Controversy in History

I. Introduction

• TREND = line of development, direction of movement, drift, swing. Key thought: move (away from one thing to another, whether good or bad). Along with trends (away from biblical to non-biblical) are associated fads, novelty, and innovation, with apostasy being the culmination of the movement.

A. The purpose of this study is to give a brief overview of major controversy from New Testament days until now, so that we can better be able to see the basic, underlying principles of error which are responsible for apostasy, division, and resultant innovations. By looking at the past we can see where modern change agents are headed. We can look at trends today and know to what ends they will lead those who follow them.

B. Rom. 15:4, “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning”. We learn from the past.

C. Learning is necessary to coming to Jesus. Jn. 6:44,45, “No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me”.

II. New Testament Days

A. Jesus “built” a “church”, in that he made possible the salvation of sinners. He adds to the church, in this universal sense, in that he adds those whom he saves to those already saved. It has no organization because it has no organized, collective work to do. It “works” as those individuals who compose it work. It is a spiritual relationship of people to Christ.B. Jesus did organize the local church, which is a band of Christians meeting together and working under mutual agreement. The local church is functional as an entity. Phil. 1:1, “.. to all the saints at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons”. Each church was autonomous, working independently, according to its ability and opportunity. Cooperation between churches was concurrent, and not centralized.C. The two great brotherhood issues of the first century were Judaism and Gnosticism. A number of the N.T. books were written to combat these errors,

D. An apostasy was predicted: Matt, 7:15-20; Acts 20:29-31; 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 4:3,4; 1 Jn. 4:1-6. This apostasy consisted primarily of the corruption of the government of the local church. At first there was a plurality of elders in each church (Acts 14:23). Then, in the principal cities, one elder was elevated over the others, becoming the “bishop”. From the bishops of a given area one was elevated to become the archbishop. A pyramid of power continued to develop until the “bishop” of Rome, the world-center of the first centuries A.D., became the Pope over all the rest.

III. First Centuries

• 1. Local churches were tied together into a diocese, or district. The bishop over them was a “diocesan elder”. The dioceses were then tied together by a hierarchy, and finally all came together into a functional, universal church. The five principal “metropolitan bishops” were those of Constantinople (today, Istanbul, Turkey), Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. The bishop of Rome emerged as the principle bishop, or Pope (606 A.D.).

A. The Catholic error: activate the church universal; make it functional! The great apostasy predicted in the N.T. operated on the basic error of centralization of authority, within the concept of a functional, universal church. The church in the universal sense was viewed as being composed of all the local churches. This error has persisted until this day!

B. The basic, doctrinal error, developed in the apostate church, was “original sin”, fathered by Augustine. He had been a Gnostic for some years, and so was filled with the error of matter being basically evil. He left Gnosticism, but developed the doctrine of man’s being evil, or depraved. He claimed that it was the result of Adam’s sin. (Many of our songs, literature, and colloquialisms, reflect this doctrinal belief. (e.g., “boys will be boys”; “doing what comes naturally”; “that’s his nature”; etc.).

IV. The Middle Ages (500 to 1500 A.D.)

A. This period is also called the “dark ages”, because of the mental and spiritual darkness which characterized people in general. The clergy was formally educated, but not the common man. (From this arose the concept of the laity, or “layman”, as distinct from the clergy).B. In 1054 A.D. the Greek Catholic Church became separate from the Roman Catholic Church, a principal issue of difference being the use of sculptured images (icons) in the church buildings (so, the iconoclast controversy). (In the Greek Orthodox Church there is no Pope, no sculptured images, and no instrumental music in worship. Baptism, even of babies, is by immersion. Surely no one knows better than the Greeks what the Greek words Psallo (sing) and Baptismos (immersion) mean!C. The Renaissance (= rebirth), the period between medieval and modern times (1300-1600) stressed arts, science and humanism. The printing press was invented 1450 by Johann Gutenberg, in Germany. The first printed book was the Latin Bible.

V. The Protestant Reformation (1500 and Following)

• 1. Note: TULIP = Total depravity, Unconditional election and reprobation, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints.

A. Martin Luther of Germany (1483-1546), a priest excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church, along with John Calvin of France (1509-1564), renewed Augustine’s doctrine of “original sin”, developed a thousand years earlier. This doctrinal error is basic to the many denominational errors of today. It has pervaded our thinking and expressions, our music and literature. Nearly everyone has the idea that there is something inherently bad about our “nature”. The pure Calvinist believes that man is born totally depraved, while others accept only adaptations of the systematized theology of Calvin. For example, “the perseverence of the saints”, the “P” of TULIP (means, one once saved cannot fall from grace and be lost) is taught by the Baptists, but they do not believe in “total depravity”, the “T” of TULIP .

B. The Protestant Reformation was principally in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of meritorious works (“supererogation” = beyond requirements) imposed by the clergy. The Reformers ignored the purpose and theme of the book of Romans, which exposed the falsity of the Judaizers who promoted the works of the Law of Moses, and misused the word “works” in Romans in order to combat the works of merit pressed on the people by the Catholic clergy. Therefore, today, Protestantism goes to the extreme of ”faith only” and disdains anything considered a work in any sense.

VI. The Restoration Period (1800 — 1850)

A. Leaders of different denominations began to abandon denominationalism. Among them were Barton W. Stone, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, and Walter Scott. Churches of Christ were established in great number. However, many of the converts brought with them denominational ideas.B. In the 1830’s the “Cooperation Meetings” came into popular use among the churches. They appeared to be innocent, mass meetings of disciples, with delegates from the different churches, making suggestions and recommendations, while being careful to insist upon congregational autonomy and independence. These meetings were forerunners of the American Christian Missionary Society, which would be established in 1849. Having come out of Protestant Denominationalism, which had come out of Roman Catholicism, which represented the concept of a functional, universal church, these early disciples promoted this concept in their “cooperation meetings”. These meetings saw their fruition in the formation of the Missionary Society.C. In 1849, at Cincinnati, Ohio, the American Christian Missionary Society was established. The first President was Alexander Campbell. It is estimated that about 90% of the brotherhood favored the Society. It, along with the introduction of instrumental music in the worship (1859,60), began to drive the wedge of division in the brotherhood. A new denomination, the Disciples of Christ, was aborning.

D. Those who opposed the Missionary Society called themselves conservatives, whereas they were called antis by the advocates of the Society. The advocates of the Society called themselves progressives, but were called digressive by their opponents.

E. The formation of the Missionary Society was built on the concept of activating, or causing to function, the Church of Christ in the universal sense. The basic argument was that the Lord said, Go preach the gospel, but did not say how it was to be done. So, the Society was therefore just another way of going. The opposing brethren affirmed that the issue was not one of “method”, or “means”, but rather one of ORGANIZATION. The Society was an organization apart from the church of the Lord, which itself had to employ methods and means.

F. Chart

• Try placing in the blank, Roman Papacy, Lutheran Synod, Mormon Presidency, Christian Church Missionary Society, or our brethren’s “sponsoring church”; the principle is the same. The error is the same. Centralization is a violation of the government of the local church, as per the New Testament.

VII. Post-Civil War Period

A. Among conservative brethren, “State Meetings” sprang up, which were simply gatherings of interested brethren for visiting, preaching, and exchanging information. When finally at one of them, in Texas, the suggestion was made to take up a collection to be used in the support of a full-time gospel preacher, the idea met with approval. But, who was to disperse the funds? Opposition to the Missionary Society among them was still very strong! So, it was suggested that the funds from such meetings should be put into the hands of a local eldership. In Texas, it was the church in Sherman that was chosen. Bro. Carroll Kendrick, who brought the idea of the “State Meeting” from Kentucky to Texas, gave the following name to this local eldership and collective effort: “Receiving, Managing and Disbursing Evangelistic Committee”.B. David Lipscomb, writing from Tennessee, over a period of time condemned these “state meetings”. They were but an expression of the age-old error of activating the church in its universal sense. He tried to get them to see that their OBJECTIVE was unscriptural: activating the church in the universal sense. Putting a brotherhood project under a local eldership corrupts the government of the local church! The objective of the ”state meetings” was unscriptural, and so was the form.C. The Texas-type “state meetings” differed from the Missionary Society, not in principle, but only in detail. The elders of a local church became the directors of the “society” (cooperative) instead of a Board of Directors.

D. In 1886 the Texas State Christian Missionary Society was established. It was the full-blown fruit of the “state meetings”. This helped the conservative brethren to see the unscripturalness of it all, and they abandoned the idea.

VIII. The Religious Census of 1906

A. About every ten years our government had been taking a religious census, along with the regular population census. The information was published by the Census Bureau of the Department of Commerce.B. In 1906, for the first time in the census-taking, the churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ Church were listed as separate religious bodies. This makes for a convenient dating of the division in the previous brotherhood.C. As a child, I often heard preachers speak of there being “more than 250 different religious bodies in the U.S.” Preachers got this information from this census. In the 1936 Census Of Religious Bodies, reference is made in the preface to “256 denominations”.

D. See a copy of the statements in the 1936 Census by Bro. Leslie G. Thomas, for churches of Christ, and by Stephen J. Corey, President of the United Christian Missionary Society, for the Disciples of Christ church. (Other societies and boards were originated, and finally in 1920, the United Christian Missionary Society was formed, joining all of these into one functional body).

IX. Otey – Briney Debate of 1908

• 1. This has been the prime argument for every innovation since then: God said do it, but didn’t say how; therefore we are at liberty to &ldots;.. ! A hundred years after the establishment of the Missionary Society, the Sponsoring Church among us came into vogue, justified by the promoters on the basis of the same argument!

A.I urge everyone to read this debate. It was held Sept. 14-18, 1908 at the Trinity Methodist Church building in Louisville, Ky. It covers the missionary society and instrumental music issues.

B.A quote from Briney’s opening speech on the society issue:

“I lay down this principle, and it is to constitute the foundation of nearly my whole argument upon this question. I read as follows: “When a thing is commanded to be done, and the method of doing it is not prescribed, those commanded are at liberty to use their best judgment in devising ways and means to carry out the command… Now, the method, I repeat, of doing this is not specified”.

A human organization is not a “how”. It itself must employ “hows”; that is, means, methods, ways.

• 1. Note: In 1906 the different missionary societies had not as yet been unified into one, the United Christian Missionary Society. This came in 1920).

C. A quote from Otey’s first reply:

“The question to be considered is not whether the Gospel should be preached to the whole world, if possible. That is not the question, but the question is, Through what organization shall it be done – – the church, or such organizations as the Illinois Christian Missionary Society, the Foreign Christian Missionary Society, etc. This is the question”.

X. West Tennessee Cooperative of 1910

A. In 1910 an effort was again made to revive the type of cooperation represented by the “State Meetings” of the previous century. However the effort was abandoned. David Lipscomb’s article in the Mar. 24, 1910 issue of the Gospel Advocate, stated:“All meeting of churches or officers of churches to combine more power than a single church possesses is wrong. God’s power is in God’s churches. He is with them to bless and strengthen their work when they are faithful to Him. A Christian, one or more, may visit a church with or without an invitation and seek to stir them up to a faithful discharge of their duties. But for one or more to direct what and how all the churches shall work, or to take charge of their men and money and use it, is to assume the authority God has given to each church. Each one needs the work of distributing and using its funds as well as in giving them”.B. In subsequent years there were a few widely scattered projects of this type of congregational cooperation.

XI. 1906 to 1945

• 1. 1928, F. W. Smith, “Each congregation attended to its own affairs in the raising and disbursing of its funds in all phases of religious obligations”! .2. 1929, H. M. Phillips, “…the church is the only organization that should and can do it”.3. 1929 James A. Allen, “Every local congregation was all sufficient in every avenue of charity and benevolence”.

  4. 1930, A. B. Barrett (founder of Abilene Christian College), “There is no New Testament authority for combining two or more such congregations for any purpose whatsoever. If any such combination is accomplished, it is wholly without the plane of New Testament teaching, hence unscriptural and sinful … Individual Christians, any number, may scripturally engage in any worthy work such as running colleges, papers and orphanages, and other individual Christians may properly assist them in every proper way; but no local congregation should be called upon, as such, to contribute a thing to any such enterprises. Such would be out of harmony with the Word of the living God”.

  5. 1931, F. B. Srygley, “They had no organization larger than their local churches. There was no discussion among them about how to build and control institutions such as orphanages, or homes for the aged, or hospitals for the sick. There is no more authority in the New Testament for the control of such things than there is for the control of a farm or a health resort”.

  6. 1932 W. Claude Hall, “There was not another organization formed to take care of this work”.

  7. 1936, A. 0. Colley, “An orphan home with its board distributed over a given territory … is an unscriptural organization…”

  8. 1949, G. K. Wallace, “There is a parallel between an orphan home that has a board of trustees, other than the elders of the church, to do the work of the church, and the United Christian Missionary Society”.

A. Several Orphan Homes, under boards of directors, were established. Some churches made monthly donations to them. (This is a case of “institutionalism”; that is, churches doing benevolent work by means of human institutions). There were also some “sponsored” projects. But these were not ambitious projects on a national level or larger, and so did not cause any great stir in the brotherhood, although there were discussions, oral and written, concerning them.

B. Quotes from the Gospel Advocate (in reference to benevolent work):

C. The principal subjects debated during the first half of the twentieth century were Calvinism, Baptist doctrine, and, among the brethren, Premillenialism. There were debates also among the brethren on the Bible Class issue, and the One Container issue, but there was no issue among the brethren on a brotherhood scale.

D. In Feb. 1938, during the Abilene Christian College Lectureship, G. C. Brewer urged elders to put the support of the colleges in the churches’ budgets. There was immediate opposition, and the college presidents were called upon to make a statement of “policy” regarding the matter. They said that they did not solicit money from churches, but it was not made clear if the basis of the policy was conviction, or convenience! The college-in-the budget had to wait some twenty-five years, until the church-support of another type of institution became popular, the institutional benevolent Home (Orphanage, or Children’s Home). Then they were to stand or fall together. In the larger part of the brotherhood, they stood!

XII. 1945 to 1955–, The Era of “The Current Issues” (Sponsoring Church / Institutionalism).

• 1. Some churches began to sponsor material relief in Germany and Italy, as well as gospel preaching and the establishment of an orphanage in Italy.2. Everyone was talking about! “sponsoring” A WORK in such and such a place. The New Testament speaks of supporting gospel preachers, but not a “work”. The “work” being sponsored was looked upon as “mission work”, another concept unknown to the Scriptures.3. A number of new Orphan Homes sprang up, both under Boards of Directors, and (mostly west of the Mississippi) some under elderships of local churches. (This difference of directorship became an issue within itself among the churches defending the “sponsoring church” concept).

  4. “Bible Chairs” became popular. These were centers built near university campuses, to serve as places for contact with students, for Bible study, recreation and relaxation. Completely equipped gymnasiums were built and the Chairs were staffed with Directors and other personnel, all paid for out of the church’s collections on Sundays.

  5. In the 1940’s, Bro. James Nichols was promoting in Iowa a state-network radio program called “Herald of Truth”. He, along with Bro. James Willeford, conceived the idea of a national network radio program, and solicited the Highland Av. church, in Abilene, TX on the proposed project. They had failed to persuade the elders of another church in Abilene to “sponsor” it. On Feb. 10, 1952, the Highland church took the oversight of this “work”, to be paid for principally by the many churches in the land. Soon some 2000 churches were sending money monthly to the Highland church for this program.

A. Following the Second World War, with a strong zeal for evangelizing the nations, and now enjoying a material prosperity as never before, the churches of the land were enthused about helping the nations defeated in war, and about getting the gospel to them. The age-old type of cooperation, based on the false notion of activating the church in the universal sense, was once again brought to the fore. The term “sponsoring church” became a household word.

B. Many debates were conducted on these issues, and many publications gave the pros and cons of them. Countless sermons were preached on the subjects. Local church bulletins, especially those of churches opposed to centralization, were filled with articles on the “current issues”.

C. By 1955, specially in Texas, and finally throughout the land, a division crystallized. Preachers opposed to centralization and institutionalism had meetings cancelled. Some lost their financial support (including this writer), and many brethren had to “start over again”, forming new congregations. B. C. Goodpasture, editor of the Gospel Advocate, proposed a “quarantine” of the “anti” brethren, and it had its effect!

D. All the brethren knew that the Missionary Society was wrong! So, the promoters of centralization devised a way out, by giving a new name to an old arrangement. But their sponsored cooperatives were human organizations, having the FORM of a congregational eldership for direction, but in reality FUNCTIONING with an organized board of directors over brotherhood projects.

XIII. The Fifties

A. Carl Kertcherside, a student of Dodd, in England, through his publication, Mission Messenger, promoted the so-called “gospel-doctrine distinction” (claimed to be mutually exclusive terms). According to this position, gospel is preached to alien sinners, and doctrine is taught to Christians; gospel cannot be taught, and doctrine can’t be preached. But Jesus didn’t know this (Mark 8:31; 9:31), nor did the apostles (Gal. 1:6 plus Acts 15:1). He was aided by Leroy Garrett, professor in a women’s university in Denton, TX, writing in his publication, Restoration Review. Of the first-day-of-the-week contribution, speaking in disdain, he referred to it as the “Sunday Morning Ripoff”! The rationale employed: we all believe the same gospel, but are diversified in doctrine (opinion, Rom. 14, misapplied).

XIV. The Sixties

A. The decade of rebellion against authority, the “establishment”, the era of Hippies (long hair on men), Flower Children, Beatniks, Jesus People.

This generation was the children of “Rosie the Riveter” (the woman in the factories) of the 2nd World War, raised in great part by “baby-sitters”, a new phenomenon in America’ s history. (Before the War, women were “keepers at home”, and so widespread need for baby-sitters was non-existent).

B. The New Morality made its appearance, and sex-education was advanced. (It really was the old immorality of centuries past, but it was new to our history).C. The New Unity Movement continued to gain ground in the brotherhood. No one was opposed to unity such as is authored by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:3), but the “unity” being advocated was one which sought fellowship with denominational folks, by compromising the truth of the doctrine of Christ.D. The Neo-Reformation Movement among Protestants became a great issue in the brotherhood, this being a movement away from formalism and a return to basic doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, with its resurgence of Calvinism.

E. Neo-Pentecostalism (the charismatic movement) became an issue in the main-line Protestant churches, as well as in the Roman Catholic Church. Bro. Pat Boone, an excellent song-leader in a local church of Christ, along with his white shoes became famous as a professional singer and began making musical movies. When he finally was coaxed to kiss the leading lady in his movies (he wouldn’t do it at first), the act was, according to him, “just make believe”. He became a Pentecostal. His book, “A New Song”, advocated age-old Pentecostal arguments.

XV. The Sixties and Seventies

A. The “Orphan Homes” now became “Children’s Homes”. (It was discovered that virtually none of the children in the “orphanages” were orphans! They had a parent, or parents! The charters were changed so as to change the names of the institutions. “X Orphan Home” now became “X Children’s Home”).B. Neo-pentecostalism broke out in many of the liberal churches. In 1973 there was a shakeup at Highland church in Abilene. E. R. Harper, the preacher there when “Herald of Truth” started, and who along with Bro. Yater Tant conducted the first public debate on the issue, was fired and one of the elders, W. F. Cawyer, resigned. Others later resigned. There was “tongue speaking” in the church! Because of this, many hundreds of churches discontinued their support of “Herald of Truth”.C. The cultism of the Crossroads church, Gainesville, Fl. became a brotherhood issue. Later the “Boston church” surpassed the Gainesville church in the leadership of this movement. “Cell churches”, “house churches”, were devised.

D. Neo-Calvinism was introduced, along with the “New Unity Movement”. Carl Ketcherside pushed the New Unity Movement, using the so-called “gospel/doctrine distinction” as a rationale. Edward Fudge did the same, pressing the Calvinistic doctrine of “the imputation of the perfect life of Christ” as the principle rationale.

E. The Grace-Fellowship issue sprung up, being associated with Edward Fudge‘s pressing of the “imputation” issue. The “umbrella of grace” was presented to cover so-called “sins of ignorance and weakness”. Arnold Hardin,of the Scyene Rd. church in Dallas, TX wrote proliferously, in bulletin after bulletin, promoting this false doctrine.

F. In the early seventies the “Bus Ministry” was becoming popular among churches of Christ, and gimmicks were employed (such as hiding gifts under the “lucky” seat of the bus) to get children to the church buildings, and even to lure children from denominational buses to “Church of Christ buses” . From this even the “children’s church” was organized to keep the unruly children from disturbing the regular assemblies, since the children were present without parental oversight. (Parents were glad to sleep in on Sunday morning while others took their children to church). This fad did not take too long to run its popular course!

G. Individualism, and unstructured church organization and worship, was promoted by Charles Holt through his publication, The Examiner.

XVI. The Eighties and Nineties

• 1. The “expanded role for women” was introduced and pushed. Now there are women filling the pulpits and women elders are beginning to be installed. All this is an avenue to pure, classical modernism. More and more of the Bible is being discarded as the verbally inspired word of God. A young Ph.D., Andre Resner, of Abilene Christian University, in an article entitled, “Christmas at Matthew’s House”, wrote that Mary was a sexually questionable woman, and called Matthew, sneaky! This is pure modernism!2. The Nashville Jubilee (Inc.), which is really from its incipiency a corporation, had its beginning in 1989. Associated with its name in the beginning was the Madison church of Christ, and Rubel Shelley. Max Lucado’s services were employed in the 1994 Jubilee to enhance interest. 10,000 were expected for attendance. Change agents were employed to conduct seminars. The leaders of the Jubilee also have been editors and writers for the publication, “Wineskins”, which promotes a constant barrage on conservatism. Shelley and Lucado appear, along with denominational preachers, in joint services to celebrate such occasions as Easter. The charter of the Nashville Jubilee, Inc. makes no claim to believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, nor is it a local work of a local congregation under its eldership. It is a human, do-good, organization of men, employing sectarian tactics and actitivities on its road to classic modernism. Another publication of note, “Integrity”, with writers from both churches of Christ and Christian Churches, has helped to promote this movement.
  1. John Clayton, an Indiana science teacher in the public school system, and liberal brother, has written much and conducted seminars on the subject. A group of conservative brethren, led by Hill Roberts, all scientists associated with NASA in Huntsville, AL, also conduct seminars and produce literature. Although they present much material combating atheism and theistic evolutionists, they still force the Scriptures to conform to the assumptions called “science” which dates the earth as some 4.5 billion years old, a conclusion drawn, not from the Scriptures, but from the rocks!2. The issue has entered the Spanish-speaking brotherhood through the writings and preacher-training classes that Efraín Pérez, of Chile, presents. This has naturally ignited much controversy and I am presently engaged in exposing the false doctrine of this brother, since he has resisted my studies with him and efforts to save him from error.

A. Many of the “liberal” churches (that is, those supporting the “sponsoring church arrangement”, and the church-support of different institutions, benevolent, and otherwise), found themselves combating “liberalism” (a move toward modernism) among churches Christ!

B. Dec. 1988, “the Nashville meeting”. Hundreds of “institutional” and “non-institutional” brethren met to hear a program of representative speakers on “the issues”, and to ask questions. From the more liberal speakers there emerged a plea for a “new hermeneutics” (a new set of rules for interpreting the Bible). For these ultra-liberals, direct statement, apostolic example, and necessary inference, for establishing authority, can no longer be accepted.

C. The eighties introduced us to the “cultural church”, with its “new hermeneutics” (or, new way of interpreting the Scriptures), all borrowed from the denominations. It was a revolt against biblical authority. “People won’t change, so change the Bible” became the rationale for the promoters of the “new hermeneutic”. “Change Agents” were being produced by means of special training programs for such. Anyone opposing them was accused of the sin of “bibliolatry” (= Bible worship). The Bible was made to conform to culture, and not culture to the Bible.

D. The nineties have seen the “Community Church” phenomenon among churches of Christ. These are churches aspiring to be mega-churches, and accomplish it by surrendering the doctrine of Christ and appealing to the so-called “felt needs” of the people. Market research techniques are employed in the Community Church to learn what the public wants. Here everybody feels good about himself and the doctrine of Christ is virtually unknown.

E. One of the latest issues to erupt is the one called by its proponents, “Progressive Creationism”. Seminars and publications are being employed in order to promote the doctrine of an ancient earth of billions of years of age, which doctrine of course denies the obvious meaning, not only of Genesis chapter 1, but also of a host of other scriptures bearing on the question of God’s creation of the heavens, the sea, the land and all that is in them. The six days of Genesis 1 are said to be, not consecutive 24-hour days, but “creative days”, either very long themselves, or separated by millions of years of time so that the inanimate creation could have enough time develop into its present so-called “formation”, which of course concurs with the assumption of scientists who use the contrived geologic time-table. If Genesis 1 can’t be believed, what else in the Bible is to be rejected? All must bow to the god of “science” (falsely so-called).

Conclusion:

Note how that in nearly every generation issues have arisen and often have reoccurred. So, repeated teaching is necessary for each generation, in order to avoid falling victim to apostasies. All of these “neo”, or new, movements, and doctrines, reflected the rebellion of men against established authority, and opened the door for more and greater departures from the apostolic order of things. Many in the brotherhood are fast on the road to classic modernism.

1. Bottom line: no fear of God (respect for his inspired word). Human wisdom is exalted about divine. See Jas. 3:15-18.2. No restraints (the fruits of humanism), so, little or no discipline in the churches! No sense of personal responsibility; hence a society destroying itself. Since the 2nd World War we have reared three generations of spoiled children, who in each subsequent generation have made matters worse.3. Our business: preach the word, fight the good fight, but above all, make sure that whatever the apostasy, we will be among the remnant!

4. We will either learn from history, or we will repeat it!