Danger of Innovations
For several years, a number of us have been warning the brethren against innovations, pointing out to them the fact that they lead away from God. Look at Israel. Look at Catholicism. Look at Protestantism. Look at our brethren who call themselves “Progressives.” The sad condition into which many of our brethren have drifted reveals only too plainly the apostate condition into which the practicing of innovations will finally lead their devotees. History is now repeating itself in the so-called “loyal churches of Christ.”
The College of the Bible, Lexington, Kentucky, was at one time noted for its sound teaching; but is now noted for its destructive criticism. Bro. R. H. Boll read a letter written by one of its professors, and remarked: “Professor _ _ _ _ _ is full of destructive criticism. He couldn’t keep it out of a short letter like that.” The College of the Bible well illustrates the fact that innovations lead away from God. When its greatest Professor, J. W. McGarvey, died they brought his body into the church he had left because of innovations, and played the organ over his dead body. They had him down so that he could not speak for himself!
On March 12, 1917, my friend, Ben F. Battenfield, who was then a student of The College of the Bible, sent a letter to several conservative brethren, asking them “to do all you can to take” The College of the Bible “out of the hands of destructive critics.” The following statements, taken from his letter, show that the College of the Bible was bordering on to infidelity. And it has been getting worse ever since.
Professor Snoddy said, “I am a hard evolutionist.” “The first chapter of Genesis is poetry.” “We can’t believe the story of Adam’s search for a helpmate.” “To explain how God answers prayer, I must explain what I mean by the term ‘God’.”
Professor Bower has called Jehovah “the tribal God of the Jews.” He said, “The urim and thummin, and Gideon’s fleece were means of augury.” “Civilization has been traced back as far as 10,000 years B. C.” “The Pithecanthropus Erectus is the missing link between man and the lower animals.”
Bro. Battenfield then shows the effect of this teaching by several statements from students.
John T. Pugh says, “I hear scarcely any but destructive critical teaching except in Dean Calhoun’s classes.”
J. G. Hurst says, “I came to the College of the Bible because of its reputation for sound teaching, but I have found more destructive criticism and Christian Science than anything else.”
K. B. Bowen says, “If I had to believe that the Bible is inspired from cover to cover, as Mark Collis said, I wouldn’t preach anymore.”
Dr. J. R. Barbee says, “I believe that President Wilson is inspired just as the apostles were.”
W. R. Hudspeth says, “I think we should have a new New Testament. I know any number of men I would as soon trust to write it as Paul.”
Speaking of a union revival meeting in which the Church for which he preached was to engage, J. L. Finnell said: “The man who is to hold the meeting is not a member of the Christian Church, and no doctrinal points will be touched. People are tired of ‘our plea’.”
The foregoing is bad, but no worse than can reasonably be expected from those who have become “wise above that which is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6) and “progressed” beyond it. Those who disregard 2 John 1:9 will, sooner or later, disregard anything else in the Bible that does not suit their fanciful imagination. Such statements as the ones given above do not come from those who refuse to go beyond “that which is written.
J. D. Phillips
"The Cup of The Lord"
This is the title of a booklet written by me on the cup question. It sets forth a great cloud of witnesses, from the various institutions of learning, setting forth the exact meaning of the New Testament language in regard to the matter. All this is strengthened by quotations from various historians. The following commendations have been selected from among the many that I have received:
“They are simply fine. I hope to use many of them to a great advantage.”
Homer A. Gay
“You have done an excellent work. I should like to see some of the scholars among the cups brethren attempt to review it.”
H. C. Harper
“You have given enough authoritative evidence to convince any honest-minded person.”
“Your book, ‘The Cup of the Lord,’ is the very best thing I ever saw on the question.”
Dr. A. J. Trail
“I am sure there is nothing in print, on this question, that compares with it.”
Homer L. King
“The best thing I have seen on the subject. It is exhaustive.”
Tom E. Smith
“It is fine. I like the way you handle all your subjects.”
W. R. Chapman, D.D., LLD.
“It is a pioneer in its field. It is the first attempt to set forth the world’s best scholarship on this vital question.”
James T. White
This book is free. Order as many as you can use. Be sure to send postage. If possible, send a donation to help bear the expenses of printing. The printing bill alone is $79.40. This bill must be paid soon. I insist that all who promised to donate to the work do so at once.
Since I am in the evangelistic field and all my mail must be forwarded, it is quite probable that some orders for the booklet have failed to reach me. So, all who have ordered books and failed to get them, should write to me about it. Address: J. D. Phillips, care Homer A. Gay, Eola, Texas.
J. D. Phillips
More About the Tidwell - Arceneaux Debate
As the propositions and date of this debate were given, by Bro. H. K. Tidwell in his report, listed in the May issue of this journal, I shall omit them.
En route to this debate, Bro. J. E. Tidwell and I went via the home of his father, E. J. Tidwell, at Haughton, Louisiana. Here we remained over Lord’s day, and “broke bread” with the faithful ones; leaving Monday in company with Bro. H. K. Tidwell for Gallatin, Texas, where the debate on the Sunday School question was held.
While Bro. Arceneaux was m the affirmative, he consumed most of his time denying the scripturalness of “The Apostolic Way” and the Littlefield College. Bro. Tidwell showed that these things were not on a par with the Sunday School, and that he had nothing to do with the school, and besides, they were not debating these things.
The debate was conducted in a nice manner, and I believe it did much good. Generally, it seemed the people were able to see the unscripturalness of the Sunday School The brethren who stood with Bro. Tidwell seemed to be much strengthened and encouraged, while those who stood with Bro. Arceneaux for the Sunday School, seemed discouraged. It was very evident to all fair-minded people that there is not a man on earth, who can refute the charges made by Bro. Tidwell, against the Sunday School Here are some of them:
First: It is a human institution, imitating the church, and its head is Robert Raikes.
Second: Its authority is the doctrine and commandments of men (Gospel Advocate catalogue, 1932, p. 21). He showed by this catalogue that the Sunday School is just as close by connection to the church as could possibly be (p. 18). He further showed that according to this catalogue that there are infants in the church, as the three-year old’s in the Sunday School are called the “Nursery Class of the Church” (p. 17). Hence, in as much as the church is called a woman in the Bible, the Sunday School must be a concubine, trying to assist the church to bear, children (?).
Third: He showed that according to Matthew 15:3-9, Arceneaux and his brethren had made void the commandments of God with their traditions, and were worshiping in vain; and according to Matthew 15:13, they were cultivating a plant which the Heavenly Father had not planted, hence would be rooted up. He further reasoned that it took all of Christ’s blood to purchase the church, hence none left for the Sunday School, and that the spirit was given to the church, therefore the Sunday School had not the spirit - void of life.
Fourth: The Sunday School assembly was either an assembly violating 1 Corinthians 14:34, or else it was not an assembly of saints.
J. A. Patterson