Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

In the previous articles in this series, we have shown that the basic fallacy of digression is its denial that the New Testament was intended by God to reveal a binding pattern for the church to follow for all time to come. We have discussed the positions of the Disciples of Christ, then the positions of Ketcherside and those who parrot him, and in the last article we discussed the modernism being advocated by writers in Mission magazine. In this article I want to discuss the position of some who might well be represented by the Gospel Advocate, and others who share the brand of institutional liberalism which the Advocate promulgates.

Varieties in Liberalism

Liberalism presents itself in various shades and hues. Not all liberals are liberal to the same degree. Some accept the basic premise of liberalism, but will not accept as yet all of its conclusions. Liberalism has positions on various essential points of Bible teaching. Hence, one might speak of liberalisms view of God, Christ, miracles, the Bible, or the Church. Some of the liberals among us who have spoken regarding the church and the Bible have not yet had their “say” regarding God and Christ. I wish they would speak up and tell us what they think of God and Christ. Perhaps this shocking bit of information might awaken a few of our brethren. But the time is not yet quite right for the liberals to tell us how the concept of God has “evolved,” or for them to re-write the sacred account of the miracles. They are now reluctant to deny the virgin birth of Christ, or to disclaim His bodily resurrection. The liberals now are speaking mainly regarding the Bible and the church. But their entire speech is not yet before the brethren.

One liberal brother has told us what be sees in the Bible. He does not view Holy Scripture as most of us in the past have viewed it. To Brother J. P. Sanders, this is how he views the Bible: “In the Bible I see some exquisitely religious lyrics, some repugnant and nationalistic verse, some incomparably beautiful erotic poetry, some profound mythology, some colorful and at times amusing folk lore, some legends and fables, some great rules for community life in ancient society, some tiresome regulations of ritual and diet, some dazzling — if not schizophrenic — visions, some dull didacticism, some dynamic and moving preaching. Nowhere-nowhere-do I find a consistent diagram or blueprint of what life should be or what the church should be. I see in it mans sorrow and anguish, his despair and hope, his loving and living, his hating and dying — but I do not find a schematic program of salvation” (J. P. Sanders, Restoration Review, March, 1967, p. 51).

Some of the liberal brethren will not now go quite as far as does Brother J. P. Sanders. Perhaps I should here call attention to the fact that there are two brethren named J. P. Sanders, and to state that the one quoted is not the one who for many years was associated with David Lipscomb College. The J. P. Sanders being quoted is the one who preached for the Rockford, Illinois Church of Christ, and who since has found his rightful place in the Christian Church. Before he left the church, he was mouthing the basic sentiment of the Christian Church. The fundamental principle of Digressivism, as I have sought to show in this series of articles, is its denial that the New Testament reveals a once-for-all binding pattern. Note again Brother Sanders statement: “Nowhere-nowhere-do I find a consistent diagram or blueprint of what life should be or what the church should be.”

There are many liberal brethren who will not now voice some of the sentiments expressed by Brother Sanders regarding what he thinks the Bible to be, but who share at least to some degree his sentiment that the New Testament does not reveal a blueprint for the church.

“Mainline” Churches

Some have come to refer to churches, which hold the position of the Gospel Advocate or Firm Foundation (and I might add, it is impossible to hold the position of both, for they hold diametrically opposed positions) on institutionalism and sponsoring church-ism, as “mainline” churches. The Mission magazine writers consider those who stand where most of the Gospel Advocate writers stand to be hidebound traditionalists. They might even label them opprobriously as “biblical fundamentalists.”

But the men who have taken the lead in contending for the sponsoring church, indirect support of gospel preachers, and the church support of human institutions (whether benevolent, educational, or evangelistic) have been forced to adopt the basic tenet of digression in order to contend for the position they have taken. The leading institutional defenders have been forced to admit that gospel preachers were directly supported in the New Testament (see Phil. 4:10-18). They have had to admit that local, churches can, and did, care for their own (see Acts 2, 4, 6). They have been forced to admit that they can find no example in the New Testament of anything like 3,000 churches functioning through one eldership (as is done in the Herald of Truth).

The only way they have been able to make any semblance of defense for these digressive practices has been by adopting the basic premise of liberalism: namely, that the New Testament does not reveal a binding pattern.

The logical necessity of taking such a position has embarrassed some of the institutional defenders. For example, Brother Clifton Inman, in my debate with him in Parkersburg, West Virginia, felt the necessity to spend much time trying to show that the New Testament does reveal a binding pattern on some things. He merely contended that there was no pattern regarding how churches could cooperate. I tried to make Brother Inman see that if there is no divine order, then there can be no disorder. If nothing is revealed about how churches may work together, then any cooperative of churches, from the missionary society on down, would be permissible.

Note how Brother Inman denies the New Testament reveals a pattern: “The assumption is made that Philippi sent this money directly to Paul rather than to the treasury of any church in Thessalonica or elsewhere. The accuracy of this assumption we cannot tell . . . It seems very unlikely therefore that they were following any pattern, or setting any pattern, of how money was to be sent to preachers” (Bible Herald, March 15, 1957, p. 2).

The only difference between Brother Inmans position, and the position of the digressive Christian Church, is one of degree. Brother Inman denies that is a pattern for congregational cooperation; the Christian Church denies there is a pattern at all. Mack Langford denies there is a pattern for “worship, polity and missions.” Inman denies that there is a pattern regarding how churches may work together. Yet Inman, and others of the institutional liberal faction, hilariously castigate unmercifully men like Mack Langford as dangerous liberals.

Other Pattern Deniers

That noble warrior (pardon me while I laugh) of liberalism, Guy N. Woods, said: “Besides, there is no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible” (Cooperation in the Field of Benevolence and Evangelism, p. 7). If one will read current issues of the Gospel Advocate, he will find Guy Woods “tearing his shirt” as he fights liberalism. (Perhaps I might more appropriately have said “splitting his pants.”) I wonder if it never occurred to Brother Woods that he might be one of the primary sources of the liberalism now so very prevalent among the churches where he preaches. For fifteen or twenty years, Brother Woods has done his very best to show “there is no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible.” I cannot see why such a man would be so upset if Mack Langford would want to go a step or two further and declare, “There is no such thing as a final pattern for worship, polity and missions. . .” But my Brother Woods can get righteously indignant at men like those pattern deniers in Mission, or a Mack Langford. Those liberal brethren ought to feed Brother Woods out of his own liberal spoon. Perhaps they can teach him what some of his “Anti” brethren could not teach him: namely, that he has joined the digressives when he starts down the road of No Patternism.

Nearly twenty years ago G. C. Brewer, whom historians are apt to call the Isaac Errett of the Twentieth Century (if Goodpasture does not win that label), began to pitch his battle for sponsoring churches on the ground of pattern denying. Brewer said in the good old Gospel Advocate: “My whole contention was that the exact method of cooperation was not revealed and that we do not have a blueprint, therefore, by which to go.” Even Highlands employee, E. R. Harper, made the same basic digressive thrust. Referring to a statement made by Yater Tant in which Tant said “The Scriptures authorize a pattern for congregational cooperation,” Harper said, “This we shall prove is not true” (Harpers Answer to Tants Booklet, p. 3). Brother Harper then proceeded to deny that the New Testament reveals a divine pattern of congregational cooperation.

Now Brother Harper has out a new book in which he is crying like a baby about the young generation of liberals that has arisen in “mainline” Churches of Christ. Even B. G. Goodpasture, who published Brewers pattern-denying statement, now, affects to be strongly opposed to liberalism, and like Guy N. Woods, assays to smite the liberals “hip and thigh.”

Conclusion

In this series of articles, I have tried to show that the basic error of the digressive in every generation is his denial that the New Testament reveals a divine and binding pattern. I have documented the pattern denials of liberals past and present. I have shown that those aligned with the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation are only a little less liberal than the liberals they pretend to be opposing so strongly.

There should be a warning in all of this for us all. Perhaps this warning is best stated in Hebrews 8: 5, “See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 34, pp. 3-5
June 29, 1972

By Garreth L. Clair]

The subject under consideration here is the hour of the observance of the Lords Supper. By hour we mean the time of the observance, not the day, as Acts 20:7 settles the day eternally. We will consider the hour acceptable by God for the observance of the Supper.

1. In the absence of a specified hour (time of the day), it seems that any hour contained in the twenty-four hours of the first day of each week would and must be acceptable.

2. To bind a specific hour to the exclusion of ail others is fallacy, to say the least. If we should adopt a specific hour to the exclusion of all others we would surely condemn those who partake of the Supper at a different hour of the day. Therefore, we must not bind tradition upon anyone who has different customs in this respect. The hour is purely a matter of expediency that may vary from congregation to congregation.

3. So, we must not become slaves to tradition. We must remind ourselves that we partake of the Lords Supper on a specified hour because we have by mutual consent agreed upon that hour, not because that hour has been determined by divine revelation. Since the hour is an expedient locally, the time of its observance may be changed by the membership any time.

Conclusion:

The Day Is Specific (Acts 20:7). The day specified is the first day of the week (Sunday).

The hour is not specific; therefore the hour is left to the judgment of the local leadership or elders.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 33, p. 13
June 22, 1972

By William R. John

Last August, I had the privilege of preaching the gospel of Christ before an audience of 42 people on the Lords Day in Haliburton, Ontario, Canada. This was during the progression of a gospel meeting and was one of seven services in which I was able to proclaim Gods word.

One might ask as to why the above statements are at all significant and in order to answer such an inquiry I would have to begin in reference to the September 1969 issue of Truth Magazine. Brother Cecil Willis writes the following as he had just conducted a gospel meeting in Haliburton. “It is now 3:30 a.m., and just a few hours ago I returned from a gospel meeting in the village of Haliburton in Ontario, Canada.” He mentions in the second paragraph that, “Haliburton is a village of 2000 people. There were only four known members of the Lords church there.” As brother Willis relates to us regarding the preparation that was made prior to the meeting, he also states, “There was nothing sensational about the results of this meeting. We baptized two women into Christ, and that is important. We feel that the four members there were immeasurably strengthened by the meeting and by the efforts of all those involved.” The article continues by expressing the details of the Lords work in Canada and in conclusion, an appeal is made to those in this country to support the work in Canada.

From what has already been written, it is easy to see the progress of the Lords church in the Haliburton area of Canada. This progress did not come about without hard work and lots of it. Brother Willis mentions in his article regarding the time that was spent and the work that was done by several men in order to even establish the church in that community. Since the congregations beginning, others have done their part in trying to help the church grow in that area.

The point of this article, however, is to simply mention the willingness of one man to work in Haliburton as I have the hope that other men will follow his example in working for the Lord. Brother Jerry Sayre begins working with the congregation in Halibuxton in January, 1970 and continued working there until January of this year. Now Jerry did not ask me to write this article nor is he seeking any kind of glory, but I hope he will not be too embarrassed by my using his experience so as to encourage others.

Prior to the time of Jerrys departure for Haliburton, he, his wife, and two children lived in New Castle, Indiana. He was buying a house, he was somewhat in debt with other expenses and he was employed (by Chrysler Corp.) like practically every other man I know. However, we surely would agree that Jerry is somewhat different in that he decided to leave New Castle, his parents and his wifes parents; sell his house; quit his job; and move some 700 miles to a place he hardly knew anything about except that the people there needed the gospel. He did this without ever attending college and without a great deal of preaching experience. Those that benefited most by Jerrys decision were those who were converted to the Lord while Jerry was in Haliburton as well as those already Christians when he arrived. Before he left, undoubtedly, there were discouragements that would have hindered him if he had let them. There possibly were people telling him that he should not go, but if there were he did not listen to them.

While Jerry was in Canada, the health of one of the members of his family was affected by the climate, so he decided to return to the States and he is now preaching in Jamestown, Indiana. The important thing is that he is preaching and being fully supported in the Lords work. Before Jerry and his family left Canada, the brethren got together and wished them well. Jerry tells me there were some tears shed. I believe that each tear told him that his decision had been worthwhile.

This month, the Lord willing, another man leaves for Haliburton. He is Jim Hughett from Indianapolis. It is the same story with Jim; leave his family, sell his house, quit his job, no college, and very little preaching experience. The reason is also the same. He loves the Lord and His work.

You see, Canada is a real place with real people. Bill Echols will tell you the same thing about New York and New England. Karl Diestelkamp will tell you the same about Wisconsin. These are only a few of the places where men are needed to preach the word. The people in each of these places need the gospel and more men are needed to take the gospel to them.

I wonder how many men would be willing to do as Jerry and Jim, that is, leave secular employment and be fully supported in the Lords work. Just think, if each congregation in America with an attendance of at least 100 people had just one man that was willing to begin that particular course in life! My brother, it is not too late for you. “The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest” (Matthew 9:37-38).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 33, pp. 12-13
June 22, 1972

By Grant B. Caldwell

Having decided upon the basis of weighty evidences (both internal and external), that the Bible is the word of God, we must determine to what extent we believe it to be so. Modern religious liberals have advanced a somewhat deceiving statement upon those who would be taken by their tactics. It is said that the Bible is not the word of God, but that it contains the word of God. The criticism of this statement is in its interpretation. Surely, no one would say that God spoke every word in the Bible from His own mind. In Genesis three, the devil speaks. The words of the Pharisees as they confront Christ are recorded. This however, is not the usual meaning of this particular statement. The idea is that in the Bible, one will find Gods word; however, all of the Bible is not directed by God. This we deny.

The Bible makes no claims for the inspiration of any particular translation, copy, or reading. However, claims are made in regard to that which was originally written as the scriptures. It must be understood that we do not have the original manuscripts. But we are not left to doubt that what we have is indeed the same as the originals. “The amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation, is but a fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text” (Introduction to Greek New Testament, by Westcott and Hort).

Plenary inspiration

We would like to notice first the biblical proofs as to the complete or plenary inspiration of the Bible. The Bible is explicit concerning the amount of scripture which is inspired.

John 10:35: Christ said, “The scripture cannot be broken.” Is it not indeed breaking the .scripture to say that part of it is from the mouth of God and then say another part is not? Christ is merely pressing His point and insisting that they cannot accept the portions of the word which they desire and ignore the rest. All of the scripture is authoritative.

James 1: 25: James refers to the “law of liberty.” This is the same as “the engrafted word” (vs. 21), and “the word” (vs. 22, 23). He says that this “law of liberty” is “perfect.” It is easily understood that the imposition of the thoughts of men would only mar its perfection as an extra dash of salt or an additional spoonful of sugar would a perfect cake.

2 Timothy 3:16-17: In one of the most convincing passages on the subject of plenary inspiration, the Apostle Paul says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Any difference in translation cannot destroy the fact that Paul is saying that “all scripture”— “every scripture” is inspired of God. This is a forceful reference to the subject under discussion. The scripture he refers to is the “holy scriptures” of the preceding verse. In essence, Paul is saying that the scriptures given by inspiration of God and the Holy Scriptures are one and the same thing.

The phrase “inspired of God” comes from the same root source as our English words 44 pneumatic,” “pneumonia,” etc., and with the prefix “Theo” (meaning God), literally means “God breathed.” Paul is thus saying that the “holy scriptures” is a product of the breath of God.

2 Peter 1:20-21: Peter, in a passage of equal force, written in the negative, says, “Knowing this first that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: But holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” The negative “no” implies simply that none of the prophecies that are recorded came from a private source. Not one single one. The phrase “prophecy of scripture” is used to indicate those writings which constitute the will of God in all its parts. Some might think that there is a “scripture” that is not a 66 prophecy.” However, as Moses, David, and others are referred to as prophets, so their writings would be “prophecies.”

When Peter refers to “private interpretation,” he is contrasting human origin with divine. If this were not so, the next verse would mean very little. These men spake as the Holy Ghost directed them to speak and not as their own hearts dictated. These were the prophets of God and were not left to their own imaginations.

In exactly the same way, there are prophecies in the New Testament written by prophets. Listen to Peter in verse 19, “We have also a more sure word of prophecy.” If it is more sure and compares with that of old time prophecy, then it too must be a product of the Holy Ghost.

I Corinthians 14:37: Paul, “If any man think himself to be a prophet~ or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” Paul spoke only that which was commanded by the Lord.

Peter joins Pauls writings with “the other scriptures” in 2 Peter 3: 15-16. Thus, he shows that these writings are just as authoritative as any of the other writings of God.

If there is one of our readers who does not believe that all of the original writings of the Bible are inspired, will you not show us the evidence and — tell us which passage it might be that is not inspired? If you will but point to one contradiction, that will prove to us that the Bible is not fully inspired. If you will show us but one passage that says it is not all inspired, we will be satisfied. Until such is done, we will continue to believe in the plenary inspiration of the Bible.

Verbal Inspiration

The Bible makes claims not only in regard to the amount of inspiration, but to the way in which it has been inspired. We speak of what is commonly called “Verbal Inspiration.” Modem liberalism has acted on this doctrine as well as that of plenary inspiration and has said that God gave the writers the thoughts and they in turn wrote according to their own words the thoughts which the Lord had given to them.

While we do not question that the thoughts are the Lords, we do deny emphatically that the words are those of the men who penned them. Let us notice briefly why we believe in verbal inspiration; that is, why we believe that the Lord determined the words to be used in the Bible as well as the thoughts.

Reason: It would not seem reasonable, first of all, to suppose that the divine source would leave His divine thoughts regarding the eternal souls of men to be expressed by the inadequate words of unlearned and ignorant men. We will sometimes express just a small variation in meaning to that which we wish to express just by the use of a supposed synonym. Do you think that God could take a chance on this sort of thing?

Biblical Proofs: We are not left, however, to the reasoning of our own minds in this matter of verbal inspiration. Let us notice now the infallible proof of the Bible regarding the matter.

14.

Old Testament: The proof in the Old Testament is so voluminous that even a casual reading ought to make anyone aware of the fact that it is indeed verbally inspired by God. We read such expressions as “Thus saith the Lord” about two thousand times. This, then, is followed by the claimed words of God. Verbal Inspiration.

In Deut. 18:18 a prophecy is made regarding Christ that underlies the whole thought of verbal inspiration. The Lord said that He would raise up a prophet like Moses, and that he would put His words in His mouth. If He was to be like Moses and the Lords words would be in His mouth, then it should go without saying that Moses like the other prophet had the “words” of the Lord in His mouth. Verbal Inspiration.

Peter spoke of these prophets in 2 Peter 1: 21, saying that they were “moved by the Holy Ghost.” The expression “moved” suggests that these men were “borne along” (Vine) to express the thoughts of God in words which He provided. Maybe these prophets did not understand the entire situation (I Peter 1: 11), but they wrote at; the Lord gave them the words to write His thoughts. Verbal Inspiration.

New Testament: In Matthew 4:4 Christ said that man was to live not by bread-alone but by “every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” It says more than man must live by the thoughts of God. Man is required to live by the words which God has spoken. Verbal Inspiration.

“Ye should remember the words” (2 Peter 3:2); “For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast” (Hebrews 2:2); “Ye received from us the word of the menage, even the word of God, ye accepted it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God.” (I Thessalonians 2:13) All of these passages place a great emphasis on the idea of the “word.” Why would the “word” be emphasized if it was only the “thought” which had been given?

The most convincing proof in all the Bible regarding the matter of verbal inspiration is found in I Corinthians 2:4-13. Paul, in so many words, says that the gospel was not written in the words of mans wisdom. He says that it was a demonstration of the power of the Holy Spirit (vs. 4). His argument is that the mystery was revealed by the Holy Spirit f vs. 10) and that the Spirit wrote the gospel by giving it to the apostles (vs. 12). Finally, he says, “which things also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.” (vs. 13, NASV).

How can anyone say that the Bible was written in mens words, when the apostle Paul says that it was written in the Spirits words? There could be no more conclusive argument than this. One would simply have to deny the passage to deny the point of the teaching — Verbal Inspiration.

Style: The most often offered argument against the doctrine of verbal inspiration is that the style of writing in the Bible differs so much from writer to writer. Often fun has been made of the entire idea of verbal inspiration with the men doing the writing caricatured as mere machines. Surely, we should be able to realize that if God was able to make our entire body, then he should be able to use our entire being for His purposes.

If we could but understand the relationship which the Lord sustained with those who wrote the Bible, we would have no difficulty in understanding the way in which it was done. He did not run out and pick someone off, the street on the day he wanted His words recorded. These men were the constant servants of the Lord. In living daily with Him, they blended their ways in His, and conformed their lives to His will. They learned of Him and He used them — all of them — to record His will for man. And, as the Lord said to Moses, “Who hath made mans mouth? Have not I, the Lord?”

Conclusion

Since the Bible is the word of God, and since all of it is from God, spoken in words which he has chosen, then it behooves me to do just exactly as it directs. This is why it is so valuable to us, and this is why it is necessary-yea, essential-for us to leave it as the God of heaven wrote it. Be not deceived, dear reader, by modem claims. You have not the privilege to tamper with the word of God. To do so will surely mean the damnation of your soul. (Gal. 1:7-9) Why not rather obey fully the gospel today?

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 33, pp. 9-11
June 22, 1972