Truth Magazine

By Bill Reeves

I guess he was guilty of “e-gossiping,” judging by what he wrote in some of his e-pistles! Why he criticized poor Hymenaeus and Alexander; he surely learned them a lesson, according to 1 Timothy 1:20! In his second e-pistle “ole” Paul continued to gossip, this time running down Phygelus and Homogenized, uh, Hermogenes. You can read about this in the second e-pistle, 1:15. He insinuated that they were deserters! And, what’s more, in that same e-pistle, chapter 4:14, Paul took on Alexander the coppersmith; he really put him down! (I even have read about the apostle John engaging in e-gossip. Did you read what he said in one of his e-pistles about brother Diotrophes?)

Things haven’t changed much since the first century. They told us down at the Florida College Lectures this year that some today are engaging in that “e-gossip” business, really putting down some good brethren of fame in the brotherhood. (Why, these e-gossipers have the nerve to even call “false teachers” some of our preacher brothers who have such wonderful attitudes and character). They said that some of these bad guys are out there on the Internet putting some well-known brethren in the “electronic mail chair”! Can you believe it? Where has love and kindness and sweet-spiritedness all gone to? I thought that gossiping is sin!

But, I don’t worry; these teachers are also sending out their e-mails, and making their speeches, really letting these gossipers have it!

Why not just e-quarantine them?

By Dick Blackford

On March 12, 2000, Pope John Paul II made a sweeping confession of the sins of Catholics from antiquity to modern evils. Atrocities compiled in a nutshell what could be written in volumes, included wars of religion, abuses during the Crusades; the coercion of the Inquisition; disrespect for cultures and faiths in the course of evangelization; affronts to women, races and ethnic groups; and abuses of the rights of individuals and anti-Jewish prejudices which made Nazi persecution of the Jews easier while the church did not try to stop it.

There are some things we can learn from the pope’s apology.

We learn that these terrible atrocities really did happen. Rank and file Catholics have often denied that these things happened, but now none other than the pope, whom Catholics claim to be the Vicar of Christ on earth, has openly admitted it. Many people were persecuted (including Galileo), even burned at the stake for their refusal to be coerced to accept Catholic doctrine, including John Huss.

We learn that neither the pope nor the church were infallible during those times. The doctrine of papal infallibility is a relative new doctrine. It became the official position of the church at the Vatican Council of 1870. Bishop Joseph Georg Strossmayer of Diakovar, Bosnia, delivered a powerful speech against the doctrine of papal infallibility at that council and it has never been answered. The answer at that time was to shout him down and force him out of the pulpit (Bishop Strossmayer’s Speech in the Vatican Council of 1870, Agora Publishing Co.).

We learn that since the Catholic Church persecuted those who stood for truth even putting many to death, contrary to the nature of the  kingdom Jesus established, thereby removed any doubt that the Catholic Church is not the New Testament church. Jesus rebuked Peter, whom Catholics claim was the first pope, for trying to use physical violence to promote the Lord’s cause (John 18:10, 11). Jesus told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then my followers would have fought that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but as it is, my kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36, 37). By persecuting people for their religious beliefs the Catholic Church showed it was of this world and not the Lord’s kingdom. Paul had said, “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not make war according to the flesh (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but powerful before God to the demolishing of strongholds)” (2 Cor. 10:4, 5).

We learn that if the church could have been so wrong as to do these horrible things, that it can still be wrong today. Jesus claimed to have all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). He ascended to heaven and took every bit of that authority with him. He is still the head of the church (Eph. 1:22, 23). For a man on earth to claim he is Christ’s visible representative possessing authority over the church is to usurp Christ’s position and to be guilty of blasphemy.

Other Doctrinal Errors

There are a number of doctrines on which the Catholic Church remains in error. A few are: (1) the worship of Mary when Jesus is the only mediator to the Father (1 Tim. 2:5; John 14:6). (2) The perpetual virginity of Mary, even though the Bible plainly teaches she had other children (Mark 6:3). (3) Calling a man “Father” as a religious title when Jesus specifically said don’t do it (Matt. 23:9). (4) That children inherit original sin from Adam, although Jesus taught that children were sinless (Matt. 18:1-3; 19:13-15). (6) That baptism is sprinkling when the Bible says it is a burial (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). (7) The pope continues to allow mere mortals to bow down and kiss his ring and call him “Holy Father.” When Cornelius tried to worship to Peter, Peter said, “Stand up. I myself also am a man.” No pope has ever done that.

In 1986 this same pope put his approval on rescinding the accusation that the Jews killed Christ (AP, April 14, 1986). The only reason why this should have been rescinded would be that it had been proven false. But who made the accusation? The apostle Peter, whom Catholics believe was the first pope (Acts 2:22, 23, 36; 3:12-15; 10:39)! If Peter was the first pope, which pope was infallible? The one who was bodily present and was an eyewitness to what happened, or the one who is nearly 2000 years removed from the events? Even Jesus accused the Jews of trying to kill him (John 8:37-40). What’s more, thousands of Jews admitted the charge and obeyed the gospel (Acts 2:36-41; 6:7). In addition, the pope contradicted the Catholic Bible which is an official document of the church. The introduction to The New Catholic Version bears the Imprimatur of the Holy Apostolic See. The first sentence says: there are three things about the Bible which Catholics must believe: that it has God as its author, that its various books are all inspired, — and that, because God is the author, no formal effort can be admitted with the sacred pages.

The pope and those responsible for “Nostra Aetate” join the ranks of skeptics who claim to know more about what happened than those who were there, including Simon Peter and Jesus! How can any conscientious person remain indifferent to such blasphemy and contradiction? The pope also contradicted the introduction to an official Catholic translation, which affirms the infallibility of the Scriptures. This must not be swept under the rug. Every Catholic should sit up and take notice of this glaring contradiction. Because the pope is popular and likeable, he gets away with some things which others might not.

We learn that one person really cannot repent for another. We cannot repent for the dead for “just as it is appointed unto men to die once and after this comes the judgment” (Heb. 9:27). We cannot repent for the living, for each person is accountable for himself. God will “render to every man according to his works” (Rom. 2:6). “For we must all be made manifest before the tribunal of Christ; so that each one may receive what he has done through the body, according to his works, whether good or evil” (2 Cor. 5:10).

For an apology to be genuine it must come from the heart and lips of the perpetrators. Since the perpetrators have been dead for a long time, no one else can do for them what they refused to do while alive.

Conclusion
We appreciate the pope’s admission. He is one of the most likeable and lovable popes in a long time. We wish he would come all the way back to the Scriptures and renounce his man-made position and the Catholic church in particular.

(All scripture quotations are from the New Catholic Version)

P.0. Box 3032, State University Arkansas 72467 rlb612@aol.com

By Bill J. Humble

Ever since the earliest days of the restoration movement journals have exerted a great influence in molding brotherhood thought. Entering thousands of homes over widespread areas, these papers have served to acquaint brethren with the progress of the church elsewhere, draw brethren together, and crystallize thinking on brotherhood problems.

The influence of brotherhood papers is well illustrated by such journals as the Christian Baptist, Gospel Advocate and many others. Established in 1823, the Christian Baptist was published by Alexander Campbell while he was still preaching among the Baptist churches, and its influence was so great that when Campbell finally withdrew from the Baptists, thousands joined him in the work of restoring New Testament Christianity. A half-century later, David Lipscomb published the Gospel Advocate, and almost singlehandedly, he stayed the tide of digression in the South. Let no one doubt the influence of religious journals!

Good or Bad?

The question is often asked, “Has the influence of these papers been good or bad? Have they been guardians or disturbers of the faith?” Unfortunately, the answer must be: both! The influence of the papers, as with men, has been both good and bad. The papers have done much to advocate the restoration of the New Testament church; they have converted thousands to this plea; they have drawn the brethren together and encouraged them to greater zeal and activity. This is the positive good side, but the bad is also there. The papers have sometimes abandoned and opposed the restoration ideal, promoted unsriptural ideas, and brought controversy and division to the brotherhood. There have been some who have exclaimed disgustedly, “The church would have been far better off had these papers never existed.” Of some papers, but not all, this is true!

Surprisingly, the same paper has sometimes been both a guardian and disturber of the faith at various periods in its history. The restoration movement would never have grown so rapidly during the decade of the 1830s had it not been for the Millennial Harbinger, but after congregations had been established in many areas, Campbell became the champion of a national missionary society, through which these congregations might cooperate in evangelism. For nearly ten years before the American Christian Missionary Society was established in 1849, Campbell wrote article after article pleading for such “cooperation.” Had it not been for the influence of Campbell and the Harbinger, the society would not have been established in 1849. Now, was the Harbinger a guardian or disturber of the faith? It was both; for upon the society question, at least Campbell abandoned the very principles which had given birth to the paper.

The American Christian Review, edited by Benjamin Franklin in the decades after the Civil War, was at one time the most influential paper in the entire brotherhood, and it opposed the missionary society vigorously. Franklin’s Review was undoubtedly a staunch guardian of the faith. Yet, in later years the Review fell into the hands of brethren who used it to oppose “located preachers” and colleges operated by Christians. The Review thus became a disturber of the faith, promoting views which cannot be defended by God’s word, sowing discord and division among brethren.

Since papers have been, and will probably continue to be, both guardians and disturbers of the faith, how may we determine whether the influence of any particular paper is good or bad, whether it is defending truth or disturbing brethren? The following general principles should help us to answer this question.

Guardian of the Faith

If a religious journal is to be a guardian of the faith: 

1. It must stand for the faith! This is actually the fundamental test, and all else is secondary. If a paper is teaching the truth, it is a guardian of the faith. The paper may not be large and influential; it may not be popular. (David Lipscomb was always pictured as a “mean ill-tempered little man” by the majority who favored the society.) But only truth, not circulation or influence, can determine whether any journal is defending the faith.

If a paper has a scriptural attitude toward truth, its writers will admit, “This paper is fallible, but the New Testament is infallible.” The readers will be admonished to search for a “thus saith the Lord,” not for a “thus saith the paper.”

2. It must allow brethren to discuss questions and problems freely. This spirit of free inquiry lies at the very heart of the restoration ideal. The idea of “restoring” New Testament Christianity implies a search for long-lost truth, and this necessitates study, inquiry, and discussion. Our brethren have always believed that as they study scriptural questions and weigh controversial issues, they draw nearer the truth, and the religious papers have always served as a medium through which these discussions should be conducted.

The willingness of such great editors as Campbell, Franklin, and Lipscomb to open their columns to those of opposing views is an index to their greatness. Searching for truth, they encouraged frank discussions of controversial issues.

3. It must be interested in presenting truth in love, not in crucifying some brother or group of brethren. The paper must be an instrument of truth, not a weapon of character assassination. Let the brethren ponder their problems, but let them do it in love and understanding.

Disturber of the Faith

On the other hand, a religious journal becomes a disturber of the faith whenever:

1. It teaches false doctrine. Again, this is the basic test. When a paper defends a teaching not in harmony with the New Testament, when it “rides some hobby” (as brethren often put it), the paper becomes a disturber of the brethren. The paper need not be small to be guilty. It could be a large and influential journal, even supported by a majority of the brotherhood; but when it teaches false doctrine, it is disturbing the faith. Just after the Civil War, it was the small and unpopular Advocate which said, “Each local congregation is sufficient to do the work God has given it,” while the larger papers favored the society.

Today, there are some papers which disturb the faith by teaching that it is wrong for brethren to operate Christian schools. They charge that the school is doing the work of the church, but these papers err in failing to distinguish between congregational and individual responsibilities. On the other hand, some brethren go to the opposite extreme and insist that the churches may subsidize the colleges out of the church treasury. But if the college is not doing the work of the church, what right does it have to be supported out of the churches’ treasuries? None! When a paper teaches that the college may be included in the church budget, it is a disturber of the faith, just as certainly as if it went to the opposite extreme.

2. The paper becomes “the” authority. There is nothing more dangerous than for a paper to become so influential with a segment of brethren that they say, “I have such confidence in that paper and its editor that I’d believe nearly anything I read in it.” When brethren become that loyal to any paper, the seeds of disaster have been sown. Unwittingly perhaps, that authority of men has been substituted for revelation.

This is exactly what happened in the decade of the 1840s, when the way was being prepared for the society. When Campbell began to plead for a means by which the churches might work together, the majority of brethren said, “We have such confidence in Bro. Campbell and the Harbinger that we just don’t see how he could be wrong.” And disaster struck!

3. The paper abandons the “sound doctrine” for which it once contended. We do not preach “once safe, always safe” and the fact that a paper once was sound in teaching does not guarantee it perpetual soundness. The American Christian Review, once an effective instrument for good, later became a disturber of the faith.

Even today, brethren who once preached the autonomy and all sufficiency of the local congregation shudder when some preacher announces that he will discuss these same themes; for they fear that some “pet institution” may be criticized. Could it be that principles are being abandoned?

4. The paper refuses to allow brethren to study vital problems. When any paper stifles free discussion of current issues, it assumes an omniscience which Campbell, Lard, and Lipscomb dared not assume. When thousands of sincere brethren conscientiously question some practice and ask that it be studied in the light of the New Testament, and when some paper defends the practice by saying, “We are teaching the truth on this question, and no hobbyist on the other side has any right to be heard,” that paper is treading the brink of disaster. Let brethren discuss the questions which confront the church! Truth will prevail! But let no  paper become so arrogant that it says, “What we teach is the end of truth. No further discussion is necessary.”

Let all papers say, “Our quest is for truth; our spirit is brotherly kindness; our aim is to present all views fairly.” And a grateful brotherhood will rise up and say, “These papers are all guardians of the gospel.”

(Taken from The Preceptor, July 1956)
Truth Magazine II:5, February 1958, 10-11, 15

Slouching Toward Gomorrah 
by Robert Bork 
Price: $14.00 (paperback)

This 1996 publication by the man rejected as Supreme Court justice because of the liberal’s litmus test on abortion demonstrates the conservative values that made him so repulsive to the media and congressional elite. Bork emphasizes the radical social changes that have occurred in American society as the 1960s hippies have moved into leadership positions in universities, judiciary, and politics to impose their radical view of society on the American public. He writes as a professor from Yale University who witnessed its administration’s capitulation to the demands of the radical students of the 1960s. 

Bork writes, not as a preacher measuring society by the standard of the Bible, but as a judicial expert concerned about modern trends in American society away from a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Nevertheless, he appreciates Western values based on the Judaeo-Christian ethic.

Included in this book is Bork’s assessment that the universities are propagandists for (89) and the courts are enforcers of the liberal social view (114). He demonstrates the latter by the court’s refusal to allow the populace view of abortion or euthanasia to be legislated through the enactment of law, choosing rather to impose their minority moral values on the majority by enforcing their values as the law of the land through judicial decisions. In this he develops his theme that liberalism ultimately leads to coercion (5-6). 

Bork also notices the changes that have occurred in American churches during this period. He writes:

. . . Religion, morality, and law do that (that is, have an impatience with anything that interferes with personal convenience, mw), which accounts for the tendency of modern religion to eschew proscriptions and commandments and turn to counseling and therapeutic sermons; of morality to be relativized; and of law, particularly criminal law, to be soft and uncertain. Religion tends to be strongest when life is hard, and the same may be said of morality and law. A person whose main difficulty is not crop failure but video breakdown has less need of the consolations and promises of religion (9).
He also noticed the changes in preaching.

It is not helpful that the ideas of salvation and damnation, of sin and virtue, which once played major roles in Christian belief, are now almost never heard of in the mainline churches. The sermons and homilies are now almost exclusively about love, kindness, and eternal life. That may be regarded, particularly by the sentimental, as an improvement in humaneness, indeed in civility, but it also means an alteration in the teaching of Christianity that makes the religion less powerful as a moral force. The carrot alone has never been a wholly adequate incentive to desired behavior (293). Progressing through the significant social conflicts since the 1960s, Bork demonstrates the liberal agenda and its impact on modern society.

The book is particularly interesting to my generation because it discusses the events that we have witnessed in our lives and what impact they have had on this present generation. The book is not enjoyable reading, because the triumph of paganism in American values is depressing, but it is enlightening. 

Mike Willis,6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com