Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 18
August 25, 1966
NUMBER 16, PAGE 7b-8

Is It A New Doctrine?

J. T. Smith

Several brethren have charged us with trying to divide the Lord's church with a NEW DOCTRINE. I have denied it all the time, but in this issue, I am going to present the proof that it is not new in that many preachers before my time preached the same thing that I am now preaching -- and they were counted FAITHFUL GOSPEL PREACHERS. Many times brethren are so inconsistent in their arguments. For example, a lady called me a few days ago and REBUKED me for REBUKING others in my bulletin. Now I would REBUKE her for REBUKING me -- BUT she said it was wrong to REBUKE anyone. However, we know that it is not wrong in that it is unscriptural, for Paul instructed Timothy to "reprove, rebuke, and exhort..." (2 Tim. 4:2).

I believe the statements that are quoted below from other preachers -- NOT because I am trusting in what man has to say, but because I believe they are teaching what is recorded in the Bible. But, the main reason that I am quoting from these men is to show that I am not preaching a NEW DOCTRINE; for many of these men were preaching these things before I WAS EVER BORN!!

Mission Work

1921 E. A. Elam: "How to do what is now called 'mission work' is taught as clearly and plainly in the New Testament as anything God ever commanded. The church sent out preachers, supported them and received their report..." (Gospel Advocate, July 14, 1921)

1931 Foy E. Wallace, Jr. : "For one church to help another church bear its own burdens, therefore, has scriptural precedent. But for one church to solicit funds from other churches for general distribution in other fields or places, thus becoming the treasury of other churches, is quite a different question. Such procedure makes a sort of society out of the elders of a local church, and for such there is no scriptural precedent or example." (Gospel Advocate, May 14, 1931, page 909).

1934 F. B.Srygley:"The agent system of collecting funds from many churches, even if it is done under some eldership without authority, ties churches together and has a tendency to destroy the independence of the local church.

"The greatest objection to the whole scheme is that it is not in the New Testament." (Gospel Advocate, Nov. 1).

1935 F. B. Srygley: "I have criticized a church a Bible school church,' for trying to foster mission work for other churches. I believe they call it 'promoting' or 'sponsoring' mission work for others to support. I have opposed missionary agents sent out by one church to promote missionary work for other churches.

"I have contended that each church in its organization was independent of all other churches... " (Gospel Advocate, Feb.21, 1935, page 173).

1937 C. D. Plum: "Under the supervision of the officers of the church, mission work is carried on directly through the church..."

"The money for the missionary goes direct from the church to the missionary on the field (Phil. 4:15). If there had been a better way than this, the Lord would have told us." (Gospel Advocate, Feb. 4, 1937).

1946 Guy N. Woods: (Phil. 4:15-16). "Here, too, we see the simple manner in which the church in Philippi joined with Paul in the work of preaching the gospel. There was no 'missionary society' in evidence, and none was needed; the brethren simply raised the money and sent it directly to Paul. This is the way it should be done today. No organization is needed to accomplish the work the Lord has authorized the church to do. When men become dissatisfied with God's arrangement and set up one of their own, they have already crossed the threshold of apostasy. Let us be satisfied with the Lord's manner of doing things. " (Annual Lesson Commentary, 1946, page 341.)

Benevolent Work

1917 John W. Hedge: "But we are told that the societies of human origin are nothing more than channels through or by which the church of God can operate in the conversion of the world. Then, since the primitive Christians had no societies, no channels, through or by which to operate in converting the world, their work was, according to the modern idea, a failure." (Gospel Advocate, May 19, 1917, page 459.)

1919 C. M. Pullias: "That which the church has not the power to do, then should not be considered. Besides this, we might say this way of a few getting together and saddling on the church of Christ orphan homes, and schools, or anything else is a very serious thing, and will in the course of time be a curse to the church." (Tidings of Joy, 1919, page 1.)

1920 F. W. Smith: "There is not the slightest intimation in the New Testament of any organization for any purpose whatever other than the local congregations, which were independent of each other. "(Gospel Advocate, July 22, 1920, page 717).

1931 Foy E. Wallace, Jr. : "If it were 'permissible' to have a Bible College as an adjunct to the church in the work of education and an orphan's home in the work of benevolence, we quite agree that it would also be 'permissible' to have a missionary society in the work of evangelism. But the question assumes the point to be proved - Bible colleges and institutional orphans' homes cannot be made adjuncts of the church, scripturally." (Gospel Advocate, July 2, 1931, page 804).

1932 F. B. Shepherd: "Because it was made according to the pattern, the first church was completely furnished unto every good work. Its very simplicity, was evidently one reason that it was absolutely sufficient in all things demanded of it.

"As a benevolent institution it was without blemish; as a missionary society or evangelistic medium, it lacked nothing.

"There is absolutely no precept or example in the Holy Scriptures for the existence of any organization, federation, or society which embraces more or less than one local congregation through which to perform the work of the Lord in the furtherance of the gospel." (Gospel Advocate, Feb.25, 1932, p. 250).

1942 H. Leo Boles: "To sum up the matter of giving and receiving, it seems that we can say that Christians are to do good as opportunity is offered them. We have examples in the New Testament of (1) Churches helping other churches (Acts 11:27-30), (2) Churches helping individuals (Phil. 4: 15-16), (3) individual Christians helping Christians in need (1 John 3:17), (4) Churches helping their own members (Acts 4:34-35; 1 Tim. 5:4-12), (5) Christians helping those who are not Christians (Gal. 6:10). Christians are to do good to all, and helping those in distress is a good work. We do not find any example of a church that has sent help to those not Christians ..." (Gospel Advocate, Jan. 29, 1942).

Recreation And Entertainment

1942 N. B. Hardeman: "Again, I say to you, with caution and thought, that it is not the work of the church to furnish entertainment for the members. I have never read anything in the Bible that indicates to me that such was the work of the church. " (Hardeman's Tabernacle Sermons, Vol. 5, page 50).

1948 B. C. Goodpasture: "This question can be answered both negatively and positively. It is not the mission of the church to furnish amusement for the world or even for its own members. Innocent amusement in proper proportion has its place in the life of all normal persons, but it is not the business of the church to furnish it.

"For the church to turn aside from its divine work to furnish amusement and recreation is to pervert its mission.

"If the church will discharge its duty in preaching the gospel, in edifying its members, and helping the worthy poor, it will not have desire or the time merely to amuse and entertain." (Gospel Advocate, 1948, page 484.

As we said before, we did not quote a single one of these men in an effort to prove that a thing is right or wrong (except when they used Scriptural authority). Rather, I quoted them to show that what I am preaching now was preached by men who were counted as FAITHFUL BRETHREN then, and their articles were printed in the Gospel Advocate. However, the Gospel Advocate -- it still has the same name even though it does not have the same policy of printing both sides of any issue -- would not be allowed to publish these same articles today.

However, I insist that unless you are going to condemn these men -- as you have me -- as "antis" "church-splitters," it is UN-FAIR to brand me as such, for I AM NOT OPPOSING ANYTHING TODAY THAT THEY DID NOT OPPOSE THEN. They were not trying to be TROUBLEMAKERS then any more than I am trying to be a TROUBLE-MAKER now. It is nothing more than wanting to be RIGHT, and having enough conviction to say what we believe the Bible teaches on the subject. WHY WON'T YOU??

-Oklahoma City, Okla.