Watchman Magazine

Editor’s Note: When you have responses to responses to responses, it can get complicated. Brother Barnett does a fine job answering Tom Couchman’s article found elsewhere on this site. This article has been posted to the Gospel Anchor Web Site, and is reprinted here by permission.

There is nothing personal about this review. I had never heard of brother Couchman before this, much less have I met him. Seeing that I was one of those who signed the Open Letter under discussion, brother Couchman necessarily included me in his criticism of the Letter. That calls for this reply. I am not interested in any personal vindication. I have no pride that’s been bruised nor an injured reputation that needs salvaging. I am interested only in truth.I care not at all what “pillars” of the past or present have said on this subject. They do not determine what truth is. The Open Letter is being tagged as a creed by its opponents and their supporters. They say this because so many men signed the letter to show their agreement with it. That is supposed to make it a creed. However, the very ones who are saying this are making up a list of “pillars” in the church, past and present, of those who are supposed to agree with them. Brother Couchman does some of that. Now, why is it that the Open Letter is a creed because it has several who signed it, but the other side’s position is not a creed though they make up their list of men who agree with them? Watch your step, brethren, You’re condemning yourselves. My decision to sign the Open Letter was because I, on my own, agreed with what was said. There was no collusion between the signators. I would have signed it even if no other had done so. Brother Caldwell sent a letter to all the signers of the Open Letter. He had a seven point inclosure with it titled “The President’s Position On Teaching Divine Creation at Florida College.” How many signatures would it have taken to make that inclosure a creed? If one other person signed it would it have been a creed, or would it have needed sixty-seven signatures to make it so? Or, just how many in between?

Share This

• Continue reading

A Response to “The Creation Account & Florida College

Editor’s Note: This article was sent to us on July 6, 2000. It has since been posted to Ferrell Jenkin’s “Bible World” web site, and is introduced there in the following way. “A Response to The Creation Account & Florida College. By Tom Couchman. Published by permission. Interesting reading.” We would be interested in knowing if brother Jenkins is accepting of a primary argument Tom Couchman makes in his article which has been often used by Unity-In-Diversity advocates. If he rejects the argumentation, why is the article posted to the site without due warning given to the error it contains? Also, why is an answer given to the open letter at his web site, but the letter itself is nowhere to be found. It seems only fair that both sides of the issue be heard.

In Watchman Magazine, error does not go unanswered. Included in this material is a review of Couchman’s article, penned by Maurice Barnett. All readers are encouraged to read all of the material surrounding this issue. Links are found at the bottom of this page which connect the reader to the germaine material.

To the readers of Gospel Anchor, Gospel Truths, Truth Magazine and Watchman Magazine:Writers and signers of the recent “open letter” concerning “The creation account & Florida College” (hereinafter, “the sixty-seven”) have “offered” the pages of these magazines “for a written discussion of this issue.” One would hope that publications whose editors are anxious to provide space for a debate would at least extend the fraternal courtesy of publishing a response balanced and appropriate to the original letter.

Share This

• Continue reading

My Position on Isaiah 7:14 and the Creation Controversy

As many have rightly concluded from the content of our recent Open Letter, it is the belief of those of us who wrote and signed it that the views of Hill Roberts and Shane Scott constitute a “damnable heresy” (2 Pet. 2:1), rather than merely an exotic alternative to traditional interpretation of the creation account in Genesis one. If we believed the latter, Harry Osborne and I would not have made the effort to write the letter or encourage others who share our conviction to sign it.

In the past several weeks I have been asked on several different occasions by various brethren to explain my personal motivation for having a part in its writing and ultimately putting my signature to the letter. Perhaps there are others who still are curious about my own specific reasons for doing so, since it is apparent to them from the past that I have had a special affinity for Florida College and a particular affection for many of the teachers and workers who function at the institution. In addition, I have been rightly described as “an academic” by training and temperament, so many feel that I have sold out to other non-academic interests by voicing my objections to recent developments at the school in so public a forum.

Share This

• Continue reading

Personal Chronology of Events Which Led to the Publication of the Open Letter

Introductory Note: “The following chronology of events regarding the current controversy over the creation account was prepared by Harry Osborne. It was not prepared for publication, but to answer questions as to whether or not the brethren addressed by the open letter had been approached individually first with the concerns stated in the open letter before its publication. Brother Osborne’s chronology only speaks to his own experience because he has firsthand knowledge of the efforts in which he has engaged. The chronology is not meant to suggest he is the only one who has engaged in such efforts. However, since he lives in the Tampa area in close proximity to those at Florida College, his efforts to arrange open study may be of interest to those seeking the facts on this subject. To that end, we are publishing the chronology here so that all may see that extensive efforts were made to resolve this difference long before the publication of the open letter.”

This is a chronology of the events leading up to the current issues regarding the interpretation of the creation account as I know them. Since I can only attest to the things I personally know from firsthand experience, I have limited the chronology to actions I can document. For this reason, the chronology centers on my actions in this matter. Please understand that this is not meant to suggest I am the only one who has spoken with the brethren addressed by the open letter. I know that many others have, but I lack any documentation of such. If you have documentation of other events which need to be included in this chronology, please give me that documentation and I will gladly add such to the record.

Share This

• Continue reading

Harry Osborne’s response to brother Caldwell’s letter and statement

(Note: This letter was written on Harry Osborne’s personal Letterhead)

Dear brother Caldwell,Thank you for your reply to the open letter dealing with concerns over recent actions at Florida College which have aided the advance of error regarding the interpretation of the creation account. Over the past year and a half, I have written to you on other occasions requesting dialogue on these issues, but this is the first response I have received relating to this subject. Though your letter did not address the specific points raised in the open letter, I will try to address each of the points you raise and hope that you will reply in kind. In accordance with your wishes, I have asked brethren to post your letter and statement along with this response in the interest of a fair hearing given to all parties. My request is that you also allow for the same fairness by posting the open letter and any correspondence regarding such on the Florida College website as well as Ferrell Jenkins’ website.

Your letter states that there is no “real threat” nor any reason to “warn of departure” from Truth because of the teaching done at Florida College regarding the creation account. I accept that as your honest assessment, but I must respectfully disagree with your assessment given the facts as will be detailed later in this letter.

Share This

• Continue reading

The President’s Position on Teaching Divine Creation at Florida College
C.G. ” Colly Caldwell

The following statements reflect firm convictions of the President of Florida College and uncompromising expectations concerning instruction regarding these matters at this institution of higher learning. It also articulates what we have all committed ourselves to at Florida College from its beginning and what we will continue to teach. I am confident that every member of our administration and faculty share this deep faith in the Divine creation of all things and both willingly and heartily support these statements.

1. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). While “the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1-3), “the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul” (Psalm 19:7). Although God’s “invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead” (Romans 1:20), “the gospel of Christ … is the power of God to salvation … for in it the righteousness of God is revealed” (Romans 1:16-17). In any question of truth, the Bible (not nature) must be received as the primary source of Truth. It is the verbally inspired, authoritative, infallible Word of God (see 1 Corinthians 2:1-16). Jesus said, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). All Florida College teachers have always been expected to convey their faith in these facts as they instruct and influence students.

Share This

• Continue reading

C.G. “Colly” Caldwell’s Letter of June 30, 2000, mailed to the Co-Signers of the Open Letter, published from Harry Osborne’s copy of the letter

Note: The letter was written on the letterhead of Florida College

When I returned from a preaching trip this past Monday, on my desk was a package containing “An Open Letter: The Creation Account & Florida College.” While it says, “An advance copy of this article has been provided to brethren Colly Caldwell, Ferrell Jenkins, and Shane Scott of Florida College…,” it had obviously been circulated widely for some time, at least among the men who signed it. I have no way of knowing who else has seen it or been influenced by it.

Share This

• Continue reading

The following lines represent an open letter to brethren Hill Roberts, Shane Scott, the Bible faculty and administration of Florida College, with particular reference to Colly Caldwell and Ferrell Jenkins:

In Mark 2:1-12 and Matthew 9:1-8, the parallel accounts of Jesus’ healing of a bedridden paralytic are given. The text affirms that Jesus’ divine power was demonstrated through this miracle when He told the sick of the palsy, “I say unto thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house.” Mark’s account then says that the man “straightway took up the bed, and went forth before them all.” Faithful brethren in discussions with Pentecostals and charismatics generally, have pointed out two obvious characteristics of miracles from this and other cases: (a) there was instantaneous action to accomplish fully the intended result, and (b) the action was not explainable by natural law.

Share This

• Continue reading

A Review

Ed Harrell’s book on bro. Hailey, which was over ten years in the making, is now available to readers. When my copy came, I zeroed in on the chapter dealing with the current controversies over unity-in-diversity with error.

Ed has done a good job of writing, condensing his pages of footnotes and their connecting thoughts into an entertaining and informative narrative. Here is a brief review of the above-mentioned chapter. Since the chapter is clearly weighted in favor of those who have believed and taught unity-in-diversity with regards to error on marriage, divorce and remarriage., it seems fair to give answer to some of what bro. Harrell has written, since it so clearly advances his own teaching in this area.

9 or 10 pages into the chapter entitled “Arizona Retirement, Reluctant Notoriety,” a section of the chapter begins with a brief background of some of bro. Hailey’s views, moving to his views on marriage, divorce and remarriage. Ed is charitable in quoting brother Hailey in a 1988 statement: “I only recall preaching it (marriage, divorce and remarriage, sw) twice, in California and Alabama by request.” (p. 339) Apparently, brother Hailey forgot other times where it is documented he preached on it. In light of the mountain of research Ed very evidently did for this book, it is a remarkable oversight on his part to have failed to document this. However, he is more accurate than some of bro. Hailey’s opponents when he later writes: “Jerry Bassett published Rethinking Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, defending many of the same views supported by Hailey…” (p. 351, my emph, sw) He notes that J.T. Smith was bro. Hailey’s most consistent critic early on (1976, 1982).

Share This

• Continue reading