The Drinking of Intoxicants
Mac Deaver

Our society is an alcoholic-saturated society.  And our people are constantly being encouraged to imbibe the stuff by a constant barrage of advertisements.  And far too often even major sports events, in which many Christians delight, come packaged via TV in a six pack.  Impressionable young people are made to think that there is indeed a link between the drinking of intoxicants and the good life.

The Bible on the other hand presents an altogether different picture of alcohol.  It informs us plainly that inebriation leads to the elimination of natural inhibition.  Following the flood, Noah planted a vineyard and "...he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent" (Gen. 9:21).  We are not told whether he drank alone, drank outside or inside his tent, or whether he went into his tent following his drinking.  We are simply told that he drank, he was drunken, and he was uncovered within his tent.  In behalf of Noah, I have wondered whether or not following the death of his generation of people, including many relatives, that he fell into depression, so that he used the alcohol as medication.  However, I think this explanation inadequate, for it seems that God would not have used the word "drunken" to describe his condition had such been the case.  We are not told how much Noah knew about wine.  Perhaps he simply did not fully comprehend the force of alcohol.  Whereas he did intend to drink, we are not told whether or not he intended to reach the loss of control that he did.  But the connection of his drunkenness to his being uncovered is clear in the text.  And today we still live with the consequence of Ham's reaction to his father's lapse in judgement (Gen. 9:22-27).  Ham upon seeing his naked father evidently enjoyed it or got some satisfaction out of it (cf. Isaiah 44:16), and perhaps made fun of him.  He did something (v.24).  And it is interesting to note that in the next divine religious system, God would specifically make it illegal for a child to make light of his parents (Deut. 27:16).  But the broad outline of the relationship between nations followed Ham's wrong reaction to his father's sinful condition. The curse was placed on Canaan, one of the four sons of Ham (9:25:10:6) whose descendants became the enemies of Israel (10:15-20; cf. Deut. 7:1).  So, God based subsequent history on the wrong reaction of Ham to Noah's drunkenness.  And let us all be warned in that the first specific mention of drunkenness in the Bible involved a man who had been a preacher of righteousness (II Pet. 2:5), an otherwise good man (Gen. 6:9), and one of God's favorite people (Ezek. 14:14, 20).

In Habakkuk 2:15 Israel is later warned, "Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that putteth thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!"  Clearly, in this passage there is direct connection between intoxication and the elimination of inhibition.  And our point is further established by the sad case of David when he got Uriah drunk in order to "loosen him up" so that he would go home to  his wife (II Sam. 11:13).  The stunt failed, but the attempt was made.  David tried to overcome Uriah's lofty sense of responsibility (v. 11) by getting him drunk!

The Old Testament provides warnings with regard to the consumption of alcoholic beverage.  "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a brawler: and whosoever erreth thereby is not wise" (Prov. 20:1).  And the warning is later extended in chapter 23:31-32 in the midst of which a prohibition is given against allowing oneself to be tempted by wine when in its intoxicating state.  "Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it goeth down smoothly.  At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder."  By means of this prohibition, it became sinful for Jews to look at intoxicants so as to be lured away from sobriety.  Long before soft drinks, wine in the non-intoxicating state was a favored beverage.  In fact, God intended it to be of great use (Ps. 104:15).  No doubt, men who had a right to drink non-intoxicating wine had to be careful lest the wine be allowed to reach a state whereby it would intoxicate. We can see how that wine kept could on occasion go bad or reach the intoxicating state. When such occurred, the Jews were forbidden to be tempted by it.  We might note just here that the allowance of the possession and use of non-intoxicating wine is not to be compared  to a man's having a bottle of beer or other intoxicant in possession.  Wine could be either fermented or non-fermented.  The Jews were allowed the latter; they could not use the former (For a good treatment of how Jews preserved their wines, see William Patton's Bible Wines).

Allowance in Judaism was provided, however, for the use of alcohol as a sedative.  Long before the days of pharmacies and drug prescriptions, God knew that there were said human situations whose remedy required the use of alcohol as medicine.  King Lemuel's mother warned him with regard to alcohol as a beverage.  He was told that it wasn't for kings (in Prov. 20:1 and 23:31-35, we are told that it is not for anyone!)  An intoxicant was for the man ready to perish, bitter in soul, in a state of impoverishment, and miserable (Prov. 31:6, 7).  Today we see the need for prescription drugs in cases of great sadness or depression.  God allowed for alcohol upon such occasions.  But let us all keep in mind that there is a great difference between using nature's drugs for medicinal purposes in an honorable way and using them for social purposes or individual purposes not related to great misery and which use destroys personal responsibility, decency, and reputation.  The righteous life necessitates sobriety (I Pet. 5:8).

Drunkenness is, after all, a matter of degree and a measure of intention.  We have at least two passages in the Old Testament that teach us that drunkenness is a process.  Elah, king of Israel, was on one occasion "drinking himself drunk" (I Kings 16:8, 9).  And please note that the king should have been studying carefully the law which by this time prohibited even looking at the intoxicant so as to be tempted by it (Deut. 17:18-20; Prov. 23:31).  The second case is in I Kings 20:16 where we learn that the king of Syria, Benhadad was "drinking himself drunk."  The effect of alcohol upon the human being intensifies as the amount increases.  Just how drunk must a man be to be drunk at all?  Does he have to be "fall down" drunk?  Does he simply have to be "staggering" drunk?  What about when he begins to slur his speech?  What about when he begins to lose natural control over his reflexes?  If swallow twenty makes a man obviously drunk (easily perceived by those around him), then swallows one through nineteen contributed to it. Swallow twenty couldn't be swallow twenty without all the others before, and swallow twenty without all the others before could not make him obviously drunk.

Interestingly, Paul in Ephesians 5, draws a contrast between being "drunken with wine" and with being "filled with the Spirit" (vs. 15-21).  He says that drunkenness entails "riot" but that being filled with the Spirit leads to (1) worship, (2) thankfulness, and (3) subjection to one another.  And please consider that being filled with the Spirit (letting the Spirit have his way) would of necessity involve each instance of submission to his will, so that the full effect of "being filled" would only be possible by one's allowing himself to be under the influence of the Spirit on each and every occasion.  Just so, being drunk with wine would involve the contribution of each swallow to that condition.

Finally, the Bible warns us with regard to anything that is destructive of  human spirituality. Peter tells us "to abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul" (I Pet. 2:11).  And Paul informs us that drunkenness is a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21).  In the war between flesh and spirit, it is sinful to lower the resolve and defenses of the human spirit (cf. Rom. 7:7-8:17; I Tim. 4:2).

Pitfalls on the Mission Field
Ronald D. Gilbert

Each type of work in the Lord's kingdom has its own unique problems. Anyone who has ever done anything or attempted to do anything knows about making mistakes.   We can, however, and should learn from mistakes. The following are some things I have seen on the foreign mission field and stories heard from many men of years' experience on the mission field.

One problem is sending weak unlearned men into the mission fields.  Sometimes brethren show very poor judgement.  I have heard men in the USA say of a young preacher who just got out of school that he needs to find a congregation and work under a good eldership for a few years and he will make a good preacher.  However, if that same young man shows a desire to move 10,000 miles into a foreign mission field he will be encouraged to do so. Brethren, if he is not ready to be the preacher for a small church 10 miles up the road because of his being weak and unlearned, why would we send him 10,000 miles into a situation where everyone is depending upon him for leadership?

Another pitfall is adapting to convenience in the mission field.  What would you think of a church here in middle Tennessee that used Ritz crackers and grape Kool-Aid on the Lord's Table?  Would this be acceptable in our worship to God?  No!  In some places in the mission field, unleavened bread is almost impossible to purchase.  One must bake it if it is to be found.  Grape juice is difficult to find in many places in the mission field.   Because these items are difficult to find in the mission field I have known of some brethren to just stop at a grocery store and get any type of crackers and any type of grape drink, sometimes even going to a liquor store and getting a bottle of wine.  If this can be done in the mission field it can be done in middle Tennessee.  Can you imagine someone next Sunday showing up at the church building with a bottle of wine and a box of Ritz crackers for the Lord's Supper? I would hope this would cause an outrage among all the brethren.  However, I am afraid some have drifted so far they would have no problem with such. Some churches in the USA are supporting missionaries in the mission field that would have no problem using Ritz crackers and a bottle of wine or grape Kool-Aid on the Lord's Table.

Another problem area is having double standards.  I have known of men in the mission field so starved for "Christian fellowship" that they are willing to fellowship those in denominational error as if they were Christians.  Sometimes men get so desperate to be with others who believe in the one true God and Jesus Christ His Son, they will treat those in denominational error as if they were faithful Christians.  I remember visiting one area and asking a brother by e-mail to give me a list of faithful congregations in his area so we could visit with one of them on the Lord's Day.  He sent me a list and when I checked, three congregations on that list were Anti congregations.  Would this man work with Antis in the USA?  Would he consider men who bind where God has not bound to be faithful in the USA?  I don't believe he would!  But with some,  the mission field is different—they have double standards as to who they will fellowship whether they are in the USA or the mission field. The same Bible should apply to these situations.

Another pitfall is not understanding the differences in culture and doctrine.  So much has been written on culture concerning the mission field.  When one listens to many in the mission field they want to make everything justified by culture.  They say polygamy, drinking alcohol, fornication, modesty are all defined by culture.  They argue that people in Africa don't eat the same thing for breakfast that we eat in the USA or they say in their culture men live and die and never wear a neck tie and we should not go over into the mission field and make Americans out of them, but just make Christians.  I agree that we should not make Americans out of them.  Is it the case that a man in Africa can have two wives at the same time because that is his culture and he is not sinning, but in the USA it would be sinful?  Does culture determine right and wrong?  If the culture says each young woman between the ages of 18 to 25 must serve one year as a prostitute at the national temple then young Christian women would not be sinning because that is the culture of that country.  That's not what Paul told people in the New Testament. In a culture where everyone drinks beer or wine it would be fine for missionaries to join in and have a few drinks.  That is what some of the men in the mission field are doing and I suppose many good brethren who oppose such are sending their money to these men.

Another pitfall is for the American in the foreign mission field to become the "big boss." I have seen this several times. The American who receives a salary in one month of more than the whole congregation put together makes.  Many times the American missionary who brings all the money from the USA to the work, calls all the shots.  In some situations there may be 20 men in a business meeting with 19 wanting to do a thing one way but the missionary with his one vote overrules the other 19 men and things are done his way or no way.  Sometimes the missionary does all the teaching, takes the lead in every aspect of the worship, prints and even folds the bulletin, not allowing the local  brethren to do anything.  Sometimes when he goes back to the USA to visit his family, the local brethren do not even meet for worship because he is not there.  I have known of men of this type working in the mission field for ten years or more and when they go back to the USA the church they started folds because they did not train anyone to be a leader.

Another pitfall is the great need for money in the mission field.  A bag of rice or a bunch of bananas may not cost much in the mission field but cars, gas, tires and parts are very expensive.  Renting a house that would be suited to American standards may cost $1,000 per month US dollars in a country where the average person makes $100 per month.  The missionary must have transportation and he must provide transportation for many others in his work.  Many times in his work he must raise the funds in the USA for his own salary and for the money to build the church building and to keep it up and for the purchase of his car.  He then, many times, must raise funds for printing equipment and everything that is done by the local church.  He may be preaching for a church that without his contribution has a grand total of $5.00 US dollars per week and everything that is paid for must be raised by him personally.  For these reasons he may need a salary of $3,000 per month and a housing allowance of $2,000 per month with a car and fuel allowance along with insurance of $2,500 per month.  Then he may need a working fund of $2,000 for printing and purchasing equipment.  Counting some other miscellaneous things, that's about $10,000 per month.  How would you like to be responsible for raising that kind of  money year end and year out with $2,000 to $5,000 being dropped at the end of each year due to parking lots needing to be paved and pews needing to be padded?  Then upon finding out you have lost $3,000 per month of your support, you must get on a plane and spend $2,000 of funds you don't have to come back to the USA and spend two or three months away from your work seeking to replace lost funds.  This great need for money causes some missionaries to take money from liberal congregations.   But what happens next?  If this big congregation is sending $1,000 a month to a mission field they may want to send their preacher there to see the work first hand and conduct some gospel meetings while he is there.  So, the need to raise money and lots of it causes some to get it from any source they can, then they must reap the results of their actions and that is having a false teacher to come work with  you for two or three weeks and cause you much problems and  cause you to compromise because of the need for funds.

Another pitfall in the mission field is some brethren are so cut off from the USA they are not aware of any of the issues or men who are teaching error. Many of the big named false teachers in the USA make overseas trips each year into the mission fields.  We get e-mails here at TBC from all over the world from men in the mission field who are trying to keep up.  They frequently send the name of some false teacher from the USA and say "what do you know about him?" We have sent out materials to many missionaries and gladly do so to help keep them informed.  Some of the information we have sent out has been given to church leaders and missionaries and false teachers have been stopped from going to some areas.  Men in the mission field need to keep up with the churches back in the USA.  Brotherhood papers should be sent to them.  Things are much better now because of e-mail but most in the USA cannot imagine being in a situation where you are 10,000 miles from home and cannot get a newspaper or TV news or any contact from the USA except very expensive phone calls with very poor quality.  If you are helping support a missionary, do him a big favor—help him keep abreast with what is going on in the churches in the USA.

Another pitfall is for the missionary to become so busy with his problems, work, and fund-raising that he does not study and pray as he should and he becomes discouraged and sometimes even unfaithful to the Lord.  We must recharge our own batteries spiritually speaking.  We must take time for personal Bible study and growth.  It is expensive for missionaries and their families to come home but it is a must.  Most missionaries do just about all the teaching and in most cases it is the milk of the word they are teaching to new Christians.  The missionary and his family need  to come home and attend a good lectureship and some good gospel meetings.  They need the fellowship and conversation of mature faithful Christians.  There have been men in the mission field who have become weak and left their wives and become worthless to the Lord.  Churches should have a plan to help keep the missionary strong and faithful to the Lord.   These are but a few of the pitfalls in the mission field.  God give us more faithful dedicated men who are willing to go into all the world with the precious gospel of Jesus Christ.

Weighed in the Balances and Found Wanting
Kerry Duke

We need to know what we are doing when we refute error.  We must understand the false doctrine itself, and our arguments must be sound.  If our reasoning is not consistent or if it misses the point, we will confuse rather than convince people.  This confusion grows when undiscerning preachers pick up these fallacies and spread them.

Faulty Arguments

1. The "eth" ending on verbs. Some say that the translation "commits adultery" is wrong because "committeth" denotes continual, ongoing action whereas "commits" does not.   This argument is ridiculous.  When Jesus spoke of one who "marrieth another" in Luke 16:18, does the eth ending mean this person keeps on marrying another?  Ongoing action is expressed by the words "committeth adultery," but not because of the Old English ending rather than "commits."
2. "Para-church" or missionary society parallels.  A number of brethren are making arguments used by anti-orphan home brethren.  When the Herald of Truth was moved from the oversight of an eldership and was placed  under a board, many brethren said that it had become a missionary society.  What was their reasoning?  They said it is an organization separate from  the church doing the work of the church.  This same argument was applied to the Nashville Jubilee because it was not under an eldership and because it was incorporated.  Now the same reasoning is being used against organizations such as Disaster Relief, Lads to Leaderettes, and even colleges because their teachers go on mission trips.  The glaring inconsistency in many of these arguments is that they often appear in brotherhood journals that are not under a local congregation!  Are these journals organizations separate and apart from the church that are trying to do the work of the church? This argument is fallacious.  The missionary societies were wrong because they exercised authority over local congregations. The Herald of Truth and other organizations promote liberal teaching.  That teaching is what we should oppose instead of shooting ourselves in the foot with this invalid argument.
3. Charges against the personal indwelling view. Several have said that if the Holy Spirit dwells in a Christian personally, then that Christian could not sin and fall from grace.  This is absolutely absurd.  The apostles had the Spirit in a miraculous way, and yet Peter sinned (Gal. 2:11-14) and Paul had to watch himself (I Cor. 9:27).  Equally as ludicrous is the charge that the personal indwelling view would make one deity.  Was John the Baptist deity?  He was filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15). Whatever one may believe about this issue, he should never resort to an argument so inconsistent.

Original Language Claims

1. The "doctrine of Christ" in II John 9. This doctrine is Jesus' teaching in general, not just the teaching about Jesus' deity. To prove this, many brethren run to Greek scholars and quote those who hold this view.  They think they are making their point stronger, but they actually make their case weaker.  The impression they give is that we cannot prove this view from the English, or, if we can prove it, we can establish it more powerfully from the Greek.  But the Greek just says "the doctrine of Christ."  If you look carefully at what the "scholars" say, you will notice that they admit that the meaning of this expression is to be determined by the context.  The Greek gives no keys that unlock a meaning hidden from English readers.¹
2. The meaning of "repent and be baptized" in Acts 2:38. The famous Baptist A. T. Robertson said that there are two groups in Acts 2:38.  The people in general were told, he said, to repent for the remission of sins, and those who did (and were saved, he claimed) were told to be baptized.  In refuting this view, brethren often give endless quotes from Greek scholars to show that "for the remission of sins" can modify both the verb "repent" and the verb "be baptized."  But if we stand back and look at the verse, we see how absurd this view is without the Greek.  Peter was talking throughout this section to one group, not two.  Peter told one group to do two things and he told them why they were to do them.  Whether you look at this passage in Greek or English, the meaning is the same, and that meaning is determined by the context.
3. The bondage of I Corinthians 7:15.  In responding to the claim that the bondage of this verse is marriage, some have cited the fact that in I Corinthians 7:27 and 39, where "bound" definitely refers to marriage, a different Greek word is used.  The suggestion is that since the word for "bondage" in verse 15 is a different Greek word, it must refer to something other than marriage.  But this type of reasoning, though common, is mistaken.  Two or even more different words can be used in a given context to mean the same thing.  For instance, in I Corinthians 7:10-11, the word "depart" is from choridzo while "put away" is from aphiemi. Yet these words are used synonymously.  The bondage of  I Corinthians 7:15 is not marriage.  But the context, not word choice, determines this.

The Right Idea, The Wrong Passage

1. Acts 17:25.  God is not "worshipped with men's hands." Some brethren have used this against the use of instrumental music in worship because instruments are made by men's hands and played with men's hands.  But the context is the service idol worshippers give to idols.  They served idols, like many do today, by bringing them food and other items.  Paul said God is not served in this way because He needs nothing from us.  Besides, if we can't use our hands in worship, how can we open our Bible or a songbook?
2. I Corinthians 11:21. "One is hungry, and another is drunken."  Some use this verse to argue against the use of alcoholic wine in the Lord's Supper.  They say that the Corinthians used such wine and Paul condemned them.  But in verse 22 Paul says, "Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?"  If the Corinthians were drinking alcoholic wine in worship, Paul is telling them to go home and drink it! This is ridiculous!  The word "drunken" means they were full, the opposite of hungry.  The cup Jesus instituted could not have been alcoholic because the Jews got rid of all fermented foods before the Passover began.
3. Hosea 4:6.  "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" is one of the most misused statements in the Bible.  This verse is not about ignorance.  The knowledge Hosea speaks of is not mere intellectual knowledge.  It is an awareness of God, a mindfulness of the Creator.  It is the recognition and acknowledgment of God by how one lives.  It is thinking about God so that what we do is pleasing to him.  Hosea 4:1 says there was no "knowledge of God in the land."  They knew God existed, but they were not mindful of Him.  They had forgotten His law (Hos. 4:6).

False Doctrines Misunderstood

Too often preachers fire away at a doctrine before they understand it. One of the main reasons they do this is that they do not take the time to read from or listen to the advocates of the doctrine in question.  They usually look for a refutation of the doctrine and base their understanding of it on what they have read about it.  This is why they waste time and miss the target.  This is also why they fail to adjust their argumentation even though the movement they are refuting has evolved since they first heard of it.

1. The New Hermeneutic. This label became old before it ever really became popular.  Brethren who have argued against it almost unanimously say the same thing: the New Hermeneutic is just a denial of the authority principle.  I have read scores of articles on this subject, and they all say basically the same thing.  But they miss the point.  The driving force behind this trend is the theology of contextualization.  It is a theory which says we are inevitably prejudiced in the way we read the Bible because of our culture, and thus is inherently agnostic. It does deny the need for Bible authority, but its most basic assertion is that the way we read the Bible is so shaped by our environment that we do not and cannot understand it as we would like.
2. Premillennialism. Years ago, and in a few cases today, this doctrine taught that the kingdom is not  the church.  Now the popular form of it says the church is the kingdom—in a partial or preparatory sense. The future earthly kingdom will be the actual fulfillment, premillennialists insist. Thus, if you are going to refute premillennialism today, it does little good to show that the church is the kingdom.  What you must do is refute the idea which is one of the foundations of premillennial theology as a whole: the dual fulfillment theory.
3. Catholicism.  This is a complex system, but underneath it all is their concept of revelation.  Catholics believe God continually guides the Catholic Church into all truth.  To uproot the system, you must challenge and refute this claim.  Exposing individual doctrines of Catholicism is good.  But remember that their doctrine of continual revelation allows for anything they decide.  To utterly destroy their doctrine, we should refute this doctrine in the same way we do Mormonism or Islam.
4. Deism. The deist Thomas Paine said, "I believe in one God, no more."  This statement is the essence of deism.  Deists believed in God, and they believed the moral principles necessary for human government could only be grounded in God.  What they rejected was a belief in the miraculous, particularly the divine revelation of the Bible, which the church of England and Catholics twisted to enforce oppressive laws on the people.  Deists wanted the moral principles that come from God, for these are necessary to form a just society.  But they did not want a government which enforces its interpretations of a Book which claims to be from God.  They believed in providence except in some extreme cases.
5. Calvinism. I am often shocked at how much people want to know about Calvin's thinking when they read everything on the subject except Calvin himself.  This is why brethren sometimes attach this word to ideas that have nothing to do with Calvin's thought.  They have evidently never read the Institutes of the Christian Religion, and yet they speak of Calvinism often.  Even the well-known TULIP summary of Calvin's views, though helpful, does not really get to the heart of his theology. There is no way to fully grasp this false doctrine and to see its enormous impact without reading from this work of his.

Questions and Strifes of Words

1. "Missionary."  Some object to this word because it is not in the Bible.  But neither are the words "the Great Commission."   Neither are the words "gospel meeting." Words can be scriptural without being in the Scriptures.  The word "Bible" is not in the Bible.
2. "Kid." Some argue that children are never called kids in the Bible, so we should not use this word, especially since "kid" in the Bible means a goat.  But words can be used in different senses, and the meaning of words can change.  The word idiot originally meant a private person, but would you try using it in this sense today?
3. "Is" or "Represents." Concerning prayers at the Lord's Table, I have heard some insist that a brother cannot pray "This cup is Jesus' blood" because this would teach Catholic transubstantiation.  I have heard others argue that a brother should not pray, "This cup represents Jesus' blood" because this is not scriptural since Jesus used the word is.
4. "Worship."  Before brethren draw a line of fellowship over the question of the Christian life being worship, they had better look at what sense the word worship is being used.  This word is used to refer to regulated worship (John 4:24) which does not at all include everyday acts of service in the Christian life.  But in Luke 14:10, the King James Version uses the word worship to refer to honor, not private or corporate "worship" as we usually understand it.

Let us be diligent and consistent as well as honest and just in our words.

Endnotes
¹Kerry Duke, "What is the Doctrine of Christ in II John 9-11?" Living Oracles, March, 2002, pp. 4-5, 8.

Editorial

The Bible teaches 100% honesty in everything and in every way.  God warned and forbade against false witnesses (Ex. 20:16).  Jesus said for us to let our yea be yea and our nay be nay (Matt. 5:37).  Paul told the Ephesians to speak the truth (Eph. 4:25).  One cannot be a follower of God unless he loves truth.

Mankind seems to get all balled up and mixed up on some of the simple things of life.  This is often seen in the church of Christ even though God demands that Christians stay away from all that is evil and wrong.  Is a person honest when he will make up certain points of doctrine and ascribe them to his opposition?  Is one honest when he assumes certain things about the other fellow and then teaches them as facts?  Is one handling the truth right when he twists things in the way he wishes for them to be?  Is one truthful when he closes his eyes and ears to an unbiased study of Bible doctrine and teaching?  And what about a person that will not accept the logical end of certain positions?  Is a man what he should be when he refuses to confess he has no answer for a given argument or that his position is wrong?

We have known certain men that argued in a certain way because they said their position was much easier to defend than another way.  Some have refused to move from a false position because they have said they do not want to get close to what the denominations teach.  If a denomination teaches the truth on a given point, then why would an honest man not receive it?  An honest man is ready to receive truth from the hands of any man.  Most all religions in the world have some truth.  Just because one receives truth from a false religion does not mean that he accepts  the error that is taught by that same religious body.

The anti orphan home brethren have taught for years that an orphan home is the same thing as the Missionary Society.  This is not so and when they are pressed they know it is not so.  Just because there are some likenesses between an orphan home and a Missionary Society does not make them the same.  A cow and a horse have many likenesses but they are not the same animal.  Smoke screens are often used as scare tactics but this is not honest.  Some brethren have said if one believes the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian then that person could not fall from grace.  Such nonsense!  The apostles had the Holy Spirit dwelling in them.  Does this mean that the apostles could not fall from grace?  The prophets had the Holy Spirit dwelling in them.  Does this mean they could not fall from grace?  This kind of reasoning is not honest reasoning.  It could be that some brethren's bucket has a hole in it.

Gospel preachers should be the most honest men in the world along with the elders and deacons of the Lord's church.  When we are wrong we should say we are wrong.  It takes a big man and a good man to fess up to his wrong.  On the other hand, when we are right, hell with all its angels should not be able to tear us away from Bible doctrine and teaching.
—Malcolm L. Hill

A Statement of Clarification

I am thoroughly convinced that Tennessee Bible College has been misrepresented or misunderstood by a portion of our brotherhood when it comes to our stand on Christian fellowship.

The impression has been left that we at Tennessee Bible College have withdrawn fellowship from just about everyone.  In the first place I do not know where a Bible College would have the right to withdraw fellowship from anyone.  A Bible College is not the church and the church is not a Bible College.  I do believe that a Bible College has the right to use whom it will or will not.

We at Tennessee Bible College believe that many in the church of Christ have not spoken out and stood as strong as they should have against the onslaught of liberalism which is in the body of Jesus Christ.  We believe that Bible teaching and Bible doctrine have been walked over and we further believe that compromising the truth has taken place that  would not have been thought of  in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.

If we have withdrawn fellowship from a portion of our brotherhood, would someone please cite us  proof of such?  We have not withdrawn fellowship from East Tennessee School of Preaching.  It is true that we do not agree with them in some things.  We have not withdrawn fellowship from Memphis School of Preaching.  Yes, we disagree with them on some points very strongly.  With others of our schools it would be the same.

Now who has withdrawn from whom?  Would any of the Memphis School of Preaching teachers appear on the Tennessee Bible College lectures?  Let them tell us.  Would anyone from the East Tennessee School of Preaching appear on the Tennessee Bible College lectures?  Let them tell us.  I am extending to them an invitation right now if they will accept.  We will appear on their lectureship if invited.  We shall see if they invite us.   We shall see who has withdrawn fellowship from whom.

I am convinced that Romans 16:17-18 is not the same as II Thessalonians  3:6.   Romans 16:17-18 has to do with marking a false teacher or a false congregation which any faithful congregation or person can do.  II Thessalonians 3:6 has to do with withdrawing fellowship from an unfaithful member of the local or home congregation.  We cannot withdraw fellowship from people in another congregation but we can mark them for their apostate condition.  Calling the name of a person in public or private does not necessarily mean that we have marked him.  It all depends on the nature of the statement and the extent of that statement.
—Malcolm L. Hill