Potshot At Ghosts
I see where some fellow over at Henderson, Tenn., whose initials are Frank Van Dyke, took a potshot at some ghosts. A fellow who will take a potshot is a poor sportsman to say the least.
I personally know brother Van Dyke to be a brilliant man Therefore, his potshot at ghosts is far beneath his expected dignity. This brother referred to some poking fun at "Logic". Brother Van, I am just going to state flatly I don't believe you can produce the preachers that "speak with scorn about logic". You, brother Van Dyke, of all people to stoop to such in trying to uphold a position that can't be sustained by the Bible! There are some men that dress sister "Logic" in such a garb it is right down amusing. For instance, Brother Guy Woods takes the position that the church has a responsibility to certain indigents, he maintains that the elders are to be over the church but just simply can not oversee the work of the church in caring for said indigents. If you agree with Woods, state as much; if you disagree do you have courage to take issue with him? You have taken issue with other brethren.
Now, Brother Van, why didn't you just show wherein the Warren, Woods and Deaver component part syllogism is not a "silly gism" or just plain "ism" instead of taking a potshot at ghosts?
Brother Porter showed Brother Woods what was wrong with the "component parts" and Tant put Harper in a perpetual spin, and I doubt if F.H.C. even has a man that will debate anybody on anything! If any man ever poked fun at and scorned "Logic" it was Ernie Harper trying to salvage his "component part" argument. Brother Van, why don't you deal with this thing as a gentleman?
While we are at it I am going to give you something to form into a syllogism and see just how honest some are!!!
In the "big push" for "$$$$$$$$ for Manhattan" with their three ring circus advertisement they threw all caution to the wind; either through ignorance or something else, truth went to. It would be galling indeed to admit ignorance because some of the church's biggest "Drs." are behind this endeaver. Some may even get to dance on Pat Boone's show over this. That would-be an achievement for the church "Doctors"!
In this big ad called "AN EXCITING ACHIEVEMENT" we find that helping Manhattan is a "binding example" to the — faithfull. "The apostolic example of evangelizing the big centers of civilization FIRST is surely binding on people who wish to do this the Bible way". According to this, country folk can go to hell while we direct- our efforts toward New York City. I wonder if this good "Dr." would mind giving scripture for his conclusion. Sounds like the "order of worship" hobby. I thought it was several years before Paul ever got around to going to the world Capital! This Manhattan ad is just another example of "the end justifies the means".
If you think that "binding example" was arrived at through pure logic, take a look at this in Manhattan's plea for help under what it will mean:
"A return to the apostolic example of evangelizing big cities first. A place where at least 50,000 visiting members of the church each year may fulfill their duty to attend church services."
Fifty-thousand divided by 52 weeks would be 961 visiting church members each week. Then say there are 200 members at Manhattan: that would be 1161 present each week. Even with two services the proposed new building (first one proposed) would be over crowded. Then surely with 1161 members present there would be 200 children and with all this surely the Manhattan church could persuade 50 non members to attend: This would mean 1411 people for a building that will seat 500!! Fifty-thousand visitors was the "least" to be expected!
We all are subject to mistakes but for the church "Drs." among us to make such a colossal blunder! Well, it just means more $$$$$$ for Manhattan for lots and more $$$$$$ for a larger building that will seat at least 2000. Then when all these $$$$$$ have been spent we could pay for a full page ad in all the big New York Newspapers that Pat Boone will lead the singing at a great "Bible Forum" (must never call such a gospel meeting!) at the church building. Then we could pay for a photo shop in the basement over against the church "frolic room" to make photos of Pat to pass out to his screaming fans. Maybe we could persuade Pat's dance team to perform; that would attract others. Then we could raise more $$$$$$ for a bigger building: Because as the "Dr." stated, "It is a binding pattern that big cities must be evangelized FIRST". No brother Van Dyke, it is not "logic" that some brethren call silly!
Two questions need to be answered by the Manhattan church: Was it through ignorance this false advertisement was sent through the U. S. mail? Or, does the end justify the means even to sending out misleading statements through the mail?
No I am not opposed to churches cooperating in helping another build a church building. I am however, opposed to professional church beggars and such tactics as they use.
This ad further states, "An invaluable springboard for starting a hundred new congregations needed in the area." Hence, Manhattan church is to become a "springboard". Does this mean another sponsoring church to exercise control and oversight of other churches? Does it now? When will we have the "Five Metropolitans"? Then how long till the "five" narrows to "two"? How far are we from "Rome"?
Let us pursue this logic business just a jot further: The Bible authorizes the preaching of the gospel. The Bible authorizes the church to support the preaching of the gospel. A missionary Organization separate from the church is preaching the gospel: Therefore, the Bible authorizes the church to support the Missionary Organization in preaching the gospel. Now Brother Van, tell us what is wrong with this! You hid behind Goodpasture's coat tail and you know it. I will state flatly, neither you nor brother Goodpasture even commence to begin to approximate a gentleman, to say nothing of being Christian in spirit, if you don't write where a reply can be made to the same readers. If you don't you will be backbiting railers. Make your choice.
The Bible authorizes the care of indigents. Bible authorizes church to support care of indigents. A Benevolent Organization separate from the church is caring for indigents: Therefore, Bible authorizes the church to support the Benevolent Organization in caring for indigents.
Bible authorizes preaching gospel. Bible authorizes church to support preaching of gospel. The "Gospel Press", an organization separate from the church, preaches the gospel: Therefore, Bible authorizes church to support the "Gospel Press".
Bible authorizes teaching word of God. Bible authorizes church support of teaching. Freed-Hardeman College teaches the Bible: Therefore, Bible authorizes church support of F.H.C. in teaching the Bible.
Tell us, brother Van, do you believe in Church support of the "Gospel Press" and FHC? Your superior, H. A. Dixon, does. Now get out your blow gun and take a shot at dealing with this. Do you, brother Van Dyke believe in church support of F.H.C.? I believe in logic, but I don't believe it necessary for you to form a syllogism to answer this question. It still stands — what I said about brethren that hide in the Goodpasture taking potshots at other brethren: such is even beneath the dignity of rankest sectarians.
The writers of the Advocate remind me of a bunch of "scared hants". Everytime they are asked for a "thus saith the Lord" they head for the tall timber in the good-pasture and begin taking potshots.
I see where some liberal brother said B. C. Goodpasture was the Alexander Campbell of today. Yes, I too, think of Brother Goodpasture as the "Alexander Campbell" of today. That is, of Campbell in his declining years. Alexander Campbell started the United Christian Missionary Society, and B. C. Goodpasture is just a half step away. However, in every other respect Brother Goodpasture doesn't even begin to approximate Campbell: He doesn't have one tenth the courage of Campbell; he is not the gentleman Campbell was. Goodpasture has been hiding behind quotation marks lo these many years. He is only the public medium of those leading the church into apostasy. This Alexander Campbell of today is real modest! One can see that because he hasn't used many pounds of paper blowing himself up in his own periodical! He loves that praise! Indeed, he does! He does indeed! Even if he has to give it to himself! I predict all this fanfare about B. C. is nothing more or less than the "professional promoters" blowing him up for another ride deeper into apostasy, and this "Alexander Campbell of today" doesn't have the sense to see their design.
A man is shallow somewhere who fails to see the great difference in Campbell and Goodpasture. Brother Goodpasture doesn't have courage to debate anybody on anything. Shall I ask, was Campbell afraid? Can it be Brother Goodpasture's inability? If not let him prove himself. He won't state his convictions now! The only stand Brother Goodpasture has ever taken is to cast down some individual, and that in an underhanded way. Yes, he is still a "little man wearing big breeches". The world has had its share of that kind, and they have all brought grief and sorrow to many. They all have one thing in common: they just have to assert themselves. Brother Goodpasture hides behind his writers and his writers hide behind him. The Gospel Advocate and company of writers are determined to take the church into apostasy. If the Christian Church followed the "social gospel" route, The Advocate and supporters are on the "social gospel" route for their attitude is identical to the Christian Church.
The Gospel Advocate will NOT take a stand against one eldership being over more than one church. Mark these words well. It won't take much of a logician to show where they have already embraced such.