Mack Lyon
Glenn B. Ramsey

It may be seen as unimportant or insulting to the "intelligence" of some, but at the very beginning of this wri ting I think it is important to again set forth the principles of fellowship that are given in the New Testament. Please consider again the following passages of Scripture.

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (I John 1:7-9)

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Eph. 5:11)

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nei ther bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (II John 9-11)

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Rom. 16:17)

It would be hard to imagine that otherwise intelligent and faithful Christians could miss in their understanding and in the application of these clear passages of Scripture. But as some have observed, it is one thing to understand a passage and sometimes another thing to actually obey it.

Every good work among God's people should be supported (Titus 3:1). Good works should be supported by faithful Christians even if judgments differ concerning the methods as long as other biblical principles are not voilated. There is no argument against such a conclusion. 'I'he important thing to consider is the question, "What do we mean by 'good works'?" We certainly do not mean works that are done by denominational bodies and workers. While these works are considered good--and may yield "good" results from the standpoint of the world--they do not fall into the category of the context of Titus 3:1. Just as certainly we cannot consider the works done by men who teach false doctrines (by word or deed) within the body of Christ as being good works! If we DO consider certain works wrought by men who (by word or deed) teach false doctrines as good, then the injunctions of Scripture to have no fellowship with such, to mark them, etc., have no meaning at all!

The issue here is FELLOWSHIP!

Brother Mack Lyon is a preacher of many years experience. There is no doubt that good has been done by his efforts. We wish the very best for him as he faithfully follows both in word and deed the will of God. However Brother Lyon has fellowshipped such men as F. LaGard Smith, Steve Flatt and others by being with them on several lectureships. Since he has fellowshipped th ese men he also gives silent consent to any false position they espouse, and he gives consent to those whom they fellowship.¹

As is the case with others, Brother Lyon will say that he has no fellowship with false teachers, and that he is interested only in preaching the Gospel. But his actions betray his words. We would ask, "Why is it that various lectureships and churches who cater to the liberal 'change agents' still invite Brother Lyon to their events?" Do they know something we do not know? Do they know something that Brother Lyon has yet to admit?

Please consider this parable: A man who is known to be a bank robber has two others who accompany him on his crime sprees. One of these men drives the automobile and the other accompanies him when he goes into the bank for the heist. A fourth man knows of these escapades and does not approve of them. This fourth man, however, decides that he will ride with the robbers the next time they plan a bank heist. The fourth man argues against the lead bank robber, aga inst the accomplice and against the driver of the get-away-automobile. But the fourth man rides along with them to the site of the crime. Something goes very wrong for the robbers. The law enforcement officers are waiting. When the crime is committed the robber and his "inside" accomplice are arrested. The driver of the get-away-automobile is arrested. The fourth man, who is still in the automobile awaiting the return of the robbers from the bank, is also arrested. He pleads that he is not guilty but was tr ying to persuade them not to rob the bank. This fourth man argues with the arresting officers that he could not be guilty of this crime because he had told the robbers many times over the past months and years that he did not approve of their actions! Who is the innocent one? Is this fourth man the innocent one?

Can Brother Lyon see this? Can you?

ENDNOTE

¹Brother Lyon appeared on the Pepperdine University lectures in 1991. NOTE: Brother Lyon stated in 1991 that he had no fellowship, partnership, participation or sympathy with Rubel Shelly, Jeff Walling, Randy Mayeaux, or any of that crowd, in any of their false teachings. But in 1998 he appeared with Steve Flatt who has been and still is (as far as anyone knows) in fellowship with all three of these men. On June 6, 1998 Brother Lyon appeared with Steve Flatt and Hardeman Nichols at the Granny White church in Nashville, Tennessee. On March 27, 1999 Brother Lyon appeared with Steve Flatt and Earl Edwards at the Lehman Avenue church in Bowling Green, Kentucky . On September 25, 1999 Brother Lyon participated in a seminar with the Westside church of Christ, Norman Oklahoma. Others who participated were: F. LaGard Smith, Willard Collins, Jeff Jenkins, Hardeman Nichols, and Neil Anderson.

Editorial—William Woodson
Malcolm L. Hill

I have known William Woodson for many years. One could not say we have been close friends, but I have thought we were friends. I do not count Brother William an enemy even though we differ greatly on the theme of Christian fellowship. We do not disagree nearly so much on the Bible teaching of Christian fellowship as much as we do the practice of it. Brother Woodson believes he can appear on programs with Rubel Shelly's kind knowingly and intentionally without rebuking these people and still be pleasing to God. He goes over the country talking about change agents and then turns right around and fellowships them. He, in reality, believes and practices open fellowship though he would deny this strongly. But I am going to prove this to be true in this article.

Woodson taught at David Lipscomb University for a number of years with some of the rankest liberals in our brotherhood. Did he oppose them? Who knows? Someone may say he did in a private way. If he did, let him tell us who and when. Opposing the liberals he was associated with at Lipscomb in private is not enough. There comes a time when we must rebuke before all as Paul did Peter (Gal. 2:11-15). If he had been the president of David Lipscomb University for a number of years and these false teachers had been on the staff, could he have dealt with them privately while retaining them without sin? It is just this plain. Can a faithful Christian man be the president of a Christian University and permit false teachers to stay on the staff and teach false doctrine? Many are quick to say, "No!" Then how could a Christian work with false teachers in a University setting without opposing them both in private and in public? It seems to me that being a Christian is more important than being a president of a University. Is it a sin to teach at a University where false doctrine is taught? Certainly not. Sin takes place when we refuse to take a stand for the truth and c ontend for it (Jude 3). A Christian is under obligation to stand openly and in private for Bible truth. He may lose his job. He may not be very popular. He may be considered an agitator. He may be considered a troublemaker. He may be considered an ignoran t person. He may be considered an extremist. He may be considered a number of things, but what does this have to do with standing up for Jesus and His Word? Was Brother Woodson guilty of lockjaw in his work at David Lipscomb University with reference to some of his colleagues who were false teachers of the worst sort? Even the Catholic Martin Luther could not stay quiet under like circumstances. His ninety-five theses which were nailed on the churchhouse door at Wittenburg, Germany contained those things Lu ther deemed wrong with the clergy and the church. Where is Brother William Woodson\rquote s opposition to the false teachers at David Lipscomb University while he was a teacher there? Brother Woodson, we would like to see them.

Woodson has fellowshipped Marlin Connelly at the 1999 East Tennessee School of Preaching lectures. Brother Connelly was a three-time Nashville Jubilee speaker with such liberals as Paul Faulkner, Lynn Anderson, Harold Hazelip, Joe Beam, Royce Money, Steve Flatt, Prentice Meador, Willard Tate, Larry West, Tex Williams, Phillip Morrison, Rubel Shelly, Mike Cope, F. LaGard Smith, Wayne Kilpatrick, and many others like them.

Brother William Woodson has himself fellowshipped the liberals. For example, he had been on the Freed-Hardeman University lectures with such liberals as J. J. Turner, Basil Overton, Cecil May, Jr., Jack P. Lewis, Bill Flatt, Dan Winkler, Paul Brown, Bruce McLarty, John Dale, Jerry Jenkins, Keith Parker, Clarence Deloach, Hardeman Nichols, Bert Thompson, Glen McDoniel, Ellis Coats, and many others who could be cited. There is no way he could uphold this practice as scriptural. If he thinks he can, then here is my invitation for him to do so. Brother Woodson, I would be ashamed to practice something I would not defend. You say that Brother Gus Nichols is your mentor and I know and you know that Brother Nichols would accept an invitation like this.

Brother William Woodson does not practice what he writes. In his book Change Agents and Churches of Christ he writes powerfully about Rubel Shelly in particular fellowshipping the denominations. In the introduction of his book I found some fascinating things said by Woodson that pertain to Christian fellowship. Woodson gets after Brother Shelly about worshipi ng and fellowshipping with the Christian church, the Baptist church, the Methodist church, and the Presbyterian church. Brother Woodson rightfully gets afer Carroll Osburn who suggests that we should find room for fellowship with the premillennialist, those who differ with the Bible on church governrnent, and those who do not believe water baptism is for the remission of sins (see Change Agents and Churches of Christ by William Woodson, pp. 18-19). While Woodson condemns Rubel Shelly and Carroll Osburn for their unscriptural fellowship, look at what he does. Brother Woodson fellowshipped Brother Marlin Connelly (a three-time Nashville Jubilee speaker) at the East Tennessee School of Preaching Lectures in 2000. Woodson condemned Shelly for having fellowship with the denominations but he had fellowship with F. LaGard Smith at the Freed-Hardeman lectures in 1996. Smith believes hell is not eternal and that one might be saved without water baptism. Yes, William Woodson knew about this when he spoke on the lectures with F. LaGard Smith! Woodson condemns Rubel Shelly for fellowshipping the denominations but Brother William fellowships Basil Overton all the time on lectureship programs. Basil has been a part of inviting such liberals as J.J. Turner, Charles Hodge, David Lane, Hardeman Nichols, J im Bill McInteer (a popular Nashville Jubilee speaker), F. LaGard Smith, Jeff Walling, and a number of others like these to be on the lectures at International Bible College. Yes, Woodson knows about this.

Brother William Woodson was very much opposed to John Mark Hicks in 1992 when he (Woodson) met Hicks and Rubel Shelly at the Preachers' Forum at Harding Graduate School in Memphis, Tennessee. But BrotherWoodson was on the lectures with John Mark Hicks at Freed-Hardeman University in 1994, thus fellowshipping him. Hicks has not repented or changed his views since Brother Woodson met him in the mentioned discussion of 1992. Hicks has gotten worse instead of better along the way. I am about to decide that with Brother William Woodson it is not a matter of Bible teaching on fellowship but whose ox is being gored. Maybe I could say it better by saying whose lectures and friendship might he cut off by doing right about Christian fellowship. I stand ready to meet Brother Woodson in a public discussion on Christian fellowship and what he has practiced. I could write a book on the false teachers brother Woodson has fellowshipped and they are many. He has not had fellowship with Rubel Shelly in a long time. You see, Brother Shelly is tied to Brother Woodson's whipping post.

Brother William Woodson was on our lectureship program at Tennessee Bible College in 1992 which was prior to the death of Brother J. Noel Merideth. Brother Woodson had differed with Brother Merideth on a matter. Brother Woodson told me that had he known that Brother Merideth was going to be on the Tennessee Bible College lectures of that year he (Woodson) would not have come. You see, Brother Woodson knows what fellowship is if he differs strongly enough with the opposition but if he wants to be on a lectureship program he treats Christian fellowship on salvation issues as a matter of choice or opinion. This is bad thinking, Brother Woodson.

Brother William Woodson might as well get ready for us. We are not going to roll over and play dead with his kind. Oh yes, Tennessee Bible College is a source for the cause of Christ to be reckoned with along with a sizeable number of God\rquote s faithful people. We are not writing out of a weak position but from a position of strength. Many have written and told us they are with the College as we stand for truth and right. Financial support in most cases is there if we will stay faithful to the Lord\rquote s cause. We are not antis or liberals. We are not compromisers trying to please all sides. We intend to go where the Bible leads us and stand for Jesus Christ and His Gospel regardless the cost.

The fence-straddlers and liberals have tried to ignore us to this point of time. For their inability to give a Bible answer they have tried to label Tennessee Bible College with certain labels. This has not worked for them but has given us strength. I have been preaching for forty-seven years and no one can point out where I have gone astray at any time in Bible teaching. I have fought with all my power antism, liberalism, modernism, sectarianism, and every other "ism" that I have known to be against the Bible. The brethren these days are easy to whip in a spiritual battle because they refuse to fight. So we will just keep on keeping on exposing the error in the Lord's church until there is repentance or until those who are not with us will go out from among us (I John 2:19). My prayer is that they will repent and do God's will.

Basil Overton
Ronald D. Gilbert

What does the Bible teach concerning fellowship? Among the many passages consider the following: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17). "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph. 5:11). "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not in to your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (II John 9-11). Can men today set aside these passages with God's approval? Are we at liberty to obey only the Bible doctrines that we agree with or t hat we find easy to practice? Many today demand that those in the denominational world follow what the Bible teaches concerning baptism but they themselves will not follow what the New Testament teaches concerning fellowship.

A careful study of almost any preacher's life, whether in or out of the Lord's church, might reveal that some good is done by that person. However, a Gospel preacher's influence for good can be hurt by that person fellowshipping, working with, encouraging, and endorsing false brethren. This is the case with Brother Basil Overton. Let me state clearly that I have no ill will toward brother Overton. This article is not written out of anger or hard feelings toward him. To my knowledge I have never met Basil Overton nor have I ever corresp onded with him. As I travel and visit with various churches his name comes up and often I am asked if I know him and if he is a sound, faithful Gospel preacher.

For the past several years Basil Overton has worked closely with International Bible College (now known as Heritage Christian University). I believe brother Overton still serves as Vice President at IBC. Should the brotherhood hold our college presidents and vice presidents accountable for bringing in false teachers to speak at their institutions? When confronted with this problem some will say, "Well, you just can't keep up with everyone and everything." So, many of these brethren have decided to "keep up with nothing and no one." Such seems to be the case with Brother Overton and his co-worker at IBC, Dennis Jones, who serves as President at IBC. In 1996 IBC's lectureship theme was "Striking the Balance." In an advertisement for their lectureship, Dennis Jones wrote, "Dear Christian friend, Elitism has always been a problem. The brotherhood is suffe ring tremendously from it today. Those on the radical right seem to think they are the only ones who are sound. Many of them have become professional faultfinders and filekeepers. . ." I must confess I am a "filekeeper" and I would like to share some of my files concerning some of the speakers at IBC during the past few years. Perhaps his idea of balance is to try having the same number of "liberals" as "faithful" brethren. Among the speakers on the 1996 "Striking the Balance" lectureship at IBC were: Willard Collins, Willie Franklin, Jimmy Jividen, Jim Bill McInteer, Harold Taylor, and Charles Hodge. Those who keep files will recognize the above men, some of which are Jubilee speakers, others Hartland speakers, Harding University speakers and Red River Enc am pment speakers. Perhaps if Brother Jones would keep files he would not have spoken on the Red River Encampment in 1997 with Joe Beam, who believes the Holy Spirit talks with him, and also Willard Tate, who has appeared at Pepperdine in 1995 with Max Lucad o, Edward Fudge, Randy Harris, and Rubel Shelly. 1997 IBC speakers included: Willie Franklin, Everett Ferguson (professor at Abilene Christian), Charles Hodge, and David Lane. The 1998 IBC speakers included: Harold Taylor, David Lane, F. LaGard Smith, Fre d McClure, and Jimmy Sites. The 1999 IBC list of speakers included Jerrie Barber (Jubilee speaker), Harold Taylor, and Jack Evans (false teacher on marriage, divorce, and remarriage). Evans teaches that non-Christians are in darkness and if at the time of t heir baptism they are living in adultery they may remain in that marriage after their baptism.

In 1997 Basil Overton spoke at the Lipscomb lectures. Speaking on that program with Brother Overton were Steve Flatt, Randy Becton, Walt Leaver, Harold Hazelip, and Bruce White. By the way, these names have more significance to those of us who keep files! Did Brother Overton speak out against those false teachers with whom he appeared? If so, let someone produce the evidence. In 1997 the 37^th Annual Training for Service series in Chattanooga, Tennessee, had these speakers: Willie Franklin, John Dale, Basil Overton, David Newberry, Billy Ringgold, Gordon Smith, and Bruce White. Willie Franklin and Bruce White are Jubilee speakers. Gordon Smith met Glenn B. Ramsey, Vice President here at TBC, in a public debate in Cookeville, Tennessee, in 1988. Smith took the position that Matthew 18:15-17 applied to false teachers and that one must go to them personally before stating they were false teachers (for copies of this deb ate contact TBC).

Has anyone ever complained to IBC about the false brethren regularly speaking on their programs? In 1994 Holger Neubauer had the opportunity to meet with the IBC faculty. He gave them information about many of the false brethren they conti nue to use (the reader is also encouraged to read brother Neubauer's article concerning IBC in the Living Oracles, October/November, 1999, Vol. 9, Number 10, p. 8).

The 1995 IBC lectureship had the late G.P. Holt speaking on that program. G.P. Holt was a false teacher on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. He believed that those outside of Christ are not subject to God's marriage laws. Charles Hodge also appeared on that same lectureship. Hodge was then serving as staff writer for the digressive magazine, IMAGE.

Does the Bible mean what it says concerning the doctrine of fellowship? Can men and schools set aside the Bible doctrine of fellowship so that men can appear on programs with false brethren without rebuking them even though the Bible condemns such? Do faithful brethren have the right and obligation to call on these brethren to repent and warn the brotherhood concerning these digressions? How long will men like Brother Basil Overton continue to claim on the one hand to be faithful to the Lord while on the other hand fellowshiping, endorsing, condoning, and supporting false teachers such as those men who consistently appear on the IBC lectureship program? Will these men continue to be silent concerning these matters?

I wish we could get Basil Overton and other faculty members at IBC to meet with some of the faculty members here at TBC and discuss these matters concerning fellowship. It is obvious someone is off a country mile concerning the biblical doctrine of fellow ship. Is it us here at TBC? If so, why doesn\rquote t someone or some group or men from the schools who are inviting these men into their lectureships agree to meet with us and discuss publicly these matters?

We who love the Lord and respect what He taught on fellowship will continue to hold presidents and vice presidents of our Christian Colleges like Dennis Jones and Basil Overton accountable for the promotion of false brethren.

Dave Miller
Holger W. Neubauer

Though Simon Peter was a key figure in the early church, taking the role of apostle, elder, and preacher, he found himself in a fellowship controversy with the apostle Paul that needed correcting. Consequently, Paul rebuked Peter publicly for his part in the dissimulation (Gal. 2:11-14). Paul followed his own inspired admonition in Ephesians 5 :11 which said to "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Paul had the courage to reprove Peter publicly because Peter\rquote s sin was public and he would not work openly with Peter until Peter had repented. If those w ho are in position to do the same today did so, much of the hypocrisy concerning the fellowship issue facing the present church would be taken care of. Had Brother Dave Miller done as Paul did with Peter on the many occasions he has appeared with known fa lse teachers, we would have no controversy with him.

Dave Miller is the present Director of the Brown Trail School of Preaching which is located in Bedford, Texas. Brother Miller has had partnership with many liberal venues over the years. In 1995, Dave Miller worked with the International Bible College Lectureship. The same year's lectureship included Willie Franklin who earlier that same year was a Jubilee participant. Jay Lockhart participated on the 1995 IBC lectureship and believes that "God never required an individual to live a celibate life" and "God never required anyone to break up a marriage." Jay Lockhart participated with Joe Beam on the Red River encampment in New Mexico. Charles Hodge, who denies the authority of elders and called Max Lucado "the best religious writer in the world" was also on the 1995 IBC Lectureship. Brother Miller went back to IBC in 1996 and spoke with the false teacher David Lane, who believes those outside of Christ are not amenable to God's marriage laws. Gary Bradley spoke on the 1996 IBC Lectureship and was a participant in the 1993 Jubilee. Why did not Brother Miller protest publicly about these things? He certainly believes that men who teach false doctrine ought to be marked and avoided. In Brother Miller's book Piloting the Strait, a section dealing with false teachers says:

Rather than being duly noted and avoided (Rom. 6:17), they continue to operate freely and even function in influential capacities (e.g. staff writers for publishing companies and magazines). They are given latitude to voice their false ideas through major brotherhood publications. They continue to be used as guest speakers in pulpits and on lectureship platforms. We no longer call for repentance as John did (Matt. 3:7,8). (p. 505)

If Brother Miller had followed his own advice he would have called more than a dozen men to repentance before or while appearing on lectureship programs with them. Perhaps one of the greatest inconsistencies Brother Miller has been involved in is his appearance with Everett Ferguson on the 1997 IBC Lectureship. That very year Brother Miller reviewed Ferguson's book at the Spiritual Sword Lectureship in Memphis. Now, if brother Ferguson needed to be exposed in Memphis in October, why did he not expose him in September in Florence? Brother Miller had this to say about Ferguson's book, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today:

Secondly, the book comes forth from an institutional environment that would seem to be an unlikely source for clear thinking about Bible teaching related to the church of Christ. We should be grateful for every university professor who remains true to the "old paths" even though surrounded by wholesale abandonment of Bible truth. No assumptions should be made about a person's faithfulness simply because he or she remains in such an environment. Nevertheless, the favorable allusion to academic colleagues (whose doctrinal soundness has been seriously questioned) in the Preface creates the impression that disagreement over doctrine as it relates to the church should not be allowed to disrupt fellowship.

This is an understatement. Brother Ferguson is professor emeritus at Abilene Christian University. Ferguson has participated with the so-called "Christian Scholar's Conference" at least five times; the last appearance was in 1996. 1996 was also the last time Ferguson appeared at the ACU Lectureship. How could Brother Ferguson possibly be obeying Ephesians 5:11 if he is a regular speaker at the programs where heretics most often frequent? Why does Brother Miller even bother to write up Ferguson if "no assumptions should be made about a person's faithfulness simply because he or she remains in such an environment"? Brother Miller criticizes brother Ferguson for those whom he chooses to commend his book. This criticism is just, but Brother Miller does not tell us that Ferguson is commended by Baptist W. R. Estep and the ACU Press. However, is not an implicit commendation made toward ACU and the Christian Scholar's Conference by Ferguson's not reproving them? Brother Miller partners with Ferguson at IBC by working with him on that program and by not saying one thing about Ferguson. However, Brother Miller already prepared his manuscript for the Spiritual Sword Lectures in which he would rebuke Ferguson for those Ferguson recruited to commend his book. Is this not hypocritical? Brother Miller needs to learn that fellowship is not open-ended. If Ferguson was wrong for receiving recommendations from false teachers, then Miller was wrong himself for not repr oving Ferguson of the same error when he participated with him at the liberal IBC lectureship.

Having perused Brother Ferguson's book myself, I find it significant that Miller said nothing about Ferguson's errant statement concerning baptism where Ferguson confuses water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism as one and the same. Ferguson on page 193 says, "To be dipped in the baptismal water is to be dipped in the Spirit." This is false doctrine. On page 403, Ferguson says, "Paul in I Corinthians 1:13-17 protests against any view of baptism which would make it a badge of distinction among Christians instead of a unifying act." Ferguson is involved in double-talk. Of course baptism is a "badge of distinction." Of course New Testament baptism separates the world from Christ and is also a source of controversy and division for those who will not obey the truth (Rom. 9:33; Matt. 15:12-13). Ferguson leaves the impression that the Holy Spirit still gives gifts today. Notice this quote on page 407: "There is one spirit, who unites all in baptism (I Cor. 12:13), gives gifts (I Cor. 12:4), and seeks to fill believers (Eph. 5:18)." No, Brother Ferguson, the Holy Spirit does not give those gifts today. Why did not brother Miller bring these and many more points of error to the light when his assignment was to review Ferguson's work at the Spiritual Sword Lectureship? Miller said too little about Ferguson in Memphis, and he failed to say anything about him in Florence when he participated on the same program with him. He should have at least said what he said in Memphis. The legs of the lame are not equal.

This material is presented with no ill will but only with the desire that all brethren will speak the same things in every venue they find themselves. If a man deserves public r ebuke 100 miles away from his face, he also deserves it "face to face."

A Review of Dan Winkler's Sermon "Are You a Pharisee?"
Kerry Duke

A number of preachers who recognize and even preach against liberalism nevertheless seem determined to maintain the favor of liberal brethren. They appear on various lectureships with them, but they do not voice their clear opposition to such brethren. Now some of them defend such activity. A case in point is Brother Dan Winkler. I began to notice his name advertised on lectureships with false teachers several years ago. For instance, at the 1998 Ohio Valley College lectures he worked with Larry West (a participant in such liberal programs as the Tulsa Soul-Winning Workshop, Nashville Jubilee, etc.), Tom Olbricht (a leading liberal at Pepperdine University), Bob Brown (of the very liberal North Atlanta congregation), and others. In 1998 he also spoke at Faulkner University with Jack Evans, a known false teacher on divorce and remarriage. He spoke at the 2000 lectures at International Bible College, a school which has hosted numerous false teachers for years, and which that year had at least two men who had appeared on the Nashville Jubilee. Recently I received an advertisement in which he worked in a seminar with Jerrie Barber, who has spoken at the Jubilee and also at the 1999 IBC lectures with such people as F. LaGard Smith and Jack Evans. There are other such examples, but these demonstrate the point. Brother Winkler is accepted by these people. If, when invited to these lectureships, he were to clearly point out the error of fellow participants in the program, his days of circulating among such liberal programs would soon end. But Brother Dan gets along fine with these people and has recently defended his practice of working in such liberal efforts.

"Are You a Pharisee?" is a sermon brother Dan preached on this subject. It is a scorching rebuke to those who would criticize him for speaking on programs with liberals. He compares them to the calloused, hypocritical Pharisees of Jesus' day. Specifically, he speaks of the great "harm" done to the church by calling names. He admits that:

It is true that Paul did call individuals by name: Alexander, Hymenaeus, Philetus, and so forth. But this is something that I have found extremely interesting. By and large when the apostle Paul was dealing with error in a, from a, public platform, if a letter was being sent to a congregation or a group of congregations, he dealt in the generic. . .Individual names, for the most part, were not singled out. When he wrote to individual Christians, in specific fellow preachers—First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus—then he would mention names. And I suggest this for your consideration: When it comes to a public platform, be it the pulpit of a local church, the bulletin of a local congregation, periodicals of our brethren, we need to deal with precept and principle and keep personalities out of it. And one-on-one, when we discuss various matters of concern, it would be more appropriate then to invite personalities into the conversation if the need calls for it.

Does Brother Dan propose this model as advice? If so, then we will treat it as his opinion. Does he propose it as an exclusive pattern in calling names? If so, the model faces serious inconsistencies. He says that Paul "by and large" and "for the most part" did not single out names in epistles to churches. This language means that he did not always follow Brother Dan's model. Paul did single out Euodias and Syntyche in Philippians 4:2. He "wrote up" Peter and Barnabas in a letter that was sent to congregations throughout Galatia (Gal. 2:11-14). Therefore, this theory cannot be an exclusive pattern, and if Dan tries to bind it on others, he is binding where God did not!

Brother Dan's parallel to Paul's letters to individuals will not work. "All his epistles" (II Pet. 3:16) were soon publicly circulated documents in the first century! Paul wrote the names of false teachers to Timothy, an individual, but this writing was open for the whole church and eventually for the whole world to see! Paul thus called names in a "public platform" of the church!

A preacher can certainly put such an emphasis on calling so many names so often that he obscures the emphasis on the principles and on the facts. He can become extreme in name-calling. But to forbid the calling of names in public is also extreme and unbiblical.

Brother Dan also called for:

No more guilt by association. So-and-so was on a lectureship with such-and-such and now so-an-so is to be branded. Ever heard that before? I know you have. Jesus ate with the publicans and the Pharisees, the publicans and the sinners...As far as guilt by association was concerned, Jesus was no better off than the publican and the sinner...Paul went up to Mars Hill and he engaged in a debate with the Epicureans and the Stoic philosophers. No, he didn't cater to their falsehood, to their atheism and fatalism. No, he preached the truth! Yes, but he was still on the same program! Did that make him an atheist? He was on the same program. Was he a fatalist? He was on the same program. He went into the synagogue of Thessalonica as was his custom. He would go into a city and he would step into the synagogue of the Jews and he would preach Jesus the Christ. Does that mean he reverted back to Judaism? No. But he was there with the Jews. He went to their church building. He was a part of their worship service! He preached the truth, yes, but the was there! Guilt by association?...association is not equivalent to cooperation. Association is not equivalent to capitulation. It is not! We must come to grips with that! Because one brother is on a program somewhere with another brother that has disappointed us does not taint this first brother's reputation or his soundness before God! No more guilt by association!

Brother Dan uses the wrong phrase to describe his activities. The problem is not "guilt by association" but "guilt by participation," specifically joint participation in a mutual effort such as a lectureship with false teachers, together with a refusal to speak against and thus oppose the false doctrine and false teachers involved. It is the sin of being a coworker with evildoers. (See "Is Silence Golden?" in the February 2001 Living Oracles for a further explanation.)

Brother Dan appeals to Jesus' eating with publicans and sinners. But Jesus said he came to call sinners to repentance (Matt. 9:14). Did Dan call the brethren at OVC, Faulkner, and IBC to repentance? He appeals to Paul's preaching at Mars Hill. He said Paul debated the philosophers there. Did Dan debate or contend with the compromising brethren he has worked with? He appeals to Paul's teaching in the synagogue at Thessalonica. He rightly says that Paul addressed the very thing on which they disagreed: that Jesus was Christ. Did Dan address the false doctrines of Tom Olbricht on the New Hermeneutic, which doctrines he says he opposes, when he spoke at OVC? Paul encountered serious opposition at Thessalonica and at Athens. If Dan were to address the liberalism at some of the places he goes, he would not leave these places with warm acceptance. I pray that he will begin to speak out at these places against these compromising, liberal brethren and follow the footsteps of the persecuted apostle Paul.

Brother Dan speaks of being on a program with "a brother that has disappointed us." Like others who wish to defend the practice under review, he uses evasive, watered-down language. Surely he knows that these brethren have not merely "disappointed us"! Why will he not face what they are--false teachers and compromisers?

Does Brother Dan believe he has any obligation to speak against the liberals with whom he appears on lectureships? Suppose he were invited to speak on the Nashville Jubilee. Could he scripturally do so without speaking out against their liberalism? Could he go and simply teach a non-confrontational lesson on benevolence? What if he were asked to preach at a Catholic church? Could he rightly go and preach on a topic Catholics would accept—such as abortion—and not let those present know that he was in disagreement with Catholicism?

In his sermon he scoffs at the adage, "It's not what he says--it's what he doesn't say--that bothers me." He says in response, "That could be the greatest compliment anybody ever said to you." This statement reveals his thinking on the matter of working with liberals on programs perhaps more than anything else he said in the sermon.

Another dodge typical of some brethren is a misuse of Matthew 18:15. Brother Dan exhorts, "If you have ought against your brother, talk to him! If your brother sins against you, talk to him! Don't just. . .write him up in a bulletin, put his name in a periodical. . ." Jesus is not teaching us how to deal with public error in this passage. He is giving instructions concerning personal offences. Brother Dan does not practice his own interpretation of Matthew 18:15.

In regard to attitude, Brother Dan condemns a brother for being "crusty, hard, and calloused in his treatment of others." He exhorts, "Draw the line biblically, but be kind." Yet after raking over the coals brethren who disagree with him, he adds, "God wants spiritual fruit, not religious nuts." Is calling people "nuts" his idea of kindness?

We will never be popular when we say what needs to be said. Preachers need to apply this truth to themselves. Paul said,"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" (Gal. 4:16). A number of preachers who speak at lectureships with liberals know the problems that exist. Instead of speaking in such general terms that they are praised by liberals, they ought to speak boldly against the wrong and bear the reproach of Christ.

Wayne Jackson
David Hill

Brother Wayne Jackson of Stockton, California is a respected writer and has been used widely as a speaker for many years. I have appreciated his work and found his research useful in my Bible study. But, Brother Jackson is just a man as am I. Not everything that he writes should be swallowed hook, line and sinker. I am not asking that you do such with my writing or the writings in this good journal. Rather, examine the evidence and check its validity to make a correct decision. God wants nothing more or less (I John 4:1).

In 1998 brother Jackson reviewed the book by F. LaGard Smith entitled Who is My Brother? with the review paper entitled "A Friendly Review of LaGard Smith's New Book Who Is My Brother?" The review was quite friendly to Brother Smith, but not nice at all to a group of Christians in Cookeville, Tennessee.

In the review Brother Jackson accurately points out Smith's error in extending fellowship (or at least leaving the door open to) extending fellowship to those in an unscriptural marriage, divorce and remarriage situation (pp. 2, 15). He further notes the weakness in the suggestion by Smith that fellowship may be extended to folks who believe "premillennialism, or tongue-speaking, or worship liturgy." It was through the work of Brother Jackson that I first became acquainted with LaGard Smith's false view of the annihilation of the soul in hell or the lack of eternal, conscious punishment which is in direct opposition to the words of our Lord (Matt. 25:46). Brother Smith presented his view in April 1988 in a lecture at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California. Brother Smith has not given up that view because he clearly stated in the presence of this writer and others in 1996 at Freed-Hardeman University that if he ever did change his mind he would write for all to see. Brother Smith is wrong in his presentation of God's sovereignty in the changing of His (God' s) mind on direct commands like baptism for the remission of sins, and he has apparently sinned repeatedly by worshiping with an instrumental group at Ashton-under-Hill while in England and by fellowship with Jewish Christians still practicing things found in the old law like observing the passover feast (Gal. 5:4, Col. 3:17). All the above is clearly pointed out by Brother Jackson in his review. Brother LaGard Smith is a false and dangerous teacher on many fronts. At best he is very confused and Brother Jackson acknowledged this to a degree, but when LaGard Smith was invited to Cookeville, Tennessee to speak at the Jefferson Avenue Church of Christ, October 6-8, 1996, faithful brethren including two elderships exhibited "stupid conduct" according to Jackson (p. 13). Why were they stupid? Because after much prayer and requesting a private meeting with the elders and Smith at Jefferson Avenue, individual letter writing, and begging them not to bring LaGard Smith, a false teacher, into a very confused and already troubled situation, it was viewed as the only course of action to inform all of Smith's views so that they might make an informed decision. Furthermore, as shepherds two elderships wanted members of the body of Christ and the world to know that brother Smith's views did not reflect clear Bible teaching or Christ's church. By the way, this ad represented many others who were either afraid or for some reason did not want their names published in the newspaper and is available for copy. Brother Jackson called them stupid and admitted on page 14 that he had not even seen the ad. The Proverb says: "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" (Prov. 18:13). Did these elders and Christians commit sin? What about calling your brother stupid in light of II John 9-11 and Romans 16:17 as well as many other passages?

Were the elders at the East Hill congregation in Pulaski, Tennessee exhibiting stupid conduct when they ran ads in the Nashville Tennessean opposing Rubel Shelly and Woodmont Hills' participation with the Billy Graham Campaign in the Summer of 2000? Did faithful brethren do wrong in Abilene, Texas a few years ago when they opposed by ads in the newspaper the false teaching and practices at Abilene Christian University? Why were the Christians in Cookeville so " stupid"? Perhaps Brother Jackson was relying on the jaundiced eye of his esteemed friend and longtime associate Dr. Bert Thompson who has defended Jefferson Avenue for years even though they have hosted programs like Accapella Vocal Band in 1988, announced and supported Steve Flatt's meetings numerous times, hauled their youth to hear false teachers like Jeff Walling, Don McLaughlin, and many others on programs such as Uplift, Southside Youth Rally, Hopkinsville, Kentucky and many other places. It was just a few years ago that they turned their pulpit over to a nonbeliever to teach and preach on the subject of "Financial Peace." Might that be considered extreme? Brother Jackson does not dare question the sincerity of Brother Smith. What about the brethren in Cookeville? With Jackson it would appear that it is a matter of whose ox is doing the goring. Or should the poor Christians of Cookeville get Brother Jackson's approval or one of his buddies before they act in defense of the truth?

Brother Jackson has fellowshipped men like LaGard Smith, appearing in the same lecture hall just before brother Smith at FHU in 1996; John Dale, of Murray, Kentucky, who fellowshipped the Roman Catholics at their Jubilee on March 26, 2000; Marlin Connelly, a three-time Nashville Jubilee speaker; Jim Bill McInteer, speaker and supporter of Jubilee; C. Philip Slate, retired Harding Graduate School instructor; Jack Evans, President of Southwestern Christian College, who teaches the same error on marriage, divorce and remarriage that he (Brother Jackson) dealt with in his paper critiquing Who Is My Brother? He has been challenged on these points before, yet he has given no public answer. Why? Brother Jackson questions how broad LaGard Smith's fellowship extends, but one wonders how broad Jackson's is. It was our Brother Jackson who wrote in the Spiritual Sword (October 2000, Vol. 32, No. 1, p. 39), "One gets to be like who he 'runs with.'" Could this happen to our dear talented brother?

He is on record for many years as advocating the practice of a woman wearing a covering (doily) on her head in worship. Yet he has appeared with those listed above and in worship settings with no one practicing what he preaches on the covering. Is the practice right or wrong? The church that he defends by his criticism of faithful brethren in Cookeville would laugh his practice of the covering to scorn. It seems a dangerous prospect to try and saddle two horses heading in opposite directions. Maybe it's just all academic. Away with such extremism!

Finally we ask a question: Is one an extremist because he/she questions men like Wayne Jackson? I'm pleading with Brother Jackson to meet me and many others in the middle of God's Word and let's stand together in this most critical of times for the Lord's church. The salvation of many may depend upon it. I am afraid that, with some, opposing false teaching is only "middle of the road" when select ones of the fraternity choose to do so, and good judgment depends on who your pal is. Let's leave off the politics and cronyism and fight the enemy together. Make no mistake about it, the problem facing the Lord's people today is fellowship, and it is past time for the faithful to make a stand. "How long halt ye between two opinions?" (I Kings 18:21).

Dennis Jones
Malcolm L. Hill

Dennis Jones has served as President of International Bible College (now Heritage Christian University) since the death of Charles Coil. Those who know about them know that they are located in Florence, Alabama. The school was actually started in 1968 by Malcolm Hill under the name of Southeastern College of the Bible. This is known by a host of people in that area. The same mailing permit is used today as was obtained by Brother Hill in 1968 and they first used the building that the Eastwood church of Christ, for the greater part, erected with Brother Hill serving as the overseer. He led in raising funds and obtaining the property for the campus at that time from Sister Inez Alexander. Many have wondered why they have not told the full story of this school's beginning.

For years International Bible College has been unsolid in the faith. They had internal teaching that was not sound Gospel some years back. While they want to leave the impression that they are sound, solid, and balanced nothing could be further from the truth. They will use whom they please when they please as long as they can get by with it. I have in my files many of the speakers they have used in days gone by. They are just like the other liberal universities among us when it comes to the people they use. Their students for the greater part come out of school with very little knowledge of what is going on in the brotherhood and they are weak in the faith of the Gospel. The reason this is so is because of the diet they are fed when in school there and the disposition of the teachers of the institution. Most of them remind those who know about them of the ten spies who came back to God's people and said, "We cannot take the land." Their teachers do not have the courage to stand up and debate and this rubs off on the student body.

Dennis Jones and Basil Overton have invited many wolves in sheep's clothing to be on their lectures. They continue to make a practice of this. The history of International Bible College has a record of inviting different unfaithful preachers. They invited Haskell Sparks some time back who is now in denominationalism. They invited Joe Van Dyke who is now in full fellowship with the Methodists and Baptists. They have had Philip Slate, a liberal who used to be at Harding Graduate School. They have had Jack Evans who believes one can live in adultery and still go to heaven. They have had F. LaGard Smith who believes one may go to heaven without being baptized and he does not believe hell is eternal. They have used Jerrie Barber, a Nashville Jubilee speaker who has also appeared on other liberal workshops and lectureships. They have used Gary Bradley, a Nashville Jubilee speaker. They have used Willie Franklin, a Nashville Jubilee speaker. They have used Jim Bill McInteer, a several-time Jubilee speaker. They have used Charles Hodge who took the Lord's Supper with a group of liberals on a Saturday. They have used Jeff Walling, who wants to throw the calf rope around all the denominations and pull them into our fellowship. Who has done this? International Bible College. Who is its President? Dennis Jones. Who is its Vice-President? Basil Overton.

To those who care and love the Lord this material will mean something. To those who have little respect for the authority of the Bible, it will not mean much. The choice is before you. You must make a decision to stand with Christ or against Christ (Matt. 12:30). Which will it be?

"The" Antichrist?
Kerry Duke

The idea of a single and thoroughly evil world leader near the end of time called "the Antichrist" is a popular, though unbiblical, belief. I have often stressed that the Bible speaks of "antichrists" or "an antichrist" but not "the Antichrist." After making this remark in a sermon, I was surprised to be approached by a brother who denied this claim. He showed me the New King James Version rendering of I John 2:18: "Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour."

Both the King James and American Standard Versions have "antichrist" in the first part of the verse. The New International Version drops the capital and reads "the antichrist," while the Contemporary English Version reads "the enemy of Christ." The Living New Testament also has "the Antichrist." The New English Bible has "Antichrist," while the New Revised Standard Version has "antichrist." The major Greek texts also differ. The Textus Receptus has the definite article (ho antichristos), while the United Bible Societies and Nestle Greek texts have simply antichristos.

In the English language we have the definite article the and the indefinite article a or an. But biblical Greek, like other modern languages such as Russian, has no indefinite article. And what is strange to those unfamiliar with Greek is that sometimes even when the definite article is used with a noun in Greek, it is not to be translated with the English definite article the. For instance, the Greek definite article (ho, he, to) is sometimes used before proper nouns: ton Petron ("the" Peter - Acts 2:37), ho Ioannes ("the" John - Matt. 3:4), he Iesous ("the" Jesus - John 3:22). Yet we simply translate these "Peter," "John," and "Jesus." The Greek definite article is also sometimes used before abstract nouns, as in Titus 2:2: te pistei ("the" faith), te agape ("the" love), te hupamone ("the" patience). Yet we rightly translate these "faith," "love," and "patience" in this passage. Conversely, the English definite article is rightly used in translating Greek nouns which do not have the definite article: arche ("beginning," yet we rightly translate "the beginning" even though the definite article te is not used before arche in John 1:1).

These examples could be multiplied many times. The context, not the mere presence or absence of the definite article, is the most important factor in determining the meaning and translation of the noun in question and any of its modifiers such as the definite article.

With this very brief clarification in mind, consider the Greek text of passages in First and Second John concerning antichrists and the translation of these passages in the New King James Version:

Obviously, the New King James Version translators knew that the definite article in Greek is not always translated with the English definite article the. Why would they translate ho antichristos "the Antichrist" in I John 2:18 but "antichrist" in I John 2:22 and "an antichrist" in II John 7? They must have done so for a theological, not a grammatical, reason: the dispensational premillennial belief in "the Antichrist."

Even without a knowledge of the Greek, one can see the inconsistency of translating I John 2:18 "the Antichrist." Even the New King James Version, after giving this rendering in the first part of verse eighteen, contradicts the idea of one single "Antichrist" by translating in the second part "even now many antichrists have come." If there are many antichrists, there cannot be just one.

John's definition of an antichrist is someone who "confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" (I John 4:3). If we stick to that definition, we will not be in danger of misunderstanding--or mistranslating--the Word of God.