Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 13
February 22, 1962
NUMBER 41, PAGE 3

The Newbern Debate

John W. Wilson, San Bernardino, California

December 18-23 the second Cogdill-Woods Debate took -place in Newbern, Tennessee. In spite of unfavorable weather and the holiday season, attendance was excellent and the interest ran high throughout the week. Those who came with open minds and intent upon learning the truth could not have gone away disappointed. Many mature men observed to me that either Woods was much weaker, or Cogdill much stronger, or both, than in the Birmingham encounter. Certainly another signal victory for the truth was registered.

This is not intended as a review of the arguments nor as a full report of the debate. My purpose is to make a few observations upon one point attempted by Woods. Knowing full well that his eyes had not seen nor his ears heard one word spoken or written by brother Cogdill to indicate a change on brother Cogdill's part regarding church-care of the fatherless, Woods boldly and brazenly proceeded to charge brother Cogdill with such a change. In substance here are his words; "Cogdill and these brethren (meaning the Newbern church) will take five dollars from the church to buy fertilizer to feed the lawn around the preacher's house but refuse to take twenty-five cents from the church to buy a bottle of milk to feed a starving baby I"

Brother Cogdill categorically denied the charge and Woods failed to produce any evidence to the contrary. He did, however, produce a few isolated statements to the effect that some brethren believe the church is limited to "saints only" in its benevolent work. He concluded from this that the fatherless not old enough to be members of the church must be excluded from church support under any circumstance. He then tried to show that if brother Cogdill had not changed that he and the most of the brethren that stood with him were divided. This was an obvious attempt to "divide and conquer". 'lf he could not meet the real issue in debate, and obviously he could not, then he would weaken the cause of truth by driving a wedge between loyal brethren. Brother Cogdill was alert to his tactics and exposed him completely. He failed miserably in his attempt to turn brethren against brother Cogdill in this maneuver.

These unfounded charges concerning division among loyal brethren in the work of the church need to be exposed. There is no issue involved in the matter of whom the church may help. Among loyal brethren, so far as I am aware, all are agreed that the church has no authority for entering the field of general benevolence. As far back as 1944, I wrote an article which was published in the "Eye Opener" exposing the attempt of Ira Y. Rice, Jr. to put the church into a program of general benevolence and showed there is no authority in the Bible for making a "glorified Salvation Army" of the church. Brother Cogdill challenged Woods to affirm a proposition involving the church in general benevolence. This he refused to do. The make-believe division "among loyal brethren grows out of a distinction where there is no difference. So far as I am aware no one objects to the church supplying relief for its widow and her fatherless baby in need. This was contended for by brother W. Curtis Porter in both of his debates with

Woods. It is also the position contended for by Charles Holt in the Indianapolis Debate; by Roy Cogdill in both of his debates with Woods, and is the position that I occupied in the two debates that I had with Dilbeck and Rudd. Even though there may be a slight difference in verbiage, there is no difference in practice. Some say that the relief is given to the widow to meet her obligation to the fatherless. Others say the relief is given to the widow and the fatherless. In both cases the relief given by the church meets the needs of the widow and the fatherless without any organization but the church being involved. There is no issue involving a division here, Guy N. Woods to the contrary not-with-standing.

Woods refused to meet brother Cogdill in Memphis, Tennessee, on the grounds that there were only two or three congregations agreeing with brother Cogdill against a large number agreeing with Woods. But Woods refused to meet me in San Bernardino where there was no congregation agreeing with him. The elders even agreed to pay all of his expenses since no congregation agreeing with him offered to do so. "Verily the legs of the lame are unequal." Will Guy N. Woods debate these issues in California? Will he debate them in Memphis, Tennessee? We shall see.