Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 11
October 29, 1959
NUMBER 25, PAGE 4-5a

That "Principle Eternal" Again

Editorial

Four years ago when this writer had a discussion in Lufkin, Texas, with Brother E. R. Harper, we thoroughly explored the question as to what "Bible authority" supported and justified the "Herald of Truth" cooperative. Brother Harper freely admitted that there was no command for such a combine, no New Testament example of that kind of thing, and no necessary inference that such could be practiced.

How then did one justify this type of cooperative venture? Brother Harper was quick with an answer — "by principle eternal." He contended that there are "eternal principles" laid down in the Scripture which require us to preach the gospel to all the world, and to use every means available to that end unless forbidden to do so by a specific prohibition. And since "Herald of Truth" was not specifically prohibited, it could be justified by "principle eternal".

The following letter will show that our brother has come to apply the same reasoning to the question of the church's care of orphans.

September 15, 1959 Dear Yater:

Robert Jackson, Joe McGaw and I went to hear Brother Harper tell how to care for the poor little orphans last week. He was in a meeting at Riverwood where Charles Crouch preaches. His efforts were more feeble, milder, and less bombastic than a year ago at Joywood. The crowd was not great, and few preachers were in attendance. The appearance is that many of the liberal preachers are now fighting with their backs to the wall. Not once did Brother Harper refer to "you Guardian Boys." His sermon for the most part was to create sympathy and prejudice.

But one very interesting thing came up in the sermon. Brother Harper placed a square on the black-board, and stated that he had challenged the brethren at Birmingham, and would repeat the challenge at Nashville, to find one scripture to be put in that square that told the church to care for orphans. He emphasized that there is neither command, approved example, nor necessary inference for such! Then with a flourish he proclaimed: But they can do it anyway. How? By principles laid down with permissible inferences!"

Faithfully, Harold F. Savely

Just what is a "principle with a permissible inference"? Perhaps Brother Harper gave further clarification of this in his sermon. If he did not do so, he should.

For as it stands his "principle laid down with permissible inference" could be used to justify anything under the sun that men might want to do in the name of religion. Is this "principle laid down with permissible inference" the basis on which our Brother Harper now would justify Church of Christ hospitals?

We believe this approach to the problem should put any sincere Christian on guard against being led astray from the truth by these modern promotions. If a practice cannot be shown to be authorized in the Scripture by command, example, or inference, then it should have no place in the life of a Christian or the work or worship of a congregation — Brother Harper to the contrary notwithstanding. A number of our brother's fellow-promoters have become almost frenzied in their contention that there IS a Bible command (in James 1:27) for the church to care for orphan children. In fact, a number of them are on record in debates, books, pamphlets, and via tape recordings to that effect. It must be somewhat disconcerting to them now to have their champion boldly and emphatically contradict their laboriously constructed arguments. At the moment we will accept our Brother Harper's first statement as to the absence of any passage justifying general church support of orphan children, and center our attention on his second proposition — that such care can be justified by "principles laid down with permissible inferences."

What on earth does he mean by that? Is that the same thing as the "principle eternal" by which he sought to justify Herald of Truth? And is it the same thing as the "love" he professed for the Baptist Hospital for saving his life, which, he, says, removed from his heart any desire to criticize the Baptists for their false teaching? In recent sermons our Brother is telling that he was once strong and unyielding in his fight against the Baptists because of their false teachings, but that he "can no longer find it in his heart" to say anything against them since his life was saved in a Baptist Hospital. Well, if he happens to go to a Catholic Hospital next time, will that silence his tongue against the iniquities of Rome? What powerful convictions the man hath? yea, what certainty of the truth, what nobility of character, what fervent zeal to "contend earnestly for the faith"!. Is the truth of the gospel a mere whim or fancy, to be either proclaimed or soft-pedaled as one happens to be either befriended or not befriended by the teachers of error?

Surely those sincere people all over the nation who love the Lord and the church for which he died will increasingly reject such shallow and foolish evaluations of the truth. If the very devil himself should befriend you, that would make him no less the devil, and no less the proper target for gospel arrows. Indeed, does not Inspiration itself warn us that "even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light."

For four years now we have awaited a definition of "principle eternal". Will some one please explain just exactly what this is, and point out particularly wherein it differs from the usually accepted three methods of determining God's will for us — command, example, and necessary inference? Maybe brother Harper has hit upon the golden key which will bring unity to a troubled people! Let us hear more from him on the subject.

— F. Y. T.