Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

I recently received a copy of a report by Jerry F. Bassett under the heading “Work in the Philippines, January 23-February 19, 1996.” Over the years I have read many such reports with great interest because of my own involvement in the work there in years past. In the years since my last visit to your land, I have stayed in correspondence with a number of brethren. The welfare of the work there and the various trials that afflict the Lord’s people there have always been of deep concern to me. Many good men have visited there over the years to assist the very able preachers they already have among them. I have stayed in touch with most of them out of personal interest in the work.

In brother Bassett’s report he said that he delivered a lesson at “several locations” titled “Disagreements Among Brethren: Areas of Battle and Areas of Peace.” He,said the thrust of this was to teach how “brethren can continue to disagree and yet maintain fellowship in the Lord without the violation of conscience.” Then he said, “I also used an excellent article by Connie Adams accompanied by my application of its principles to the divorce/remarriage issue.”

Since a number of brethren in the Philippines read this magazine, I feel compelled to make some comments on this matter.

I have been in correspondence with some Americans who deny that brethren of brother Bassett’s view have taught on the divorce/remarriage issue in the Philippines. They have criticized brethren who oppose their view for preaching on it and for taking what they call “an American problem” to the Philippines. I have been told that this is a “moot” question there since there is no divorce law there. But now, it is clear from brother Bassett’s report that he, at least, has taught on this matter “in several locations.” So, let’s have no more of this denial that this has been and is being taught.

Whatever applications brother Bassett made of my article to the divorce/remarriage issue, I want my Filipino brethren to know that I am not in agreement with the doctrine he teaches on this subject. I have read and studied his book and also have the tapes of his two public debates on the subject with Jack Holt. So, I am not ignorant of what he believes on the subject.

Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:1-12 teach that one who divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery and that whoever marries one who is put away, commits adultery. It is brother Bassett’s contention that Jesus was simply explaining the Old Testament law here and putting things in proper perspective regarding that. Matthew 4:17 and 23 show that the Lord’s teaching was in anticipation of the kingdom. The teaching looked forward. The only backward look was to contrast what was permitted under the law because of man’s hardness of heart and what pertained to the kingdom which was soon to come. “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17). Verse 23 says he was “preaching the gospel of the kingdom.”

Brother Bassett and I also have serious differences on the application of Romans 14 to this subject. What Jesus called adultery in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, Paul said was an occasion for putting away a wicked brother from among themselves in 1 Corinthians 5. Such an one was to be “de-livered to Satan” thus purging out “the old leaven.” No company was to be kept with him. Paul said fornication was a “work of the flesh” and that those who practiced it would not “inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21). Romans 14 includes matters of indifference with God, such as eating meats honoring certain days. Whether or not to practice circumcision would fall into the same category.

Whatever use was made of my article and whatever applications of its principles were made, I want it clearly understood by you good brethren that Connie W. Adams does not believe what brother Bassett does on this subject and is convinced that what he believes and teaches on the subject is error. I am not accusing brother Bassett of saying that I agree with his position. I would, on the contrary, be very surprised if he did that. But I do not want my name linked, even by implication, with what I consider to be grave error. Brother Bassett is an able and knowledgeable man and I am sure most of his teaching there was helpful to those who heard it. But after reading his report and his reference to my article, I just wanted to make sure the record is clear as to where I stand touching this matter.

While the legal situation may be different in the Philip-pines than in the U.S. on divorce, it is a Bible subject. Any study of the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Romans, or 1 Corinthians is going to involve at some point the verses that deal with the subject. It is important that the truth be taught on these verses when students come to them. The fact that various positions have been taken by different ones over the years does not alter the fact that these passages are clear and uncluttered. It takes help to misunderstand them. It may also be said that different positions have been taken on Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 but that does not change one thing these passages say.

May the Lord bless every faithful effort being made to advance the cause of Christ in your nation. There are some issues which Filipinos face among themselves that do not trouble us here and there are problems we have here which they do not have to deal with there. But divine truth is universal and all of us must “walk by the same rule” and will all be judged by the same standard of truth. I urge all of you to consider any subject you may be called upon to address by the infallible word of God. May the Lord continue to bless you in your efforts to save the lost and edify the saved.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 15, p. 3-4
August 1, 1996

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

“You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?” (Gal. 5:7).

These words, addressed to the churches of Galatia (1:2), suggest the ease with which good churches can be hindered. In chapter 1, Paul expressed his surprise, not just that they were turned away, but that it happened so soon. “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ” (1:6).

Paul did not ask, “What hindered you?”, but “Who hindered you?” When something goes wrong with a church, somebody causes it. It may not always be possible to positively identify the culprit by name, but he (or they) exists. When the who can be identified, he needs to be dealt with sternly by brethren (Gal. 2:4, 5; Tit. 3:10; Rom. 16:17, 18). While many may become involved, usually there are one or two key persons at the center of the unrest  either provoking or enticing the others to get involved. Identifying and dealing firmly with the key person(s) will go a long way in solving the unrest caused by the problem. At Antioch, Paul had to deal with a problem caused by Peter’s hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11-21). Peter was not the only hypocrite in the crowd: “And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy” (Gal. 2:13). Was Paul unfair in singling out Peter for this public rebuke? No. Peter was the ringleader and core of the problem. He was the principle who of that problem.

Paul indicates that while he knew what the trouble was in the Galatian churches, he may have not specifically known who the troublers were. Even though Paul may not have known who they were, he did not try to mask how he felt about them  whoever they were. “The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, who-ever he may be . . . As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (Gal. 5:10,12, NIV). Oh, can’t you just hear some whining breth-ren complaining as to why Paul did not show more “love, understanding, and patience” toward these agitators, even though they had thrown the church into confusion? No, this was no time to be tentative and timid; the churches of Galatia were in trouble  troubled by three timeless hindrances to the purity, peace, and progress of churches.

False Doctrine

The false doctrine that said “you must be circumcised and keep the law” (Acts 15:1, 24) troubled many of the first century churches. The churches at Jerusalem, Antioch (Acts 15), Corinth (2 Cor. 11:22), Rome, and possibly others were disturbed by it as well as the Galatians (5:1-6,11). Like most doctrinal error, it worked like leaven and threatened the whole lump (Gal. 5:9). A little leaven, secretly and strategically placed in a lump of dough, may go unnoticed for a while. Even when it is noticed it may seem too little and insignificant to be concerned about at the time. However, if left unchecked, it will eventually spread through the whole lump.

False teachers seldom hit the church with a frontal attack. They usually begin covertly long before becoming overt. A wolf in sheep’s clothing may secretly introduce his little leaven and let it do its initial work with as little fanfare as possible. “False brethren secretly brought in” their doctrine (Gal. 2:4). The idea is that they “smuggled” (Strong’s Concordance) or “infiltrated”(New International Version) it into the church. Peter also spoke of the secretive work of false teachers (2 Pet. 2:1). Once the leaven is in, it will continue to work until it destroys the church  unless someone is wise enough to spot it and courageous enough to deal with it decisively.

Few churches are destroyed and/or divided by words or deeds that are publicly initiated. Error is usually introduced privately  private conversations, home classes, and counseling sessions  often designedly kept out of ear shot of seasoned veterans of the cross in the congregation. After enough disciples have been indoctrinated to form a powerbase, the chief advocates then feel confident enough to spring it on the whole church. The leaven is now out in the open, but it has already done its major damage. The whole church either embraces the doctrine or, as is more often the case, the church divides. Earlier in this century we saw churches disturbed by premillennialism and institutionalism in this fashion. We are seeing signs that the same pattern is being repeated in the divorce and remarriage issue.

Once divisive teachers have gone public or have been exposed, they usually try to reinforce their positions by attempting to destroy the influence of faithful, knowledgeable, and respected brethren, who stand in their way to gaining the preeminence that they, in their selfish ambition, desire (cf. 3 John 9-11). With their “smooth words and flattering speech” (Rom. 16:18), they have won the hearts of enough naive brethren to feel confident enough to openly attack those who stand in the way of their ambitions. Often whole churches are turned against godly men, like Paul, who have unselfishly built up the church and justly earned their respect by toil and sacrifice. Factious men are good at stirring up a hornets nest and then skillfully shifting the blame for the confusion to those who, for truth’s sake, must step in and sharply oppose them.

Those whom Paul called, “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:13), had apparently succeeded in turning many of the Corinthians against Paul (2 Cor. 10-12). Paul laments, “the more abundantly I love you, the less I am loved” (2 Cor. 12:15). While pleading with them “by the meekness and gentleness of Christ” (10:1), he did not step aside and let them have their way. He directs some of his strongest words toward those who were getting carried away with these teachers. He asks them to bear with him in a little foolishness (11:1) as he defended himself against their unfounded charges. With biting irony, he writes:

For he who comes preaching another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted  you may well put up with it! I say again, let no one think me a fool. If otherwise, at least receive me as a fool, that I also may boast a little. When I speak, I speak not according to the Lord, but as it were, foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. Seeing that many boast ac-cording to the flesh, I also will boast. For you put up with fools gladly, since you yourselves are wise! For you put up with it if one brings you into bondage, if one devours you, if one takes from you, if one exalts himself, if one strikes you on the face. To our shame I say that we were too weak for that! But in whatever anyone is bold  I speak foolishly  I am bold also (2 Cor. 11:4, 16-21).

Feeling the pinch of rebuke, brethren who are being corrected often try to relieve the pressure by charging those who are correcting them and other brethren with wrong doing. Not wanting to appear self-righteous, the rebukers are often hesitant to deny their charges. This leaves the one who leveled the charges with a sense of victory in the confrontation and feeling less a need to correct his wrong  for after all, at least in his mind, he has shown that his critic is just as guilty of wrong as he is. Paul was not willing to allow the Corinthians this luxury. He knew he had done them no wrong and flatly said so: “We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have cheated no one” (2 Cor. 7:2). We need more men of the character and courage of Paul to deal with those who are sinning against the Lord and hindering his churches, without letting them shift attention away from their mischief to the faults of others  real or imagined. One is not going to be helped until he faces up to his unfaithfulness and ungodliness  regardless of what anyone else has done or has not done.

Discord

After dealing sharply with false teachers, using some of the sharpest language in all Scripture, Paul now warns the Galatians against another hindrance  internal discord: “For you, brethren, have been called to liberty, only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even this: `You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!” (Gal 5:13-15).

While false doctrine is at the root of much of the strife and division among churches, it is by no means the cause of it all. Brethren are quite adept at generating and perpetuating internal strife by other means. One does not have to teach a destructive doctrine to be a divisive or factious man (cf. Tit. 3:10). Of the original word, hairetikos, Vine says, “causing division . . . not necessarily `heretical,’ in the sense of holding false doctrine.” While one who introduces into the church unscriptural doctrines and practices is certainly a divisive man, generating strife, there are other ways to stir up trouble. One can generate strife with his sinful disposition as well as his false positions.

One may create discord with his contentious disposition. There is a vast difference in contending for the faith and just being plain contentious. We can abuse that militant spirit needed to “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3; cf. Gal. 2:5, 11-14) by approaching every disagreement, no matter how minor, insignificant, or inconsequential with the same degree of militancy. While it is absolutely necessary to contend earnestly for the faith, it is not necessary to turn every point of discussion that might arise among brethren into a major issue.

There is such a thing as being “obsessed with disputes and arguments over words” (1 Tim. 6:4, 5) or “unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind . . .” (New International Version).

Paul urges Timothy to “avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife” (2 Tim 2:23). He gives a similar admonition to Titus (Tit. 3:9).

One may destroy unity with his overbearing and never bending disposition (cf. Eph. 4:1-3). If one has a forceful personality and is also inclined to be highly opinionated, self-willed, and unwilling to yield, he will generate strife sooner or later.

Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. (Jas. 3:13-18).

Any over-bearing and/or self-willed member hurts him-self and the church, and if he is allowed to lead, he may make havoc of the church. One with this type of disposition should never be allowed to serve as an elder (Tit. 1:7; 1 Pet. 5:3)  or any other position of influence for that mat-ter. He will cause trouble sooner or later.

One may create unrest with a zeal untempered by knowledge and good judgment (cf. Rom. 10:1). If one’s zeal for God runs ahead of his knowledge, wisdom, and judgment, he can create more racket than a dozen wise men can quiet. He is like a car equipped with a souped up engine, over-sized fuel tank and reinforced body  with no steering system nor brakes. Such a one often has his own idealistic concept of how things should be and tries to push and shove the brethren into his visionary mold. Even if his view is correct, he needs to learn to gently teach the brethren into conformity (cf. 2 Tim. 2:23-26).

Such zealots, in their over-heated enthusiasm to get on with things, often rush into matters with little or no fore-thought or preparation. Their method is to act now, think later. In their fervor and self-confidence coupled with ineptness, they usually tear up far more than they fix. It is this kind of mentality that James is countering when he says, “let not many of you become teachers . . .” (James 3:1-12).

One may cause problems with a meddlesome disposition. (Read about busybodies in 2 Thess. 3:11; 1 Tim. 5:13 and 1 Pet. 4:16.) If this disposition happens to be blended with the overly zealous personality described above, then stand back and watch the fireworks! A busybody tends to inject himself into every problem he can find among the brethren, thinking he must instantly solve it without regard to the nature of the problem. He cannot see, while some problems can and must be solved immediately, be-fore they have time to do irreparable damage, others are less urgent and menacing and should be left alone  giving time for long-term spiritual growth to solve them. Too, before one injects himself into every problem he spots among his brethren and makes it his problem he needs to remember: “He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a dog by the ears” (Prov. 26:17).

He may even infuse himself into problems that have been dormant for years. I have known a preacher (or other member) to come into a congregation and learn of an old problem that brethren, who were on the scene at the time, had done their best to solve. Because of the complexity of the problem, they may not have been able to resolve it ideally, but were able to reach a workable solution that would leave the brethren at peace without compromising the gospel. Now this intruder, armed with an unshakable faith in his ability and a few fragments of information about the background, details, and complexity of the situation, jumps right in and proceeds to impose his ideal (?) solution. (Brethren, as much as we might like it, all problems and solutions are not simple.) It is not only highly unlikely that he will to be able help the affair at this late date, he is far more likely to get brethren to biting and devouring one another again over things that they probably would never have thought about again, had they not been reminded.

One can generate strife with an overly talkative disposition. “In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips is wise” (Prov 10:19). “So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath” (James 1:19). Constant critics, gossips, talebearers, can cause endless strife within a church.

The book of Proverbs tells of the damage that such can do:

A talebearer reveals secrets, but he who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter (11:13).

A perverse man sows strife, and a whisperer separates the best of friends (16:28).

A fool’s lips enter into contention, and his mouth calls for blows (18:6).

He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets; there-fore do not associate with one who flatters with his lips (20:19).

Where there is no wood, the fire goes out; and where there is no talebearer, strife ceases. As charcoal is to burning coals, and wood to fire, so is a contentious man to kindle strife. The words of a talebearer are like tasty trifles, and they go down into the inmost body (26:20-22).

Worldliness

The third hindrance that Paul deals with in Galatians 5 is worldliness  the lusts or works of the flesh. (vv. 16-26; cf. 1 John 2:15-17). These things mentioned spring from a carnal mind rather than a spiritual one (vv. 16, 17). We might categorize the “works of the flesh” as follows:

 Worldly sensuality  Adultery, fornication, unclean ness, lewdness.

 Worldly cults  Idolatry, sorcery (witchcraft).

 Worldly dispositions  Hatred, jealousies, outburstsof wrath, selfish ambitions.

 Worldly strife  Dissensions, heresies, murder.  Worldly pleasures  Drunkenness, revelries.

All of these hinder the church when found among its members. Again, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump” if left unchecked. (cf. 1 Cor. 5:6). Those who have been redeemed by the precious blood of the Lamb must live above this level.

How well are we running, individually and collectively? Are we helping or hindering the church? Are we guilty of false teaching, generating strife, or worldliness? Are we allowing ourselves to be adversely affected by those who are? We all need to reexamine our positions and dispositions from time to time lest we become a hindrance to the congregation and the Lord’s cause in general.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 14, p. 20-23
July 18, 1996

By Ron Halbrook

For years Buff Scott, Jr. has scoured the Guardian of Truth magazine to collect names and addresses to send his publication, The Reformer. Consequently, he says that his “paper goes to more `Guardian’ brethren than any others  including many `elderships”‘ (Scott to Halbrook, February 4, 1996). Scott promotes the Carl Ketcherside-Leroy Garrett concepts of unity-in-doctrinal-diversity and often attacks the Guardian of Truth. Explaining his displeasure with my booklet Trends Pointing Toward a New Apostasy, he argued that fellowship can be withdrawn only for immorality, divisiveness, or denying Christ’s deity, but never over doctrinal matters (The Reformer, January/ February 1994, 2-5). Since the January-February 1996 Reformer, Scott has focused on the church of Christ here in West Columbia with its elders (C.P. Alexander, James Moore, and J.D. Harris) and myself as an evangelist. Brethren from around the country have been asking how they got on Scott’s mailing list and what is the background to his tirades against us.

Scott says he “decided some time ago to expand my ministry of reformation” by publishing articles in local newspapers “across the country” where churches of Christ meet (Scott to Halbrook, October 18, 1995). After mailing his materials here for several years, he started fighting us in the local media but plans to tar-get other churches in the future. This report can help brethren in other places to be prepared when he strikes again.

In September 1993 Scott proposeda forum on whether churches of Christ are “counterfeit” and whether instruments of music in worship should be a test of fellowship. His letter explained, “I am associated with the Mountain View Christian Church in Phoenix whose assemblies employ instruments of music. Additionally, I am `Associate Pastor,’ a function and title unknown in scripture and disapproved of by me” (Scott to Halbrook, September 3, 1993). We ignored this letter because an effort to arrange a discussion with him years ago led nowhere, and the elders and I saw a lack of integrity in Scott’s participation in things which he himself knows to be wrong. His articles attacking us and renewing his forum proposal began to appear in local newspapers in July 1995. They are classic examples of the sophistry spoken of in 1 Timothy 6:3-4, If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmising .. .

Raging against the church and the KJV Scott rants, raves, and rages against the word “church” in the Bible, insisting that the Greek term ecclesia be translated “congregation” or “assembly” but never “church.” “Church” in Scott’s overheated imagination can mean only religious bodies, institutions, hierarchies, and bureaucracies unknown to Scripture. We pointed out that this attack on “church” is contrary to Bible translations representing hundreds of Greek scholars, and Scott is certainly no Greek scholar! We need not jettison “church” or “God” from the Bible when people misuse such words, but use the Bible to teach proper concepts of God and church.

Scott claims he wants “Jesusism” not “churchism” but admits Jesus has a body or kingdom. Do we need “Jesusism” not “bodyism” or “kingdomism”? The New Testament church is the body or kingdom of Christ. To be in Christ is to be his church, body, or kingdom. To be out-side of the church of Christ is to be outside of Christ (Matt. 16:18-19; Eph. 1:3, 22-23; 5:5). The rich irony is that after all of Scott’s ranting against churches, he believes we can go to heaven as members of them and he is an Associate Pastor of one which promotes all sorts of human institutions (Arizona Evangelistic Asso- ciation, American Indian Christian Missions, Pacific Christian College, United Christian Youth Camp, etc.).

Scott attacks the King James translation of the Bible because it uses such terms as “church,” “baptism,” and “Easter” in Acts 12:4. He boldly asserts without documentation that the KJV translators mistranslated many things with the motive of pleasing King James. Scott claims that the KJV translators corrupted the earlier work of William Tyndale’s translation, which Scott said translated “ekklesia congregation and baptizein immerse” and “passover in the place of Easter.”

Here are the real facts concerning Acts 12:4 and Tyndale. “In the earlier English versions Easter had been frequently used as the translation of pascha. At the last revision Passover was substituted in all passages but this” by the King James translators (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, 111:12). “Easter” was not used to suggest Bible Christians observed that day, but to designate springtime as the season ofthe year when “the Jews” kept “the days of unleavened bread” (Acts 12:3-4). We can disagree with the translators’ designating the time of the year in verse 4 by “Easter” without impugning their motives.

Tyndale (1494-1536) wanted to do a translation for the common man, al-lowing “a boy that driveth a plough to know more of the Scriptures than [the Pope] did” (B.F. Westcott,A General View of the History of the English Bible, 32). To improve his first effort (1525), he published a revision in 1534, followed by an inferior edition in 1535. Historians agree his 1534 New Testament was his “noblest monument” (Westcott, 185). “It was this revision that eventually became ninety percent of the King James Authorized Version of 1611” (B.H. Edwards, God’s Outlaw [Tyndale Biography from Tyndale House publ.], 146). Tyndale’s 1534 New Testament has “Easter” in Acts 12:4 and “baptized” in Mark 16:15 and Acts 2:38. He used “congregation” in the text but added marginal comments using “congregation” and “church” inter-changeably. From Tyndale’s time until now, Greek scholars have widely recognized “church,” “congregation,” and “assembly” as proper translations ofecclesia. Scott is “doting about questions and strifes of words” to no profit; we are to reject such men (1 Tim. 6:3-4). Ironically, the Christian Church of which Scott is an Associate Pastor celebrates Easter!

Defection From Christ

One of Scott’s newspaper articles entitled, “Why I’m a Church of Christ Defector,” said that he was raised “in the non-instrumental music church of Christ” like the one in West Columbia. “I too believed this church was the only true and divine institution upon the face of the earth. I preached her on the sidewalks and from many pulpits . . . I fought for her and de-bated those who spoke ill of her . . . I felt that King James’ Mark 16:16 was pure gold! I equated the church of Christ with God’s new reign.” He then explained that he no longer parroted “the old partisan cliche” that salvation is found only in the church of Christ because he had been “deprogrammed!” “Did I leave Jesus when I left the church of Christ? Goodness, no! He and I are closer now than ever before.” He explained he now accepts people in all sorts of religions, asked which church of Christ is authentic, and said he was “working within the system to reform the system,” inviting readers “to help finance these articles” for that purpose.

In other words, long before Buff Scott became an “Associate Pastor” of the Christian Church, he pro-claimed the way of Christ as the only way to salvation. He believed that all men are lost in sin without the gospel of Christ (Rom. 3:23; 6:23). He preached the very words of Christ, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16). Scott preached that men must be baptized into Christ  into the one body, kingdom, or church of Christ (John 3:5; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:26-27; Eph. 4:4-6). Now that he has defected from the teaching of Christ, he believes some sinners will be saved without faith in Christ  without baptism into Christ  outside the church of Christ.

His article was paraphrased as follows in our weekly column:

I was raised in the teaching of Christ. I believed this was the only true instruction on earth. I preached Him on the sidewalks. I fought for Him and debated those who spoke ill of Him and His teaching. I felt Mark 16:16 was pure gold! I equated the rule of Christ with the rule of God. Why do I no longer broadcast the old partisan cliche that sinners are saved only in Christ? Simply, I have been deprogrammed! Did I leave Jesus when I left His teaching? Goodness, no! He and I are now closer than ever before.

I now accept within the brotherhood of God many sinners who do not believe in Christ but who worship in paganism. In any case, which doctrine of Christ is authentic? Hundreds of teachers claim to offer His teaching, including the Metropolitan Community Church (homosexual), David Koresh, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and me. As for me, I intend to reform religion by telling people to defect from the New Testament teaching of one true Christ, one true baptism, and one true church as the only way of salvation from sin. If you wish to help finance defection from this teaching of Christ, contact me. Associate Pastor Buff Scott, Mountain View Christian Church, Phoenix, AZ.

To defect from Christ’s teaching and Christ’s church is to defect from Christ himself (John 14:23-24). Our regular newspaper columns exposed Scott as having “made shipwreck” of the faith; “deceiving and being deceived”; “ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth”; and “being condemned of him-self’ (1 Tim. 1:19-20; 2 Tim. 3:13, 7; Tit. 3:10-11). He affirmed in debate many years ago that men can be saved “without becoming born-again believers in Christ” (Scott/ Pennock debate, Truth Magazine, January-March 1959). Christ said, “No man cometh unto the Father but by me,” and he promised to build just one church (John 14:6; Matt. 16:18; Eph. 4:4).

Jesus requires unity of faith and practice in his church, and forbids the unity-in-doctrinal-diversity and inter-denominational unity advocated by Scott (1 Tim. 1:3; 2 Tim. 1:13). Time would fail us to tell of all his liberal, erratic, inconsistent, and confused ideas such as the claim that God inspired the Bible with errors and contradictions in it; Scott wants to debate but says “pagans and all others” can be saved without the gospel; instrumental music in worship is an “infraction” but not sinful (Reformer 3, 4; 4, 6; 4, 2).

Taking the Battle to the Mountain View Christian Church

The Mountain View Christian Church in Phoenix, Arizona where Buff Scott is an Associate Pastor has a number of “pastors” and “elders” (listed as separate offices). Copies of each of Scott’s articles and of our responses were sent to each of these men. Though Scott’s letters to the elders here have been faithfully delivered to them through the years, the materials first sent to the “pastors” and “elders” at the Mountain View Christian Church fell into the hands of Scott and were withheld by him. He said, “I have decided to withhold from them the copies you intended for them” (Scott to Halbrook, October 18, 1995). He insisted I should reproduce these materials and contact the pas-tors and elders at their private domiciles. Such conduct is bizarre and unethical, but typical, confirming our decision not to debate him.

I notified the “pastors” and “elders” of the Mountain View Christian Church of Scott’s antics and offered to help arrange a public debate there with some more reliable speaker of their choosing on the following propositions: “New Testament authority for singing in worship during the gospel age excludes mechanical instruments of music,” and “The New Testament authorizes unity-in-diversity with reference to mechanical instruments of music during the gospel age.” A return letter from Pastor C.C. Moody declined the offer for such a discussion.

Scott’s newspaper attacks on the church here ran from July 1995 through February 1996. Those articles are being reprinted in The Reformer. Since he plans to target other areas as well, this report will help brethren to be prepared. Our articles responding in the local papers along with any other documentation referred to in this report are available to anyone who may request them. If he strikes in your area, I encourage you to take the battle to his own doorsteps by sending cop-ies of all exchanges and correspondence to the “pastors” and “elders” at the Mountain View Christian Church, and by offering to arrange a debate there if they will select some speaker more reliable than Scott. I can supply you with their names, and you may address them at the Mountain View Christian Church, 2927 E. Campbell Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85016.

Scott’s attacks on the church here and elsewhere will continue in The Reformer. In fact, he recently notified the elders and myself that he plans to publish his objections to my article on “The Shame of Nakedness” (Guardian of Truth, May 16, 1996, 293). He argues that we cannot “specify” any “kind of apparel” as immodest but only the “motive is evil.” Scott objects to using necessary implication to identify specific forms of immodest dress. If the intent was right, apparently women could appear in public in string bikinis or topless attire. He cannot find terms like “abortion on demand” or “pedophile” or “drug abuse” in the Bible. Does he use necessary implication and make the necessary application on these subjects? Abortionists use the same arguments against Scott that he uses against us on immodesty, such as charges of making laws for God and pleas for diversity and tolerance. Doctrinal looseness breeds moral compromise and moral compromise breeds doctrinal looseness.

Brethren, do not be discouraged by Associate Pastor Scott’s attacks if he targets your area. When the soldiers of Satan’s army attack, we can know that we are doing something right in the service of the Lord or Satan would not feel the necessity of making such vigorous attacks. “Fight the good fight of faith” and do not be ashamed of the gospel (1 Tim. 6:12; Rom. 1:16).

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 14, p. 18
July 18, 1996

By John L. Nosker

Sister Adams was born November 6, 1912, in Pike Road, North Carolina, the daughter of the late David B. and Mary Allen Adams. All of her four brothers and two sisters preceded her in death. She moved to Hopewell, Virginia in 1930 to make her home with her brother Joyner and his wife, Nollie. They were the parents of the preachers, Wiley and Connie Adams and the preacher’s widow, Mrs. Thomas (Glenda) Icard. Throughout their childhood and youth, Aunt Beulah was a beloved member of their family circle. She had an impact on their lives; today they “rise up and call her blessed.”

She was employed at times outside the home; how-ever, most of her adult life was spent in personal service in the home and in caring for children, those of family members and others. She cared for scores of youngsters; Beulah loved children, and children loved Beulah.

This fine Christian lady also was always interested in those in poor health. She made her concern known with cards, phone calls, and assurance of her prayers and her love. Connie commented regarding his aunt just prior to her funeral services, “Her life exemplified the Lord’s definition when he answered those discussing who would be greatest in the kingdom `… whoever wishes to be first among you, shall be servant of all’ (Mark 10:43). She spent her life in service to others.”

Doubtless all who knew this noble Christian would agree that the words of the song “Others” epitomize her life:

“Others, Lord, yes, others,

Let this my motto be,

Help me to live for others

That I may live like thee.”

Paul wrote that it is required in stewards that one be called faithful (I Cor. 4:2). Beulah Adams filled the bill of a steward found faithful. This writer came to the church in Hopewell in May 1943, and for more than three years worked and worshiped with that church. Beulah was among the first persons I remember meeting. I cannot recall a time when she was absent from the assembly. Of course, attendance of worship was not the only regard in which she was faithful. She loved the word of God, and she studied it consistently. She exemplified its teaching in her life. In all the years I’ve known her I never heard her say an unkind word about anyone. Family members con-firm: “She spoke no ill of her neighbor.”

Perhaps there was no period in her life when her light shone more brightly in the realm of service, than during the several years prior to her brother Joyner’s death when he was in failing health and eventually required a great deal of care. What a team his devoted wife and this dear sister made in caring for him. During the last few years of his life  round the clock service. They worked hand-in-hand caring for the husband of one and brother of the other. Together they performed a feat which few women could have, and still fewer would have.

After his death they shared life together  neither in good health. Countless times, undoubtedly, they were in their customary place in worship when neither was really able to be there. Her sister-in-law, Nollie, passed away about nine months prior to Beulah’s death. Their departure leaves a void in the Rivermont church. They are missed.

Following Nollie’s death, Beulah made her home with Glenda in West Virginia. She passed away in a hospital in Weirton, West Virginia on April 7, 1996. A funeral service was conducted in Wellsburg, West Virginia on April 9 by Owen Thomas. Nearly ten years ago, she requested this writer to speak at her final rites. On April 10, it was a privilege to comply with her wishes during a service near the Adams home in Chester, Virginia, assisted by Michael W. McLemore. A quartet of Christians from churches in the area sang appropriate hymns. Her body was gently laid to rest in the family plot in nearby Sunset Memorial Gar-dens to await the clarion call of the resurrection.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 14, p. 14
July 18, 1996