Truth Magazine

By Billy Moore

NIGERIA. Just hearing the word will immediately get the attention of any U.S. preacher who has ever preached there. The eagerness of the people to hear the Word, the willingness of many to study the Scripture — it was like stepping back in time in the U.S. when people of this nation were searching for truth. From the day in 1949, when two men who learned the truth via a correspondence course and baptized each other, unto the present, Nigeria has been one of the most fertile fields of work and the harvest has been great.  

I did not know either of those first two converts, but it was my privilege to meet one of their first converts, E.A. Ekanem who was baptized in 1949 and started the church in his home village of Ntan Ekere, just a few miles from the place where those first two were baptized, and for the next twenty-five years was one of the strong men in the church in eastern Nigeria. 

Leslie Diestelkamp introduced me to this work back in 1960 and encouraged me to go there in 1972 when he was preaching in a meeting in Butler, Missouri. My first trip to Nigeria was January-March 1973. A preacher friend, Robert H. (Bob) West accompanied me. It was the most fruitful six weeks of my preaching years. Our second trip was January-March 1976 when Lowell Blasingame went with me. I had known him since I was a teenager and knew he was a man suited for that work, and I was right. He has returned four times since, and I have asked him to write a few paragraphs about the work there.

Open air “street preaching” was common and gave opportunity to preach to many. On the evening of February 7, 1973 one of the churches in Uyo arranged for me to preach in “street preaching.” The crowd gathered and two men, Etim Abidiak and Johnson Obot, who were passing by, saw a “white man” preaching beside the street and turned in to listen. They were both preachers for the God’s Church denomination. Etim was the District Superintendent of that area and the featured speaker for a district meeting that very week in Uyo. He had started many churches and trained preachers for them. We studied with them till after midnight, when Etim said, “I am ready to be baptized into the church of Christ.” Then we went for E.J. Ebong and E.A. Ufot who accompanied us to the stream where these two men were baptized into Christ. We encouraged brethren Ebong and Ufot to provide the teaching and training for these men. Soon Etim had converted two other preachers from the God’s Church group, and training classes for these four men were set up in Uyo, with E.Ekanen, E.A. Ufot, E.B. Udofia, and A.I. Ituen providing daily teaching for the next five or six months in what became the Preachers’ Training Program. This program is conducted each year in the Uyo area, with twenty men as students and five or six preachers of the area teaching the classes, Monday through Friday, for six months. The classes are currently in progress for the 29th consecutive year. This work is supported by brethren who voluntarily provide support for the men. In 1974 E.J. Ebong had moved back to Uyo and was in charge of this work until his death. Since then George U. Ekong, who had worked with Ebong a number of years, has served as director of the program. Hundreds of men have been taught the Word and trained to preach the gospel to their people. Each year we call upon brethren to volunteer to help in this work. A similar program has recently been set up in western Nigeria in Ibadan, the largest black city in the world, by Sunday Ayandare and Ezekiel Akinyemi.  

Leslie Diestelkamp took four preachers from Eastern Nigeria to the Western cities of Lagos and Ibadan and began the work there in the late fifties. Ten or twelve years later the brethren of more liberal persuasion came into those areas, which has resulted in division among brethren there, as we have seen in the U.S. The preachers’ training classes will be a great boost to the work in Western Nigeria. Brethren Akinyemi and Ayandare are both strong capable men.

I asked Lowell Blasingame, who has been involved in the work there since 1976, and is a great friend to Nigerian preachers and continually works to provide help for the cause of Christ in that country, to write about the work in Nigeria.  

P.O. Box 204, Butler, Missouri 64730 bmoore2828@aol.com

The Nigerian Work
Lowell Blasingame

My interest in the Nigerian work was created by brethren Billy Moore and Leslie Diestelkamp. Through the encouragement of brother Diestelkamp, Bill and Bob West went to Nigeria in 1973 and in 1976 when brother Moore planned a second trip, he asked me to go with him as a working companion. I had heard brother Diestelkamp say, “If a person ever goes to Nigeria life is never the same.” I was to learn what this meant.

Based upon his experience in working with Nigerian preachers on his earlier trip, brother Moore suggested that we pursue a different plan and arrange classes in different areas for the benefit of these men and limit our evangelistic efforts to preaching on Sunday and at nights in the area where classes were being taught. Classes, running from Monday through Friday, were held in Lagos, Uyo, Enugu, Aba, and Owerri with short week-end stop in Ife. 

This type of program was so well received that Bob West and I followed the same plan when we returned in 1979. In the 1980s I returned with brother Albert Dabbs as a co-worker and in 1992, he and I returned with Keith Sharp and Tom Kinzel. Each time our major goal was working with native preachers to improve their knowledge of the Scriptures. Some of the earlier preachers who had pioneered evangelistic work in Nigeria were Leslie Diestelkamp, Jim Sassar, Bill and Sewell Hall, James Gay, Aude McKee, Paul Earnhart, Robert Speer, and Wayne Payne. These men were conservative in their application of biblical principles and the older native preachers with whom I worked reflected the thinking of these men. Unfortunately, many of these men who were regarded by other brethren as leaders have fallen asleep. Among these are S.J. Ebong and Sammy Awak in the Calabar area, E.J. Ebong, E.A.Ufot, and Etim Ituen in Uyo, Alozie Nwachuckwu and S.S. Barrah of Aba, Ben Chimeziri of Owerri, and D.D. Isong of Lagos. 

A new generation of preachers has arisen and it was largely with these that my last trips were spent in work. While we have taught plainly in classes against present digressive trends in the church, particularly in America, and that these will be imported into Nigerian churches it seems to me that a very large segment of these brethren have not grasped or comprehended the dangers of those problems for Nigerian churches. Liberal brethren in the eastern part of Nigeria have used a school for training preachers and now have plans for the erection of a similar one in the west near Lagos. Nigerian churches are so preacher dependent for teaching and leadership that most of them readily accept preachers trained in these schools and as a result much of the work done by American preachers who lived there in the 50s and 60s has fallen under the control of the liberal persuasion. 

To my knowledge no conservative preachers from America have gone to Nigeria since the last group which I led there in 1992. I have received many appeals from preacher brethren in different parts of the country who attended our classes for someone to return to help and encourage them. Brother E.J. Ebong, while living, began a preacher training program in Uyo and brother Moore has been instrumental in encouraging brethren here to support men who wish to prepare themselves for preaching by going through this. Since his death George Ekong has kept this program going. Recently Sunday Ayandare and Ezekiel Akinyemi have begun a similar program in Ibadan. Corruption in government has kept the Nigerian economy in shambles and theft in the mail system has caused many American churches to lose interest in supporting men, hence, Nigerian preachers have a very hard way of life. Most lack finances to educate their children, many eat but one meal a day, and most preachers are lacking in good study books to help advance their knowledge of God’s word and become better teachers of it. Nigeria remains a good field for making evangelistic investments. As brother Leslie used to say one can almost see immediate results from his work there.
 
9109 Enid, Fort Smith, Arkansas 72903,fsarcoc@juno.com

By James P. Needham

Labels are used to inform. They tell us what’s on the inside. Labels are very common in religion; there are Calvinists, Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, etc. These labels tell us what’s on the inside. Labels are not unusual in the church when divisions occur. A hundred and fifty years ago the church divided over the missionary society and instrumental music. Those who promoted these innovations called themselves “progressives.” Those who opposed them were called “non-progressives.” Then there was division over whether it is scriptural to have multiple communion containers on the Lord’s table and multi-level Bible classes. Those who held to these ideas were called “antis,” “one-cuppers,” and “no-class brethren.”

In our life time we have witnessed division over centralized control of congregational resources under the sponsoring church arrangement where the sponsoring church receives funds and their oversight from several churches to do certain works, and whether churches can scripturally subsidize human organizations to do what is thought to be the work of the church, such as colleges, orphan and old folks homes. Those who promoted these innovations are called liberals and those who oppose them are called conservatives, and a few other choice epithets I won’t mention here. 

As time has passed, the liberals have divided into other groups over what liberties could be taken with the word of God. They have now split into two opposing camps: Conservative liberals and ultra-liberals. 

Ultra-Liberals 

The ultra-liberals are the ones pushing for “a new hermeneutic,” that is, a new way of interpreting the Bible. They deny that the Bible is a pattern. They deny that we can determine authority from examples and necessary inferences. Here are some of the positions taken by this group:

1. Instrumental music in worship is not unscriptural. Some of these churches have instrumental and non-instrumental services. One of their preachers said, “I don’t go around preaching against instrumental music.”
2. The church of Christ is a denomination.
3. There are Christians in all the denominations.
4. Church is always supposed to be a party.
5. They fellowship Christian Church preachers. (The Christian Church is the result of the division 150 years ago over the missionary society and instrumental music.)
6. We are saved by grace only. 
7. Church grants to human institutions, including secular schools and colleges operated by brethren.
8. General benevolence, which looks upon the mission of the church as a sort of a sanctified Red Cross society whose mission it is to improve people’s standard of living, sometimes called the “social gospel.”
9. We need a new hermeneutic; a new way of interpreting the Bible. Which is not new at all. Their concept originated in modernism in the 19th century. It denies any pattern authority in the New Testament.

Conservative Liberals 

The conservative liberals were once with those who are now the ultra-liberals. Originally they were all in the same boat. The more conservative among the liberals broke camp with them when they carried their hermeneutic to its logical conclusion. The breaking point was the preaching of error on the Herald of Truth radio program. They abandoned the Herald of Truth, but continue to defend and practice the sponsoring church concept. Under the leadership of Ira Rice, Jr., the conservative liberals have waged a heated battle against the excesses of the ultra-liberals, but have never renounced the issues that     divided us in the first place, namely, subsidizing of human institutions from the church treasury or the unscriptural cooperation of churches, known as sponsoring churches, by which the Herald of Truth radio and TV programs are operated. They are against church-furnished recreation of all types, and the fellowshipping of the Christian church. They claim to be against church support of secular colleges and schools though they say very little on this issue. 

They have a good deal more in common with us conservatives than with the ultra-liberals, but they bear strong feelings against us and have isolated themselves from both camps. They call us “antis” and never miss an opportunity to bash us in their papers, and continue to have occasional debates with us on these issues, though these are becoming fewer and fewer. This group is undergoing a good deal of controversy at the moment over whether all service is worship and the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They are having some very heated discussions in their papers. 

Conservatives 

The conservatives today can express nearly all their positions from the liberals’ writings of the 1930s and 40s. Nearly every one of them, and especially the leaders among them, used to take the exact same positions that we take on institutionalism, congregational cooperation, and church-furnished recreation, contributions to colleges, etc. If anyone doubts this I’ll be happy to document it from my files. In fact I learned much that I know about these matters as a young preacher from studying the preaching and writing of Guy N. Woods, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., G.K. Wallace, Glenn Wallace, A.C. Pullias, Charles Holt, B.C. Goodpasture, E.R. Harper, N.B. Hardeman, etc. all of whom cast their influence in the camps of the liberals. In the early days of this controversy there were several debates between conservative preachers and those who went liberal. They were confronted with quotations from their past writings. It didn’t take long for them to decide they didn’t want any more debates! They were challenged to answer themselves.

It is difficult to explain what happens to people who know the truth and then depart from it, but it happens. It happened in the first century; it happened in the 19th century, and it has happened in the 20th century, and I guess it will keep on happening. Maybe there is an answer in these two passages of scripture: 1 Corinthians 11:19: “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” 1 John 2:19: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would (no doubt) have continued with us: but (they went out), that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. When the devil gets in the church there has to be some way to get him out. Really the only right way to do that is to stand stedfastly for the truth. When that is done, the devil will flee from us, but he won’t stay gone (Jas. 4:7).

What of The Future? 

Conservative brethren are the only hope for saving a remnant today, and yet that is becoming more and more precarious day by day. There is a general wave of softness creeping over conservatives today similar to that which preceded the apostasy of the 1940s through the 1970s. This soft attitude, like in the past, cries out for only positive preaching and writing and for unity-in-diversity; you believe it your way and I’ll believe it mine, and I’ll meet you in heaven! They want to dispose of differences over things that matter to God which are plainly taught in the Scriptures by governing them by the principles stated in Romans 14, that govern things that don’t matter to God. The end result is that they claim God doesn’t care what one believes on the marriage question, etc. It’s not hard to see where this will lead them. It is a fact of history that often today’s radical is tomorrow’s liberal.

Another issue that has come to the forefront is a false interpretation of Genesis 1. There are two main positions: (1) the days of Genesis 1 are not seven literal contiguous solar days of 24 hours, but long periods of time, perhaps even millions of years. (2) The days are literal 24-hour days, but there are gaps between them, perhaps millions of years. Both are futile efforts to harmonize the Bible with the speculations of so-called modern day science. 

Discussion of this matter has been quite intense in the last year, and there is a willingness on the part of some conservative brethren to tolerate it, to slip it under the umbrella of Romans 14 like in the discussion of the marriage, divorce, and remarriage question. Some are saying they don’t believe these concepts, but they are willing to make room for those who do. This is “unity-in-diversity,” purely and simply, though some don’t like the label. If this is not a proper label, what label would be appropriate? Is it really true that we can’t see the Bible alike? The church has not seen the last of division over human wisdom and doctrines. There is a major apostasy in every generation. History will bear this out. 

Is It Wrong?

I hear by way of the grapevine that some are criticizing me for mentioning the names of people with whom I disagree and putting it on the Internet. Of course, this is nothing new. Every gospel preacher who defends the truth against error has the same result. I am told that I should have gone to these people personally. I wonder if they would give this same advice to the apostle John in the case of Diotrephes (3 John 9, 10), the apostle Paul in the cases  of Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim 1:20), Alexander the coppersmith (2 Tim. 4:14), in the case of the Corinthian church, and Paul’s rebuke of Peter before the whole church at Antioch (Gal. 2). Hundreds of millions more people have read these criticisms of persons by name than will ever read mine.

If a person thinks his doctrine or actions are scriptural, why would he resent having his name attached to them? Does he teach truths and commit actions of which he is ashamed, even though he feels they are scriptural? Paul warned about being ashamed of the gospel and those who defend it (Rom. 1:15; 2 Tim 1:12, 16). Or does he realize his actions are not scriptural, so wants to keep them hidden or isolated in the area where they are taught or committed? 

It is obvious that some brethren think exposing error is not part of the doctrine of Christ. If this is true, I wonder why such occupies such a large portion of divine revelation, both in the Old and New Testaments. Why did Christ spend so much of his time exposing the doctrines of the Jewish sects and the Rabbis? It was the late Cled Wallace who said we should not have better manners than Christ and the apostles. Paul said, “Follow me as I follow Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). That’s good enough for me and should be good enough for everyone. 

1600 Oneco Ave., Winter Park, Florida 32789

By Weldon Warnock

Time and time again we hear denominational preachers say something like this: “You out there in radio land, if you are lost, and don t know the Lord, just fall down on your knees and call upon the name of the Lord, and he will save your soul.” Obviously, these preachers have no idea what calling on the name of the Lord entails.

On the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter quoted Joel, who said, among other things, “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21). This quotation “call on the name of the Lord” denotes what is to be done, not what is to be said. To call on the name of the Lord is to appeal to his authority. The word “call” in Acts 2:21 does not mean “pray.” Rather, it suggests the idea of an appeal. The phrase “call on” is a translation of the Greek word epikaleo. This is the Greek word Paul uses in Acts 25:11 when he appealed to or called upon Caesar. Here Paul was appealing to the authority of Caesar to adjudicate his case. In like manner, when we call upon the name of the Lord, we appeal to his authority and power as he is the only one who can save. Peter said there is none other name whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

If calling on the name of the Lord means to pray in order to be saved, such as in the front of your radio, TV, at an old fashion mourner’s bench, driving along in your car, in a hospital room, etc., why did Peter tell those on Pentecost to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)? In verse 21 Peter said, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,” but a few verses later, in response to the question, “Men and brethren, what shall we do”?, he told this same audience to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Why did he not tell them to pray, if to call (v. 21) is to pray? What Peter commands in verse 38 is what is involved in the calling in verse 21. Their turning to the authority of the Lord in their obedience to the gospel was the calling.

Paul shows that no one can call who does not believe, and one cannot believe unless he hears, and how shall he hear without a preacher (Rom. 10:13-14)? This is the process of calling. Somebody says, “Baptism is not mentioned here.” Well, neither is repentance. Are you ready to omit repentance? This passage does not state specifically all that the Bible says on the conditions of salvation.

Ananias told Saul of Tarsus in the process of his conversion, “And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16)! Is this the way you called on the name of the Lord? Paul’s calling was what he did, not what he said.

Friends, there are preachers who will lie (1 Tim. 4:2). Others are misguided, ignorant of what the Bible teaches. John wrote, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). When a preacher tells you that an alien sinner can be saved by prayer, he is preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:8).

87 Ormond Dr., Scottsville, Kentucky 42164

By Walton Weaver

There are three definite cases of household baptisms recorded in the New Testament, and there is a strong inference that a fourth case included the entire household. The case where household baptism is strongly implied is that of Cornelius (Acts 10:47-48; 11:14). The three definite cases of household baptisms are those of Lydia (Acts 16:15), the Philippian jailor (Acts 16:33-34), and Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16).

Whether any of these households had infants in them, and, if so, whether they were baptized, has been a debated issue for centuries. Some years ago, Grover Gunn, writing in the Herald of the Covenant, a voice of the Presbyterian Church in America, and published in Water Valley, Mississippi, wrote a response to the question, “What theology of children does one find in Paul’s sermon to the Philippian jailer?” It is strange that such a question should be asked in view of the fact that in three of the four cases of household baptisms named in the New Testament there is positive proof that there was not an infant in these households, including that of the Philippian jailer.

Cornelius

Cornelius and his house needed words whereby he and his house could be saved (Acts 11:14). But there could not have been an infants in the household of Cornelius because, according to Acts 10:46, those who were commanded to be baptized in v. 47 were the ones who had spoken with tongues and magnified God. Such responses to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit would not have been produced in infants who could neither speak (much less in foreign languages) nor magnify God by speaking. Since Peter directed the command to be baptized to those who had spoken in tongues and magnified God, we know that no infants were baptized. How can commands be directed to infants who are not yet capable of comprehending words? Infants cannot speak words, and they cannot understand words directed to them. This being the case, how could Peter have been directing the command to be baptized to infants? 

The Philippian Jailer

The same may be said for the household of the Philippian jailer. The divine record says not only that Paul spoke the word of the Lord to the entire house (Acts 16:32), but that the jailer rejoiced and believed with his house (Acts 16:34). The cause of the rejoicing was the fact that they had believed in God. Infants are not capable of rejoicing over such favorable responses to the preaching of the gospel, and they are even more incapable of having believed in God. J.A. Alexander, a paedobaptist, admits in his commentary on Acts that “thou and thy house” in verse 31 does not mean that personal faith is not required on the part of the jailer’s household, as though the others could be saved on the basis of the jailer’s faith. He says: “Thou and thy house (or household, see above on v. 15) does not mean that they were to be saved by his faith, but by faith in the same Saviour.” Albert Barnes, another paedobaptist, agrees: “Salvation is offered to his family as well as himself; implying that if they believed they should also be saved.” The simple fact is that Paul could have delivered no discourse to infant children, nor could infants have believed at the preaching of such a sermon, or rejoiced over something they were not capable of doing (believing in God).

Craig S. Keener makes an interesting observation about what was expected in Roman households: “Romans expected the whole household to follow the religion of its head; they also expected the head to lead his household to the worship of Roman gods. Here conversion is not automatic; the whole household must hear the word of God” (The IVP Biblical Background Commentary: New Testament 370). He also adds the following note about Roman soldiers and shows why the passage cannot be used in support of infant baptism: “In view of 16:20-21, the jailer risks getting in serious trouble here. If he is a retired soldier (which is not clear — v. 23), he may have young children (soldiers were not permitted to marry officially until retirement); but this is far from certain and therefore cannot be used to prove infant baptism (as some have attempted)” (370). Remember, too, that even if he had children, the fact that the whole household had to hear the word of God is enough to show (as pointed out earlier) that no infants were involved.

Stephanas

In the case of the house of Stephanas, those who were baptized later “set themselves to minister to the saints” (1 Cor. 16:15). What “theology of children” does one find in this passage? If one finds infant baptism in 1 Corinthians 1:16 (if this is the “theology of children” found in this verse) because the passage says Paul “baptized . . . the household of Stephanas,” would not consistency demand that his “theology of children” from 1 Corinthians 16:15 be infant ministers in the church, because this passage says, “the house of Stephanas set themselves to minister to the saints . . .”?

Lydia

The only other case is that of Lydia, and the assumptions required in her case make it impossible to build a defensible argument for infant baptism from the baptism of her household. J.W. McGarvey cites several paedobaptist authors (those who believe in infant baptism) of earlier times who saw no argument for infant baptism in the baptism of Lydia’s household.

It may be that no inference of infant baptism is hence deducible (Henry Alford).

Evidently the passage in itself cannot be adduced as a proof either for or against baptism; there is in it no indication whether there were or were not infants in the household of Lydia (Paton J. Gloag)

 . . . no trace is to be found in the New Testament, speaking of the baptism of the children of Christians (H.A.W. Meyer)

This is to say that the references to household baptisms have nothing per se to say on the subject of infant baptism.

1820 Hairston Ave., Conway, Arkansas 72032