positive and negative. It approves and condemns. Paul wrote concerning the Gentiles, “Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another” (Rom. 2:15).

The word, “conscience,” does not occur in the Old Testament Scriptures. However, the idea is found there. For example, it is said of Adam and Eve “And the eyes of them both were opened, and, they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons” (Gen. 3:7). When God asked Adam, “Where art thou?” Adam replied, “I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself” (Gen. 3:9-10). We see conscience pricking the heart of David when he said unto the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly” (2 Sam. 24: 10). In the New Testament the term, “conscience,” occurs twice in Acts, five times in Hebrews, three times in I Peter and about twenty times in Pauls letters.

R. L. Whiteside stated the meaning of conscience in a simplified way when he wrote that conscience is “that feeling of pleasure when, we do what we think is right, and of pain when we do what we think is wrong. It is that which backs up our moral judgment.” (Commentary on Romans, p. 59) Since our moral judgment may be wrong, it is imperative that we obtain the correct information in order to make proper, moral judgments. Saul of Tarsus always did what he thought was right, and therefore always had a good conscience. But, as Whiteside said about Paul, “his information was wrong, and therefore his moral judgment was wrong.” (Ibid., P. 59)

The source of information that is infallible and inerrant is the Bible, the Word of God. Whatever the Bible teaches about any matter, the Bible is right regardless of our preconceived notions or the voice of our consciences. Human conscience is not the supreme law-the Word of God is. “Let your conscience he your guide” may be a pleasant platitude, but it is dangerous and destructive as a philosophy of life. A far better epithet would be, “Let the Bible be your guide.” This is in keeping with the Psalmists statement, “Than shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory” (Ps. 73:24). The Psalmist further stated, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Ps. 119:105).

Descriptions of Conscience

There are various descriptions of conscience referred to in the New Testament. We read of a good conscience, a pure conscience, a weak conscience, a seared conscience, a defiled conscience, a perfect conscience and an evil conscience. Let us briefly notice each of these.

A good conscience is one that is free from guilt or wrong doing. Peter wrote, “Having a good conscience; that whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ” (I Pet. 3:161. A good conscience may also be realized in what a person thinks to be right, although his actions be wrong (Acts 23: 1). Paul thought he was right when he was wrong. He was not conscious of guilt. Hence, he had a good conscience.

A pure conscience is one that is clear, non-hypocritical, incorrupt and sincere. Paul said, “I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day” (2 Tim. 1: 3). One of the qualifications of a deacon is that he “holds the mystery of the, faith in a pure conscience” (I Tim. 3:9).

A weak conscience is one that is lacking in moral judgment. It is ignorant. This type of person is not strong enough to distinguish dearly between things lawful for a Christian and things that are unlawful. We read in I Cor. 8 – 71 “Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.” This kind of conscience is to be respected and given every consideration by those who are strong and learned. I Cor. 12:8 say, “But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.”

A seared conscience is one that is cauterized, calloused and hardened. Paul wrote to Timothy about some who would depart from the faith as “Speaking lies – in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron” (I Tim. 4:2). “By constantly arguing with conscience, stifling its warnings, and muffling its bell, they at last have reached the point where conscience no longer bothers them.” (Hendriksen, Op. Cit., p. 146) Through rebellion and stubbornness, conscience is permanently seared. The truth of God has no effect upon the hearts of many because they have seared their conscience.

A defiled conscience is one that is polluted, contaminated by sin. Paul wrote, “. . . and their conscience being weak is defiled” (I Cor. 8-7). The word “defiled,” in this text literally means to “besmear, as with mud or filth, to befoul” (Vine). In a figurative sense, however, it indicates a conscience that is filthy by sin.

The writer of the Hebrew letter speaks of a perfect conscience. Heb. 9:9 reads, “Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience.” A perfect conscience would be, therefore, the pardon of sins; the perfection of moral consciousness. The preceding verse shows that the Mosaical sacrifices could not procure this for mankind, but rather they were symbolic of our pardon and foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Christ.

An evil conscience is simply a mind conscious of wrongdoing; of having sinned against God. Heb. 10: 22 states, “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.”

In conclusion, I want to suggest two things: (1) Maintain a good conscience. Do not abuse it. It serves an important function in your heart. (2) Realize that your conscience is not an infallible guide that the Word of God (the Bible) is the infallible guide. The conscience cannot decide truth and error. Your intellect does that. The conscience simply acts in conjunction with what the heart believes to be right and wrong.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 40, pp. 9-11
August 17, 1972

By Dudley Spears

This will be the end of this series on the work in the Philippines. It will be sort of an evaluation and summary of the work there as Brother James Needham and I found it during our recent trip. Also, I will offer a few suggestions for whatever they are worth to all who may be interested in the work.

There is no way for me to give an accurate guess at the number of faithful Christians in the Philippines. There are around 250 small congregations and they possibly average around 40 members. Some congregations number well over a hundred in attendance. At Lambayong there were well over a hundred in average attendance. So, a rough guess would be that there are around 10,000 Christians in the Islands.

We met and visited over 120 conservative preachers in the Islands. Many of these preach for several congregations. I met several who work with as many as four congregations. With all but a very small percentage, these men are extremely dedicated to the work of preaching. They report baptisms almost every week. They have many debates with adversaries of pure Christianity. One man who is not supported financially at all sold his house and moved to the northern most city on Luzon and began preaching. He now has a congregation going in that place.

Very few of the congregations have an adequate meeting place. Many of them still meet in homes. Some of them have had to rent places, and others after having built a place have had to rebuild it due to the typhoons that have damaged their buildings. Some of the congregations are very well off when it comes to a meeting house. By no means are any of the buildings ornate or luxurious. Most of them are very simple structures that are used as places for assembly and worship.

The fact that there are this many preachers and Christians in the Islands does not mean that they have all they need by way of financial ability. There are no wealthy members of the church there that we met. Most of them work very hard for very small wages and some cannot find work. Churches with the ability to support preachers will be needed for a long time, but I think I see the time when the Philippine congregations of the Lords people will say, 11 stop sending us support-we can support ourselves. They are traditionally a freedom loving people who want their independence. I am sure that time will come, though not in the near future.

I have a few suggestions to give to congregations and individuals who send money to the Philippines for the support of a preacher. These are my opinions and nothing more, so I ask you to take them like that. I am not trying to tell anyone what they should do or not do, but I believe, based on my experience and knowledge gained in this trip, that they are good to consider. I list them numerically for readability.

1. Before you support anyone there, contact someone that you know who knows the preacher. Six Americans have gone there and will be happy to share any information they have with you.

2. Before you begin financially supporting a man there, get a recommendation from someone you know.

3. If you support a man or men there, send your check by registered air-mail. Many checks have been lost because they were not registered.

4. If you support a man or men there, have the man or men send you monthly reports of all the work he or they have done.

5. If you support, a man there, write to him often. All of the native Filipino brethren like to hear from their supporters.

(This is not a blanket offer, but I am willing to visit with any congregation or brother and discuss any phase of the work there, especially on this matter of supporting preachers.)

6. Be sure if you support a preacher that the one you support gives you a report containing all the “regular” and “irregular” support he receives. (This is important because some native, preachers have been receiving money from several places and do not always know exactly how to report what they receive.)

Now just a few general suggestions and opinions are given. I will not list these numerically. They are just some things that I want to say about our attitudes toward the work in the Philippines.

I hope that we all recognize that supporting preachers in the Philippines is not the only kind of work that needs be done. At this point, they need more than money — they need our moral support and prayers. Visits by American preachers are greatly welcomed by the brethren there. Yet, we have a small problem just here.

I do not think it is a good idea, nor one reflecting the right attitude, when American preachers get all lined up for the trip and begin raising money. I wonder how American churches would feel should a Filipino preacher just decide to come over and work with us for a month, announce his plans, begin raising the money and then come. What I am getting around to is that it is much better to be invited to come, rather than to announce that, “Im coming.”

Furthermore, I doubt the wisdom very much in the plan of having two different men go each year. The main reason for this is that each new man has to get completely oriented to a way of life lie has never known before. Some Americans may think that a trip to the Philippines is a “pleasure cruise paid for by the churches.” If so, please let me allay that idea quickly. The Filipino way of life is a good way of life-for native Filipinos, but it is not so good for an American. For one thing, there is the kind of food that is offered. I am not casting aspersions on the food when I say that it is not what American people find very appetizing. We are accustomed to a very different kind of food and a very different way of fixing food.

In addition to the dietary problems, there is the ever present danger of amoebic dysentery. The water in the Philippines is not treated in the same way water we have drunk all our lives is treated. There is also a problem of getting used to the climate. From Manila on to the south, the weather is generally very hot and sultry. April and May are the hottest times of the entire year. During the rest of the year it is almost impossible to hold the lectures and classes we did due to the harvest season or rainy season.

There is also a problem Americans face in getting used to being in the presence of danger in the form of possible robbery, mugging or other types of violence. While we were on Mindinao, there were four murders committed within the vicinity of where we were staying.

Another difficulty is in the type of lodging that is available. While it was the very best available to us, still, staying in a native house on Mindinao is something that takes getting used to. The first night I stayed there I was awakened by a rat biting my foot. The nights are very dark and as I moved, the rat made his escape over my body leaving behind several scratch marks.

For American preachers who have never been to the islands, to go also requires getting accustomed to the Filipino people, learning their ways and getting to know them personally. This is something that is not done the first day you are there. It requires a long time to learn something about the people.

For whatever it is worth, it is my considered opinion that men who have already been there should return from time to time. I am not trying to get the invitation to return, but I honestly believe this is the best policy. The Filipino brethren with whom I worked think this is the best thing. It is not that they would not welcome a new set of Americans every year or every day for that matter, but it is something of a hardship on them when new sets of American preachers arrive every so often.

There are two sides to this problem. The Filipino brethren get fairly well acquainted with those of us who go there. When new men arrive, they have the same problem we have in getting adjusted to each other. When men who have already been over, then go back they already know the brethren, the land, the conditions and much time and effort can be saved. The Filipino people are very hospitable and do the very best they can to make Americans comfortable and happy while they are there, but when new people show up periodically, they have to find out all over again what this one likes and that one does not like, etc.

So, I strongly feel that it is far wiser for men who have been there to return, rather than new men to take it on themselves to go uninvited. So far, all who have gone have been invited by the brethren in the Philippines. I hope it will continue. They have the right to ask for the people they want to come and we have no right arbitrarily to decide to go. I hope that those who think otherwise and already have made plans to go do not take this personally. It is not intended that way.

In conclusion, I urge all who read these lines to continue praying for the brethren there and to support them in every scriptural way. There are new men coming along among the conservatives every day. Many of the institutional people are seeing the truth. Brother Agduma publishes a paper each month that is tearing the institutional cause apart all over the islands. The Philippine Islands is a very fertile field for the cause of truth just now. Let us continue to do all we can to spread the seed of the kingdom.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 40, pp. 6-8
August 17, 1972

By Cecil Willis

In a previous article, I referred to an article entitled “Theological Liberalism At Abilene Christian College,” which was written by a young brother, Randall Mark Trainer, in which Brother Trainer said he had found no evidence of any liberalism on the part of any Bible faculty member at ACC. I also quoted letters from one ACC Bible faculty member, Eugene Clevenger, in which Clevenger resigned a writing position on the Sweet Company commentary set because “I have decided not to have a part in this cooperative effort with such liberals as Everett Ferguson, Abe Malberbe, Tony Ash Dick Batey, Bob Johnson, Pat Harrell: Don McGaughey, J. W. Roberts.” Clevenger also said that many of the commentary writers were “theological liberals.”

Clevenger also stated, “The time is fast approaching when the position of such men as are on the Bible faculty of Abilene Christian College must be made known to the, brotherhood, and I have decided that 1, for one, will do what I can to expose the liberalism that prevails in the Bible Department here at ACC.” Ira Rice, to whom Clevenger sent a copy of his letter, said that he already knew that all the men named by Clevenger as “liberals” were such, except Bob Johnson and J. W. Roberts, and Rice said he merely had no documentation on these two others. Rice said, “I have documentation on most of the others.”

Clevenger indicated he was going to expose the liberals on the ACC Bible faculty. Associated with him as ACC Bible faculty members were Everett Ferguson, Abe Malherbe, Tony Ash, and J. W. Roberts, all of whom Clevenger labeled as “liberals.” Bob Johnson, also included in Clevengers list, formerly taught at ACC in the Bible Department. Tony Ash has since transferred to Pepperdine College, where I think he is now Read of the Bible Department. Some of Dick Bateys liberalism is at this moment being discussed by James D. Bales in a series of articles being carried in the Gospel Advocate.

Unfortunately, Clevengers nerve did not measure up to his boast. He said he was determined to expose the modernism in the ACC Bible faculty. However, Administrative pressure was exerted upon him to retract his statement. Clevenger later publicly stated he could not prove his charges. Did Clevenger deliberately lie? I, for one, do not think that he did, nor did he say that he did in his retraction. I suspect his teaching job was “on the line,” and he compromised and stated that he could not prove his charges. Several years ago, I heard Eugene Clevenger deliver a splendid lecture on the Florida Christian College lecture program. His lecture was entitled, “An Unchanging Charge,” and pertained to the charge Paul gave Timothy to “preach the word.” Clevenger stated that Paul not only told Timothy what to preach, but how to preach it. I then secured a copy of Clevengers fine, detailed outline of his sermon, a copy of which I yet have. Under the heading of his discussion of those who will not declare faithfully the whole counsel of God, Clevenger said: “For a price, doctors acquiesce.” I personally strongly suspect that for the price of his job, Dr. Eugene Clevenger acquiesced,” and made a half-hearted retraction of his former very bold charge of wide-spread liberalism among the ACC Bible faculty members,

Bear in mind that Rice said he had documentary proof to prove the “liberalism” of all those whom Clevenger charged, except Johnson and J. W. Roberts. Keep in mind too, that B. C. Goodpasture also rejoiced to hear that Clevenger had purposed to publicly expose the liberalism on the ACC Bible faculty, and Rice indicated that” Goodpasture wanted to write Clevenger “a word of appreciation and encouragement.” Do you really think that Clevenger, Rice, and Goodpasture had no evidence whatsoever of any liberalism on the ACC Bible faculty? Or might it be more plausible to believe that an undergraduate student who “transferred to ACC last summer” merely did not detect any liberalism on the ACC Bible faculty?

ACC and “Mission” Magazine

Several Bible faculty members at ACC are on the Board of Trustees of Mission magazine, which regularly publishes the rankest kind of liberalism, whether young Brother Trainer recognizes it to be such or not. Everett Ferguson, Thomas Olbricht, and J. W. Roberts are all on the Board of Trustees of Mission. Surely they bear some responsibility regarding the thrust and direction of Mission.

In the April, 1969 issue of Mission, Dr. Neal Buffaloe, who is Professor of Biology and Chairman of the Department of Biological Science at State College of Arkansas at Conway, but also an Elder at the College Church of Christ in Conway, openly taught theistic evolution. Brother Buffaloe said: “I believe that any intelligent person who lends himself directly and without prejudice to the data of comparative morphology and physiology, paleontology and cytogenetics will come away with the conviction that evolution (the process) has occurred, that evolution (the theory) is a valid working tool for the biologist and that evolution (the concept) is inescapable as a philosophy of nature.” Brother Buffaloe also added, “Either the Genesis account of the days is non-literal or it is false.” Don McGaughey, who also is labeled as a liberal by Clevenger, simply stated of Genesis Chapters 1-11, “this portion of the Bible is a myth.” (First Century Christian, Dec., 1968, p. 8)

Now what did Mission do about the article by Brother Buffaloe advocating theistic evolution? They gave him an award for the article!!! Their criteria of judgment of articles were as follows: “Articles were judged on the basis of their effectiveness in bringing the biblical message to bear on the Twentieth Century world, their relevance to contemporary religious life, their originality and creativity, and their communications effectiveness and reader appeal.”, Their Award Announcement reads:

“The Trustees of Mission announce awards for outstanding literary achievement in bringing the Christian message to bear on the world of 1969 to: . . . Second Place — Neal D. Buffaloe for God or Evolution.” (Mission, Oct., 1969, p. 30)

Can you imagine what would happen if I printed and commended such an article in Truth Magazine? Imagine what kind of a reaction I would get from Roy E. Cogdill, James W. Adams, Connie W. Adams, Karl Robertson, Luther Blackmon, O. C. Birdwell, Ferrell Jenkins, Larry Hafley, Irvin Himmel, and Jimmy Tuten! Now can you imagine the Truth Magazine staff awarding a yearly award to such a Bible-denying article? Yet that is precisely what happened in the instance of Mission, and Everett Ferguson, J. W. Roberts, and Abraham Malherbe were on the Board of “Trustees” who made the award to Neal Buffaloe. Yet young Brother Trainer would have us to believe, “Neither does there appear to be a trend in the direction of theological liberalism.” Believe it who can, but I cannot. More will be said on this issue next week.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 40, pp. 3-5
August 17, 1972

By Robert C. Welch

A great host of preachers and churches are now riding the tide of opposition to the engaging of churches in the support of human systems and organizations which in turn perform the work of evangelism, edification and benevolence. They had and have nothing to do with stirring up or increasing that tide; they are merely riding it.

Some of these preachers are enjoying popularity among the churches; not because they are rigorously opposing the institutional systems which are catholicizing the churches of the Lord, but, to the contrary, because they are, at least publicly, refraining from discussing it. Of course, when asked they are happy to tell you privately where they stand. Many of the churches who are now using these preachers who are riding the tide do not any longer see the need of using some of those preachers who dared to fight the battle when the cause was so unpopular.

Such preachers and churches even consider those who pitched and waged the battle in the heat of the fray as controversial and radical figures, unworthy of the one-time respect, as without any influence locally and throughout the brotherhood. Such churches forget that these men sacrificed their popularity in order to keep the institutional machine from destroying the faith and righteous function of these churches. Such preachers forget that these men counted themselves expendable in order to maintain the independency of the congregations where others are now provided a place to preen their wings and enjoy their popularity.

Much of the teaching which opposed the -institutional movement was done in writings in religious papers. Many of the preachers who are riding the tide of present popularity no longer subscribe to those papers and no longer think it profitable to read what those same men are continuing to say. Perhaps they think that they have outgrown the thinking of these men who made it possible for them to ride the tide.

It is true that the man in the front of the battle does not have the time to polish his gun as does the man who is spending his days back in camp. But the polished gun may not fire as well, or may not fire at all, as does the gun which has been tried on the line. The man who has sat in camp while the battle was raging may have polished his manners and his sermons, but the glint of the steel is meaningless unless his sermon will continue to push back the error and sin.

Churches of the Lord, now as in the last century and always, will have to keep pressing the battle and stirring the tide against error one kind or another. As was the Lord and his apostles they must be controversial in nature. There can be no relenting. There can be no riding the tide.

Written in December 7, 1961 in the church paper of the Nacogdoches, Texas church.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 40, p. 2
August 17, 1972