Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

The doctrine of apostolic succession is, broadly speaking, the idea that all the apostles of Christ were to have men succeed them in their office down through the centuries.

Some religious bodies claim succession, not by an unbroken chain reaching back to the first century, but by a restoration of the apostleship based on special revelation. The Latter Day Saints (Utah), the Reorganized Church (Missouri), and the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) claim that their “apostles” are the true successors to the apostolic office, yet each disputes the claim made by the others.

Such groups as Roman Catholics, Orthodox Churches, and Anglicans maintain that their “bishops” are the true successors to the apostolic office. Obviously, someone is wrong.

The word “apostle” (apostolos in Greek) occurs 79 times in the New Testament. It means “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, p. 68). It applies to “One sent as a messenger or agent, the bearer of a commission (Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 47). In John 13: 16 the word is translated, “he that is sent.”

The New Testament speaks of “apostles” in at least three different senses:

(1) Of God. Jesus was sent into the world by the Father (John 17:18), therefore is referred to as “the Apostle” of our profession (Heb. 3: 1). Just as Moses was commissioned of God to lead the nation of Israel, Jesus was sent into the world to save the lost.

(2) Of Christ. The twelve were chosen and sent forth by Jesus Christ (Matt. 10: 1, 5). In the selection of Matthias, the Lord’s choice was made known by the lot (Acts- 1: 24). Paul was chosen by Christ in a special appearance (Acts 26:15-18; I Cor. 15:8).

(3) Of Local Churches. Paul and Barnabas were sent out by the church at Antioch in accordance with directions given by the Spirit (Acts 13:1-3). They reported back to that church (Acts 14:27). They were styled “apostles” (Acts 14:4, 14) because they were messengers or missionaries sent forth by the church at Antioch. Paul was an apostle of Christ as well as an apostle of the church. Epaphroditus was a messenger (apostle) of the church at Philippi (Phil. 2:25). In 2 Cor. 8:23 the messengers (apostles) under consideration were men chosen and sent out by local churches.

It is a serious mistake to suppose that the apostles or messengers of the individual congregations were successors to the apostles of Christ.

James the Lord’s brother may have been an apostle either of Christ or of the church at Jerusalem, or both. Some Bible students think the word “brother” in Gal. 1: 19 is used in the’ sense of “kinsman” and that this is James the son of Alpheus. Macknight advances this position. Others think that “brother” is to be taken literally and that he was called an apostle because he was a “pillar” in the church at Jerusalem (Gal. 2:9). Vincent says (Word Studies, Vol. 4, P. 91), “James is counted as an apostle, though not reckoned among the twelve.” There is absolutely nothing said about his being a “successor” to anybody.

It is true that Matthias was chosen to fill the ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell. However, the selection of a replacement for Judas prior to the establishment of the church does not prove that all the apostles were to have successors after the establishment of the church. The Bible says nothing about a “quorum” being kept complete, and there is not the slightest evidence that Paul was chosen to succeed anyone.

No one could be an apostle of Christ without being a witness of the risen Lord. This qualification is stressed in Acts 1:21, 22. Paul appealed to his having seen Jesus as proof of his apostleship (I Cor. 9:1; 15:8). An essential function of the apostolic office was bearing witness for Christ (John 15:27; Acts 1:8; 26:16). A “witness” is one who testifies about what he has seen and heard. Another witness might testify along the same line, but by the nature of the case, a witness could not have a successor as a witness. A man testifying in court might step down and another witness replace him on the stand, but the court would not admit one who has seen and heard nothing but who claims to be the “successor” of one who has testified. The men of our generation who claim to be “successors” to the apostles have not seen the risen Lord.

Another essential function of the apostles of Christ was revealing the truth. Jesus promised his apostles that the Spirit would guide them, into “all truth” (John 16:13). Peter affirmed that they were given “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1: 3). What they were taught, they wrote by inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). Since they were guided into all truth and that truth is preserved in the scriptures, men who believe and follow the scriptures are being guided by the apostles. It is just as important that we continue steadfastly “in the apostles doctrine” today as it was for believers, in the first century (Acts 2:42). The apostles of Christ performed a work of witnessing and revealing truth which is passed down to our day, not by succession in office, but through the infallible record of the New Testament.

If it be argued that apostles are needed today to oversee an ever-expanding church, I would remind the reader that the work of oversight is assigned to the elders (also called bishops or pastors) in the local churches (Acts 20:17,28; Tit. 1: 5; 1 Pet. 5:1-5).

Apostolic succession is a basic belief and regarded as highly important to Roman Catholics. James Cardinal Gibbons wrote, “Not only is it required that ministers of the Gospel should conform their teaching to the doctrine of the Apostles, but also that these ministers should be ordained and commissioned by the Apostles or their legitimate successors” (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 33). Hundreds of religionists claim to be “legitimate successors” to the apostles of Christ, but they were not chosen by the Lord, they have not seen the risen Lord, and they do not teach what the apostles taught as revealed in the New Testament. Paul described such men in 2 Cor. 11:13.

“Few things have been more injurious to the cause of Christianity than the assumption on the part of ordinary office-bearers in the Church of the peculiar prerogatives of the holy apostles of our Lord Jesus “(Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature by M’clintock & Strong, Vol. 1, p. 311).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 23, pp. 7-9
April 13, 1972

By John A. Welch

We can learn as much from the Lords parables by studying them in sets, as we can by looking at them individually. Indeed, we can often lose much of the Lord’s lesson by failing to consider the parables, as He taught them, in a consecutive order as a group. We will look two of the Lord’s series of parables.

The first, which we will consider largely by way of example, is in Luke 15. These are three similar parables of restoration, which the Lord uses to teach our various roles and responsibilities in restoring the lost. First, is the individual lost through his own ignorance, sough out by the shepherd, and returned. This is our basic responsibility for returning the lost. Next is the woman who finds the money which she has inadvertently misplaced. This emphasizes a greater responsibility for us to restore those who have been lost through our action, and perhaps little, or none of their own. Finally, the story of the personal responsibility of the individual to seek his own restoration. Thus, to have studied these parables separately would have been revealing, but when compared and contrasted as the Lord obviously intended for them to be, the lesson they teach is certainly a more comprehensive one of responsibility for losing and returning.

My failure to consider these parables in sets kept me from understanding, for some time, another of the Lord’s parables. This series is in Matthew 13:44-52. For some time, I considered that the first two parables in this series were precisely the same with a few different words. However, the idea that the Lord would needlessly repeat the same example in so short a space seemed pointless to me. They are not the same example at all.

The key to these parables lies in noticing what the Lord uses as His example of the kingdom. In the first parable the kingdom is the treasure which we may find, and should then be willing to give all for it. In the second parable, though, the kingdom is not the pearl, which corresponds to the treasure of the first parable, but the Lord states that in this parable the kingdom is the man who is searching. This is a complete reversal of the parable before, although the example is basically the same. Thus, just as we search and purchase the kingdom, so does the Lord look for those servants who are of great price to Him; and we know that He was willing to give His all to make us citizens of that kingdom.

We can find this lesson elsewhere in the Scriptures. In Luke 19:9, we find that Jesus came not only to save the lost, but to seek them out as well. In John 4:23, we are told that the Father is seeking those who are willing to worship Him in “spirit and truth.” As followers of Christ, our role was not to be merely the passive saving of those that stumble upon the truth, but an active search for those who would love the Lord.

To complete the series, though, the next parable suggests that all that is caught will not be worthy of that supreme sacrifice and thus, will be destroyed or thrown back. This is similar to the parable of the tares, as well as Paul’s statements in I Corinthians 3:12-15. There, some would build on the foundation precious metals and stones, things that would endure, while others would build things that the trial would destroy. How many of us have wasted precious time and years in fields which are of no value, casting our pearls before swine?

First lesson: We should first find for ourselves that treasure, the Lord’s true kingdom. Second lesson: Then as citizens of that kingdom let us serve Him, who has paid the purchase for them, in the search for other pearls of value. Third lesson: Let us not waste valuable time catching fish of no value to Jesus, but diligently and fervently press that real treasure and those valuable pearls ever more closely to our breast.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 23, pp. 6-7
April 13, 1972

By Dudley R. Spears

At 3:45 EST on April 2 of this year, brother fames P. Needham and I will begin our journey toward the Philippine Islands. There we will work for four weeks among the brethren. It will be our primary objective to encourage them by stirring up their pure minds, provoking them to love and good works. This trip is being made possible by the generosity of many brethren all over the land. Both Brother Needham and I have been greatly impressed by the way brethren have responded to our appeals for financial help. Without that help we could not have planned this trip.

The cause of Christ among the Filipinos is very encouraging. The brethren there are standing for the truth on the institutional questions that have divided the Lord’s people so severely here in the states. Two years ago, brethren Roy Cogdill and Cecil Willis made the trip and strengthened the brethren by their teaching and very presence. Last year brethren Connie Adams and J. T. Smith went and were instrumental in converting over 200 to the truth. This year, brother Needham and I agreed to accept the responsibility for going.

There are a number of congregations and individuals here in the states that support one or more native preachers. It is very likely that we will be seeing most of the supported native preachers in person while we are there. On a limited basis, brother Needham and I will try to make reports to any interested congregation or individual about the work they are supporting when we return.

Originally we had planned to depart for the Islands in February, but we learned that this time would be unsuitable for the brethren there. It is their busiest season and the weather is not the best. Also, we learned that it is an election time and therefore not the safest time to be in the Philippines. At the request of the Philippine brethren, we agreed to delay our coming there till April. This involved rescheduling and canceling some meetings and other things in our schedules, but all in all, it is for the best interest of the work there.

We also had planned to conduct four schools, training sessions, or whatever they might best be called, but that has had to be modified somewhat. We were planning materials primarily designed to help preachers, though not limited to them. We have the material nearly finished that we intend to present. At the present time we lack only getting the final touches put on the teaching materials and getting it all in a small booklet. We will have the booklet printed and shipped over before we go. It will be a booklet of the outlines of our proposed teaching work while there.

Several months ago, I got together a set of debate notes on Pentecostal Doctrine. I plan to take that book with me and may be able to get it printed while over there. Several of the native preachers are asking questions about the Godhead, baptism in Jesus’ name and Holy Spirit baptism. My book deals with those questions in a rather complete way. If we have the available funds and can get it done, we may have the book printed over there and distributed among the brethren that need it. Plans are not final on that now. Pentecostalism is one of the Filipinos’ greatest foes.

One congregation sent me a box of tracts on the identity of the church. It is a well written one by L. A. Mott, Jr. We plan to distribute them while there also.

Our first work will be done in Manila. It should begin on April 5, 1972. Then we will go to Baguio City, a place where no American preacher who stands for the truth on institutionalism has gone yet. Baguio City is the location for “headquarters” of liberalism in the Philippines. It is the site of the Philippine Bible College, a preacher factory that turns out liberal native preachers. PBS is a church of Christ supported school, offering degrees in Theology. The American preachers of the liberal hue there have been very hard on what they call “antis” in the Philippines. They have resorted to the same old ungodliness that people of their persuasion have used here in the past. So, we plan to go to their citadel of strength and teach the truth.

We will then journey southward and spend two weeks on the Island of Mindinao. We will be working with Brother R. B. Agduma, one of the finest men over there. We will be in at least two places while there and in as many more as time will permit, but we plan to limit our travel time to a minimum so we can have a maximum of teaching time.

Brother Needham and I want to express our sincere gratitude to all who have had a part in our trip. We will make a full report to you when we get back. Those who have gone before us have informed us that this involves much hard work. It is certainly not a pleasure excursion. We will be living with natives of the Islands, eating food we are not used to, being 12,000 miles away from home and living in conditions that are rather primitive. We solicit the prayers of all our brethren. While we did not volunteer for this task, but were urged to go by both Filipino brethren and brethren here, we do accept the work in the spirit of Paul, “not knowing the things that will befall us … hoping to finish our course with joy.” (Acts 20: 22-24).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 23, pp. 5-6
April 13, 1972

By Cecil Willis

Brother Clifton Inman, Editor of the Bible Herald which is published in Parkersburg, West Virginia, is upset. He seems to be having trouble getting some of his brethren to believe him and to take him seriously when he tells them that Ohio Valley College does not accept funds from church treasuries.

The drive is still on to get the colleges in the budgets of churches. This effort has been underway, in varying degrees, for twenty-five years. For many of those years Brother Inman has affected to be strongly opposed to the church support of colleges. But now some of his brethren seem not to be taking what Brother Inman says too seriously. He is so upset over the current circumstance that he wrote about the matter in the issue of Bible Herald which bears a date of June 15, 1971, but which was only recently received, due to the fact that Bible Herald is several months behind its publishing schedule.

Recently, concerted efforts have been made by David Lipscomb College, Freed-Hardeman College, Alabama Christian College, and the newly formed International Bible College to get themselves implanted in the budgets of churches. Some of us have been trying to tell some of the liberal brethren (like Brother Inman) for years that the church support of colleges is really the issue before brethren, and that the controversy about the church support of institutional orphan homes is only a smoke screen which these liberal college brethren have thrown up to cloud the real issue. Apparently Brother Inman is one of those who have been taken in by the liberal propaganda machines.

Brother Inman writes in the June 15th issue: “One man who was urged to send his son to OVC (Ohio Valley College – CW) retorted that he would never send his son there because they take funds from church treasuries. He then sent his son to a college in the south which both solicits and receives funds from church treasuries and recommends the action. For too long men have spread the falsehood that Ohio Valley College has received funds from church treasuries. It is time for the man who says this to either bring forth the proof or admit his falsehood. And it is time that men quit patronizing there what they condemn here.”

As for me, I would about as soon OhioValley accept funds from churches as for them to be as indifferent about the matter as Clifton Inman sometimes is. Have you seen any strong editorials, in Bible Herald opposing the recent fund raising drives of David Lipscomb, Freed Hardeman, etc.? You certainly have not, and are not likely to see any. In fact, Brother Inman signed a statement published in the Gospel Advocate in June, 1959 which included the following remark: “Though our philosophy of obtaining support may vary from them (i.e. from those schools which solicit and accept funds from church treasuries-CW), we are not intending to start any crusade against those schools, but shall give them our prayers and our blessings.”

Now Brother Inman would like for you to think that he really believes it is sinful for a church to support a college, but he said in the Gospel Advocate that he was not going to start any crusade against those schools which do accept money from churches. Furthermore, he also made the absurd statement that he was going to give those brethren, who are engaged in that which he would have us to believe that he believes is sinful, both his prayers and his blessings. Is it any wonder that some of his brethren really have their doubts about where Brother Inman stands on the church support colleges? How can one give his prayers and blessings to one engaged in that which believes to be sinful? Read 2 John 9-11.

Furthermore, if you will watch the, annual lecture program of Ohio Valley College, you find that they “load” their program with those who are in favor, of the church support colleges. They even had J. M. Powell, a brother-in-law to B. C. Goodpasture, Editor of the very liberal Gospel Advocate, to serve as their President for a while.

Brother Inman chides the brother who criticized Ohio Valley College, and then sent his son to a college that both solicits and accepts church funds. Is that any worse than for Brother Inman to give the same “sinful” school his prayers and his blessings? I think Brother Inman’s advice to his brother is timely advice for Brother Inman Himself: “And it is time men quit patronizing ‘there’ what they condemn ‘here.’

Until Brother Inman gets up enough gumption to openly and strongly oppose the Church support of colleges, and to quit promoting using those brethren who practice the church support of colleges, he is going to continue to have his brethren confused and uncertain as where he stands on the issue. As long as extends his erring brethren, who solicit and accept church money for their schools, his prayers and his blessings, Brother Inmans brethren are going to continue not to take opposition seriously. It is no wonder to me Brother Inman has to continue to try to make brethren understand where he stands on this question. In this regard he is about like Brother Reuel Lemmons on several issues: strong on both sides!

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 23, pp. 3-4
April 13, 1972