Truth Magazine

By Edward Fudge

Several months ago I was downtown Saint Louis on routine business. On the way back to my car, there in the heart of the city, I came upon a man with his hand out. He was poorly dressed … dirty … and needed a shave. A first impulse said to pass him by (“hes probably going to blow it on liquor anyway”) but something inside (no, God didnt whisper in my ear) said “wait.” I asked what he needed. “Something to eat.” I asked when he last ate. He said the day before.

There was a Burger Chef just around the comer and it was lunchtime. So we two enjoyed cheeseburgers and milk shakes. While we ate, we talked. Some about Christ. Some about my new-found friend, Mr. Barr. His story went something like this.

Mr. Barr was once a successful small-business man in St. Louis — ran a catering service, I believe. He became involved in problems and turned to alcohol. This led to more problems. In the end his wife left him, his business broke and he landed on the streets. He now had a new set of problems. There were – as he told it – cruel children the “elements” . . . unkind policemen … plus finding food to stay alive each day. He bad an appointment for a job interview the day before, but it is hard to make it to a morning appointment on time with no alarm clock but the sun, no transportation but feet, and no friends or family to help. So he was late and missed the job.

Mr. Barr gave me some advice. Sin, he said, is gradual and deceptive. As he put it, there are three steps to the bottom. First you tolerate sin. Next you endure it. Finally you embrace it. (I couldnt help thinking of Psalm one in this connection.) Then Mr. Barr produced a thick, stubby pencil from a pocket and wrote those, words very slowly and carefully for me on a paper sack: “Weave carefully the threads of habit, lest they become a cable too strong to break.” His mother had taught him the saying many years ago.

Preacher talk? Hardly. This was experience speaking. This was the man they dont show on the commercials. He worked hard for sin, for several years. Sin had finally paid off. One last thought: I can imagine Jesus concluding this story by beginning another. “Two men went up into the temple to pray . . .”

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 32, p. 11
June 15, 1972

By Colly Caldwell

We have seen that the obligations of each individual Christian to the local church of which he is a member are: (1) to be free from divisiveness (I Cor. 1); (2) to stand firmly upon the word of God (I Cor. 2); (3) to labor for the building up of the body of Christ in teaching others (I Cor. 3-4); and (4) to lead a righteously moral life (I Cor. 5-7). Continuing that line of thought, other responsibilities appear evident from the book of First Corinthians.

5. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to be genuinely concerned about the consciences of others (I Cor. 8: 1 – I 1: 16). The greater portion of this section of the book deals with the customs of the day which exhibit not only the character of the participant but also the attitude he has toward others who might be weaker in faith than he. In the matter of eating meat, some brethren were evidently taking their liberty at the expense of other brethren. In chapter eleven, the admonition is that each should respect his proper Place in God’s order of authority. Those who do not do this exhibit an improper influence upon their brethren.

I cannot be so selfish as to be unconcerned. If that which I do causes another to lose faith in God, in some part of His word, or in me as an example, I have sinned. If what I do causes him to sin in some way, I have also erred. Even though my action may be right in itself, I have no right to hurt my brother.

Children of God are sometimes heard to say, “Well, it isn’t wrong and I am going to do it. I do not really care what he thinks about it.” Or some might say, “If I worried about that I never could do anything.” My friend, if it is a matter of jeopardizing the soul of your brother, you do not need to do anything (Matt. 18:1-7)!

Christianity is a religion of giving. It started with giving when God delivered over his Son to a cruel world. To gain from the religion of Christ, I must first give. I must give over a few things and I must give up a few things.

6. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to join with the other brethren in proper worship (I Cor. 11: 17-34). The brethren at Corinth were destroying themselves because of improprieties in their worship, especially as they concerned irregularity in their partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Some would not come when the others did, some worshipped improperly when they did come. The very life of any congregation of God’s people depends upon its worship. We must all be there every time we possibly can and we must be dedicated to proper worship while we are there.

One very important purpose of worship is the edifying of the people who worship with us (Col. 3:16). Those who are constantly arguing that the Christian does not need to be present for worship at any service, forget the essential responsibility each of us has to all the other saints to edify them and build them up through worship. I refuse the church a needed part of its fife when I refuse to come or when I take lightly the worship when I am present.

7. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to respect each member in his place (I Cor. 12).

At Corinth, many became worried that someone else had a more prominent place in the church than they. Men refused to serve because of jealously. Paul warned them to use what they had been given in service to Christ and to remember that it is God who had given these gifts to men. Each Christian’s part in the family of God is of equal importance with that of every other Christian, regardless of the prominence it appears to have. All cannot do the same things and each should be happy to see others working and fulfilling the mission of the Lord’s body.

I owe the local church my best efforts. I owe the local church my recognition of the value of the position occupied by each of the others. I am obligated to bold up the hands of the others in their work as much as they are responsible for encouraging me in my work. This is true of my feelings toward the elders, the deacons, the preacher, the song-leader, or any other saint. When I do not support the functioning of other parts, I hurt the church.

8. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to be filled with love (I Cor. 13-14). The church will only grow as its members are full of love … for each other, for the lost, and for the Lord. Love evidences itself. A church full of hatred is not happy and will not prosper. A church full of love has to grow.

Even visitors can tell that we are full of love. Visitors to our assemblies will not love us if we do not love ourselves and show love for them. Our guests will turn away, shuddering from the coldness of our attitudes. I owe it to the church to exude love toward everyone every time I appear with others.

9. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to be filled with hope (I Cor. 15). Paid wrote that the greatest thing going for the church at Corinth was their belief in the resurrection of Christ and thus in their own. Christians know that they will be immortal and incorruptible. What an advantage it is to be filled with hope for the future. What a powerful influence it is in the community when a congregation of people really believes in that hope. Doubting the ability of God to care for us and showing a lack of concern for eternity can only deteriorate the church.

You have, no doubt, seen people who almost appear anxious to go to God, people whose very lives show the preparation for heaven and whose speech is filled with the expectation. That person is a most valuable asset to the local church. He helps to keep us in mind of our goals. It is the heavenly goal that so many churches are forgetting when they turn to recreation and entertainment as the means of securing members. Only the worldly are fooled by such.

10. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to sacrifice freely in support of its work (I Cor. 16:1-4). The local church has financial obligations which must be met regularly and other responsibilities which come up unexpectedly. They must be met whether I give or do not give, or whether I am present or away. If it is right for the congregation to pay its obligations, it is obligatory that I do my part. Even if I must be away at times, I should make arrangement for my contributions to find their way into the treasury where they are depended on. The elders and others cannot carry on a consistent program of work if I fly here and there and do not dig in as an integral part of every aspect of the congregation’s life.

Conclusion: My place in the local church is one of great importance, whoever I may be. For the church to properly function, every member must be working zealously and be filled with the’ proper spirit. Paul stuns up his epistle to Corinth saying, “Finally, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord” (I Cor. 15:58).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 32, pp. 8-9
June 15, 1972

By Grant B. Caldwell

One of the most convincing of all the proofs offered in behalf of the proposition that the Bible is the word of God is that of Biblical prophecy. Prophecy is not a thing peculiar to the Bible. Many are the men and women who prophesy freely. The test, however, of a true prophet of God is the fulfillment of all of his prophecies. The Bible declares that in this way the Lord shows His superiority. (Isaiah 41:2127; 42:8-9; 46:8-11) The Bible says that if a prophecy is not fulfilled, it shows the prophet presumptuous and not from God. (Deuteronomy 18:22) If then, the Bible is from God, all of its prophecies must either have already been fulfilled or they will be (depending on the type of prophecy).

But what is true prophecy? Surely it is more than just prediction. I could predict that our president will be elected to a second term. If statistics were in my favor and it happened, no one would say I was a prophet. Notice the following qualifications of true prophecy:

1. An event or a point of knowledge beyond the power of man to see.

2. It must not be seen in reference to fear or hope.

3. It cannot be a political or scientific forecast.

4. A prophecy of an event must take place before said event happens and must be applicable to it.

5. The language must be clear and the fulfillment plain.

Types of Prophecy

For the purposes of this discussion, we would like to break down the Bible prophecies into three different categories. The first would be those prophecies dealing with the people of God. The second deals with those in reference to other nations. Then finally, those prophecies which are Messianic in nature.

We will not deal with all of the prophecies in any of these categories. This, of course, is not possible in limited space. We only wish to impress your minds with the completion of that which the Lord has said He would do.

Prophecies of God’s People

In Deuteronomy 28, there is one of the most remarkable and detailed prophecies ever uttered. Moses predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, some 1500 years before it was fulfilled in 70 A.D. The “nation from afar off” was the Romans-the fierce men of battle. Josephus tells of the mother who ate her own child and of the number slain and of those taken prisoners. All prophesied long before not only the event, but even the making of Jerusalem the capital of the Jewish nation as well.

The prophecy of Baalam in Numbers 23 and 24 concerning the people of God, their number, ruler, and captivity was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 8 and 2 Kings 17.

Consider the prophecy concerning Ishmael. (Genesis 16:10-12; 17:20) Read of the “twelve princes” in Gen. 25:12-17. The other prophecies are easily understood by any good student of Arabian history.

Prophecies of Other Nations

We will not take the time to describe in detail the prophecies made in regard to these nations. Suffice it to say that the history and downfall of each was predicted hundreds of years before the events took place. These prophecies include:

1. The fall of Babylon (Isa. 13:19-22; Isa. 14; Jer. 50).

2. The fall of Egypt (Isa. 19; Ezek. 29-30).

3. The fall of Nineveh (Nahum; Zeph. 2:1315; Isa. 10: 12-14).

4. The fall of Tyre (Isa. 23; Ezek. 26:2728; Zech. 9:3-4).

5. The fall of Sidon (Ezek. 28:20-24).

How could these predictions have been made in such clear fashion, without divine help? Even ESP will not derive such benefits.

Messianic Prophecies

There is no more beautiful proof to the validity of the Bible than the prophecies made with reference to Christ and His life here on earth. Notice just briefly now a few of the messianic prophecies.

1. His coming (Genesis 12:3; Jer. 23:5-6; Isa. 9:6; etc.).

2. The time of his coming (Isa. 2:2; Joel 2:28; Dan. 2:44; Compare Luke 2:1; Mal. 3: 1 ; Hag. 2: 7; Gen. 49: 10; Dan. 9: 2 5; etc.).

3. The place of Christ’s birth (Micah 5:2; compare Matt. 2:1).

4. His forerunner (Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1; 4:5).

5. His death (Isa. 53:8; Psa. 22:16-18; Isa. 50:6; Psa. 22:6-11; Zech. 12:10; etc.).

6. His resurrection (Isa. 5 3: 10; Psa. 68: 18; etc.).

Now read the life of Christ in the Bible. As you leaf through Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, see if you are not thoroughly impressed with the fulfillment of the prophecies made with reference to Christ. At a later time, we will have occasion to deal with these prophecies again.

Conclusion

How can anyone say that the Bible its not the word of God and be entirely honest with all of this evidence? We have noticed a broad spectrum of things ranging from external proof such as scientific foreknowledge to internal evidences such as those only hinted at in this article.

The Bible is the word of God and should always be reverenced as such. Will you not today accept it as such and live by its dictates throughout all of your life? If you will, the prophecy of life with God will be fulfilled for you in the after-awhile. If not, the prophecy of eternal doom will be a miserable reality for you in the lake of fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Do you believe it? I do!!! The Bible says it and it is the Word of God!!!

“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: knowing this first that no prophecy of the 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” (2 Peter 1: 19-2 1).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 32, pp. 6-7
June 15, 1972

By Cecil Willis

In a previous article, I documented from A. T. Degroots book, The Grounds of Division Among Disciples of Christ, that the precise disagreement among brethren a century ago centered around whether the New Testament was ever intended by God to produce a once-for-all-time pattern for the church, as regards worship, mission, and organization. The liberal Disciples of the 1900s no more liked to wear the label “liberal” than do the modern-day liberals among us.

In this article, and in two other articles to follow, I wish to show that there are multitudes among the Churches of Christ today who have accepted, and who now promulgate, the basic premise of digressivism, namely: that the New Testament does not constitute a binding pattern for the twentieth century church. This is the heart of digression, and it is now rampant among Churches of Christ, as I purport to document in the following articles. You will notice that our liberal brethren also disclaim the label “liberal,” but they are liberal none the less.

Carl Ketcherside

The New Testament, in Heb. 8:5; Gal. 6:2; and Jas. 1:25, indicates that God revealed a divine “law” (or “Pattern”) which man is obliged to follow exactly. Brother Carl Ketcherside has used virtually the exact terminology of A. T. Degroot and other liberal Disciples of Christ in attacking the pattern principle. Let me repeat the premise advanced by Degroot: “that the principle of restoring a fixed pattern of a primitive Christian church is divisive and not unitive” (p. 8). Brother Ketcherside will accept this premise, without changing a word. In fact, Brother Ketcherside recently devoted an entire year of study in his paper Mission Messenger to proving that there is no divinely established pattern. Some brethren among us today wonder why we cannot unite with Brother Ketcherside. It is precisely because he has much more in common in principle with the liberal Disciples of Christ than he has with those of us who stand where the Churches of Christ have always stood, and contended that there is a one-and-only pattern for the church revealed in the New Testament.

Here is how Brother Ketcherside worded the Disciples of Christ premise, but which premise Brother Ketcherside also accepts: “Would it shock you too greatly if I came directly to the point and suggested that perhaps God gave us no pattern at all in the commonly accepted usage of the term by the various factions calling themselves The Church of Christ” (Mission Messenger, Feb., 1970).

More precisely in the terminology of A. T. Degroot, Brother Ketcherside, in the same issue Of Mission Messenger said, “Nothing has been more productive of dissension among us than the concept that God intended to provide for us a specific pattern complete in minute detail and that this pattern constitutes an inviolable law for His children in all ages, climes, and conditions . . . I am urging that the whole 6pattern concept which makes of the apostolic letters mere legalistic documents be examined calmly and dispassionately. This is not an adoption of liberalistic philosophy.”

Note that Brother Ketcherside goes out of his way to assure us that his doctrine of no-patternism is not “an adoption of liberalistic philosophy.” It would be refreshing to meet at least one liberal sometime who would admit he was a liberal. Degroot denied the applicability of the label “liberal,” and Brother Ketcherside for some reason seems to think that someone just might think he has advocated a wee bit of liberalism. The truth is that his doctrine that the New Testament was not intended to convey a divine pattern is the very essence of liberalism, his protests to the contrary not withstanding.

“Refocusing…”

A few years ago M. F. Cottrell, who was living in Denver the last I knew of him, wrote a book entitled Refocusing God, the Bible and the Church. Cottrell has had a rather motley history. He started out with the old Ketcherside element in the church, spent a few years with those of us who are now labeled by the liberals as “Anti,” and now in sentiment is with the new Ketcherside position. Under a heading entitled “Hypersensitivity to Scripturalness and Results,” Brother Cottrell advocates the basic premise of digression, namely that the New Testament is not a book of divine pattern to be followed and duplicated. Cottrell said, “If we see God as the monster of heaven, a needless hypersensitivity toward being scriptural is created. This type of legalism inevitably binds and limits God (by His own rules) to where he cannot work” (pp. 26, 27).

I did not know we could be too sensitive about following the instructions of God, but the anti-legalist (i.e., the liberal) speaks of “a needless hypersensitivity toward being scriptural. . . .” Furthermore, Brother Cottrell said, “As a result we find ourselves suffering from paralysis by analysis. While stressing scripturalness, we analyze until we paralyze.” (p. 27). The alternative is completely to disregard the divine Word of God, and then one would not have to worry at all about scripture analysis.

Further in his advocacy of digressivism, Brother Cottrell said: “We have long been taught and trained to look and ask for patterns. Sometimes the author wonders if we havent almost developed pattern obsessions. It seems that when good brethren begin some good work, the first thing we hear is Where is the pattern? Most of us think there must be one or else we cannot proceed.” (p. 121).

I have never thought it was such a bad practice to inquire “Where is the pattern?” In fact, I think we should make that inquiry before we even begin. But like Degroot and Ketcherside, Brother Cottrell is challenging the basic thesis that we must even inquire as to whether there is divine authority for the action. ` Of course, Cottrell also denies be is liberal.

Mack Langford

Another example of one within the Churches of Christ who has advocated the basic tenet of digressivism is Mack Langford, who did live in Collingwood, New Jersey. I do not know if he still lives there or not. Langford said the “Church of Christ concept of worship is rooted in two things: the idea that worship is essentially a legal procedure demanding utter “rejection of any human creativity in favor of Gods absolute and final command; and the presupposition that there is a carefully stated pattern of worship in the New Testament which must be slavishly followed” (Quoted from Riverside (Wichita, Kansas) Church of Christ Weekly News Bulletin, April 3, 1966).

Brother Langford maintains that it has now been demonstrated by American and German scholarship that there is no New Testament pattern. Hear what he says: “Recent scholarship, German and American, has stated over and over that we know little about the first century Church, and there is no such thing as a final pattern for worship, polity and missions, yet we in the Church of Christ continue to insist that the New Testament is a blueprint which must be exactly reproduced.” He also states that the “New Testament is no legal document outlining in detail a planned procedure of worship; there are no orders of worship to guide us. Instinctively we know this”

Back in the 1950s, in the space of a few months, fourteen gospel preachers, and most of whom were from the Chicago area, forsook the Churches of Christ and aligned themselves with the very liberal Disciples of Christ. The basic thesis of the Disciples of Christ is that there is no New Testament pattern. I think I have adequately shown from their own statements that brethren Ketcherside, Cottrell, and Langford have accepted the basic error of the Disciples of Christ. In principle, they have rejected the basic position of Churches of Christ, and they therefore might as well align themselves with the Christian Church. Perhaps personal preference and family tradition might stand in their way, but no principle that they hold dictates that they should continue with the Lords people. In sentiment, they belong with the Christian Church who was the first to deny the New Testament constitutes a divine blueprint.

In two articles to follow I want to demonstrate that others in what some call the “mainstream” Churches of Christ accept the same presupposition regarding the New Testament. Yet they also seem to be completely unable to understand why anyone would call them “liberal.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 32, pp. 3-5
June 15, 1972