Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
March 21, 1957
NUMBER 45, PAGE 6b-7b

"His Position"

Thomas F. Shropshire, Post, Texas

In the editorial of the Firm Foundation of January 22, 1957, Brother Reuel Lemmons, in his typical vacillating manner, states his position. Since Brother Lemmons quit standing for anything in particular and started out to be a self-styled authority on what is wrong with certain other people, we have had little from him but the same kind of prattle which characterizes the editorial under consideration.

In stating his position, Reuel tries to place it in "the middle of the road," between two extremes. This, no doubt, will sound good to quite a number of brethren who do not consider long enough to understand exactly where Reuel's position really is. In fact, according to this editorial, his position is on the fence with absolutely nothing to stand for. I suppose that there is not a sectarian preacher in the country that would not take the same stand as Reuel. He is for God's word. And if he should come out and stand for what "he thinks" God's word teaches, he would ruin his position. But do not be misled by Reuel's editorial as to what his position actually is. Reuel is already on record editorially to the effect that he will not print what he is not in agreement with or what he does not believe to be the truth. The many "crackpot" ideas "which have appeared in the Firm Foundation under his editorial observation make havoc of the position he would like his readers to believe he occupies.

He had a great deal to say about what "men THINK the word of God teaches." Does Reuel THINK the Bible teaches anything? I am sure that he does but after reading what he had to say, I am made to wonder if he actually THINKS. We do not need to simply think the Bible teaches because we KNOW that it does. As to what the Bible teaches, there is no need to speculate about WHAT the Bible teaches because what the Bible teaches is what is written in the Bible. But in dealing with religious matters today, it is not only important to recognize the fact that the Bible teaches SOMETHING but to also recognize the fact that there are SOME THINGS which the Bible definitely does not teach.

All of this ado about extremes in Bible teaching is just so much idle prattle. Can a person who teaches the truth on baptism be extreme on the subject of baptism? Anyone who would so declare is evidently "away-out-yonder." The truth is not extreme. And when Reuel talks about extremes in regard to what he terms as "ANTI-ISM" and "LIBERALISM," he is merely throwing up a smokescreen to keep you from realizing just what his position is. Can a person be extreme in doing a good work when that good work is authorized in the New Testament and the way it is done conforms to what the New Testament says in regard to that? But if that which is done or the organization through which it is done is not authorized by the New Testament, would it be right to advocate or practice it to any extent? One mechanical instrument of music in worship to God is just as wrong as a hundred piece orchestra because the use of the mechanical instrument of music in worship to God is not authorized in the New Testament.

The "liberals," with whom Reuel has aligned himself by his own admission, have been called upon time and again to furnish Bible authority for the things they advocate. Each time they have tried to furnish such authority, they have miserably failed to do so. It is no wonder that Reuel is opposed to controversy in these matters which threaten the peace of the church of the Lord today. The position which Reuel actually occupies cannot stand the searching light of controversy.