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?

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Continue reading

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

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

C.G. “Colly” Caldwell
119 N. Glen Arven Avenue
Temple Terrace, FL 33617July 8, 2000

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.

• 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.

• 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

119 N. Glen Arven Avenue * Temple Terrace, Florida 33617 * Telephone (813) 988-5131 * Fax: (813) 899-6772 June 30, 2000Mr. Harry Osborne
(Address Withheld)Dear brother Osborne,

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.

• 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.

• 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).

• Continue reading

The church needs to be “relevant” in our age. It needs to address the problems of our society, and be an agency of change to benefit mankind. This is a sentiment with which all agree. However, it is such a broad generalization that it allows for many different interpretations.

One such interpretation has led to the establishment of a “social” emphasis regarding the purpose and work of the church in the world today. Suggestions are made that the challenges of our culture and time are different from those in the past, and the church must change to meet those needs. I suppose that it is natural for each generation to think that its problems and needs are unique, and require unique solutions.

The “social gospel” mindset had its genesis in such thinking. Around 1900, theologically liberal thought among the various Protestant denominations led to a determination to innovatively deal with the peculiar problems of the emerging urban-industrial nations. This period of time between the Civil War and World War II was the genesis of one of the most influential religious movements in America’s history. Men felt the need to turn the United States into a modern utopia, and saw the church as a tool to bring about that change — hence the synthesis of the “social gospel.” When the advocate of the pure social gospel speaks of salvation, he is not referring to freedom from sin and the hope of eternal life, but rather freedom from poverty and misery on this earth. While we refer to the kingdom as the rule of the Christ, and the spiritual relationship with Him as the head; the “social gospel” apologist advocates the change of such a perception to that of a kingdom on earth. One early influential writer in this movement wrote, “The kingdom of God is a great social synthesis which includes the whole life of man, spiritual, moral, mental and physical; its field of manifestation is man’s personal, family, social, political and industrial relations.”

• Continue reading

A saw is not always a tool with which to cut something. Webster says it is a proverb, or a trite saying. We are being treated to several old saws today. Lets have a look at some of them.

These are perilous times for conservative brethren. Unless some changes in attitude occur, division is inevitable among the conservative churches. It will likely take a while for it to occur, but all the elements of division are now present: misrepresentation, accusation, polarization and separation. This all started with the publication of erroneous views on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. It has moved from that to widespread discussion of what is generally called “fellowship.” Romans 14 is being misused in an effort to foist upon the brethren generally an attitude of tolerance known as “unity in diversity,” You believe it your way and I’ll believe it mine, and we’ll get along just fine. A brother recently described the situation in the congregation where he worships. He said, “We have people here who are institutional, some who are anti-institutional, and some who are liberal on the marriage issue. We have agreed not to do anything that violates anyone’s conscience, and we will not preach on these things or try to convert each other.” I will guarantee you that we could get along with the devil with that philosophy! What ever happened to “earnestly contending for the faith”(Jude 3), and preaching the whole counsel of God? (Acts 20:27).

• Continue reading

In the beginning of Matthew 23, the Lord commended much of the Pharisee’s teaching. However, in verse 24, He draws attention to one of their major flaws. It was their ironic ability to consume whole camels, while simultaneously possessing the talent to “strain” even the smallest defilement.

We today, as the Pharisees of old, can swallow camels of magnanimous proportions in failing to rightly divide the truth, by (mis)using one divinely inspired passage to contradict another.

The focus of this article is to compare what Paul has written in Romans 14 with various other New Testament scriptures. These comparisons provide several compelling reasons that Romans 14 cannot involve matters of immorality and/or fallacious doctrine!

• Continue reading

In the last epistle that the Apostle Paul wrote unto Timothy, he charged him to preach the truth in a simplistic manner that would distinguish it from the perverted and soft preaching of his day. “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” (2 Timothy 4:2-5).

Is it possible brethren, that we have become so carnal that Timothy would not be considered an acceptable preacher for our pulpits? What kind of preaching does our youth need? What kind of preaching does we young preachers need to preach?

• Continue reading

“Brethren, We Are Drifting”Many of our readers are familiar with the sentiment that J.D. Tant made famous years ago as he ended many articles of warning with the phrase, “Brethren, we are drifting.” No doubt his pronouncement was a source of irritation to many who considered him a rather cantankerous sort.History has born out the relevant nature of his warnings. Indeed Christians were drifting from the straight and narrow paths of truth. Seeds of digression were being sown, which have since led to a full blown apostasy. The fact that many could not see the beginning of the drift does not change the fact that the warnings were needed. Those who heeded the words of brother Tant and his ilk were able to avoid the error that led to the digression of many congregations of the Lord’s people.In this article we will discuss the “social gospel”, a philosophy which sound congregations have always rejected. The specific application we will address is that aspect of the “social gospel” which is seen in the targeting of young people for special emphasis and focus. We shall begin in this article by looking at certain examples of institutional churches which have long embraced the concept of utilizing the “social gospel” to appeal to the young. We shall also see that some churches which once stood against such a philosophy seem now to want to embrace it. This constitutes a “drifting”, and we, as those of Tant’s time, are in dire need of warning. We fully recognize that many will be unable or unwilling to see the dangers. This in no way invalidates the need for sounding the trumpets of alarm in the face of another trend toward digression.

• Continue reading

(Questions at the end of each lesson are borrowed from Jeff Asher)

Lesson 1
The Parables of the Lost Ones

I. Introduction

A. Read Text – ALWAYS Read the Text FROM THE BIBLE

• Luke 15: 1-7; Parable of the Lost Sheep
• Luke 15:8-10; Parable of the Lost Coin
• Luke 15:11-32; Parable of the Prodigal Son

B. Memory Verse – Luke 15:6 – “Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost.”
C. Other BIBLE readings – Psalm 23; 1 Samuel 17:32-37; Isaiah 40:11; 2 Corinthians 7:6-12; John 3:16-21; Romans 5:1-12; 1 Peter 1:12; Matthew 18:10; Matthew 3:1-12; James 4:1-10
D. Retell each Parable in your own words

• Continue reading

In Romans 7, the apostle Paul allows himself to be representative of the human experience in discussing sinful impulses and the difficulty that one has in fighting them. The chapter concludes with his representative experience in overcoming such lusts through Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 7 deals with the concept of indwelling sin, not as Calvinists would attribute to a “sinful nature,” but to the free moral agency of man, who is able to choose evil if he desires. This passage shows us how the devil takes advantage of the fleshly penchant for rebelling against authority in self-service. Romans 8 will bring this discussion to a happier conclusion, but the present chapter serves to identify the problem and suggest a few solutions.

• Continue reading

With this issue of Watchman Magazine, we begin a new feature intended to help Christians (especially preachers) to both utilize the tremendous opportunities that technology supplies in preaching the gospel of Christ, and avoid the pitfalls that are associated with the same.

Consider the following positive aspects of Technology:

• The computer can be used to assist in sermon preparation and the printing of bulletins and class material.
• The computer can be used to assist in Bible study.
• The computer can be used to assist in sermon presentation (Transparencies, data projectors, etc.)
• Internet Web sites, containing audio, video, charts, and text can be established and maintained by churches for a very reasonable cost, and can be used in the proclamation of the gospel.
• Email allows for instant communication, long distance Bible study, and sharing of computer files.
• Discussion lists allow for group study, and the sharing of sermon outlines and class material.
• Organizational software and PDA’s (Personal Digital Assistants) make it easier for a preacher to be organized and efficient.
• Databases allow for the categorization of periodicals and books for instant recall of topics, authors, and scriptures for sermon preparation and study.
• Because of technology, the preacher of righteousness has, in theory at least, a world-wide opportunity to disseminate truth.

• Continue reading

I. Definición de “orar”.

 A. proseuchomai es el término que se utiliza con más frecuencia, especialmente en los Sinópticos (Mat., Mar., Luc.) y en Hechos, traducido orar o pedir (Rom. 8:26, “Y de igual manera el Espíritu nos ayuda en nuestra debilidad; pues qué hemos de pedir como conviene, no lo sabemos, pero el Espíritu mismo intercede por nosotros con gemidos indecibles”; 1 Cor. 14:13, “Por lo cual, el que habla en lengua extraña, pida en oración poder interpretarla”; Fil. 1:9, “Y esto pido en oración, que vuestro amor abunde aun más y más en ciencia y en todo conocimiento”.

B. deesis es otra palabra que se traduce “oración”. Significa una petición, un ruego, una súplica (Luc. 1:13, “Pero el ángel le dijo: Zacarías, no temas; porque tu oración ha sido oída, y tu mujer Elisabet te dará a luz un hijo, y llamarás su nombre Juan”; 2:37, “y era viuda hacía ochenta y cuatro años; y no se apartaba del templo, sirviendo de noche y de día con ayunos y oraciones”; 5:33, “los discípulos de Juan ayunan muchas veces y hacen oraciones”; Rom. 10:1, “Hermanos, ciertamente el anhelo de mi corazón, y mi oración a Dios por Israel, es para salvación”; 2 Cor. 1:11, “cooperando también vosotros a favor nuestro con la oración, para que por muchas personas sean dadas gracias a favor nuestro”, etc.)

• Continue reading

There is an enduring lesson that was indelibly imprinted upon my memory by an object lesson my father taught me when I was no less than three years old.

We had stopped at a small rural grocery store, the type that has nearly completely disappeared in this day and time. To me then, it was almost a magical place in the items it offered. It was the type of country store with the horizontal soft drink case outside under the overhanging porch filled with half melted ice and glass bottles of “Coca Cola,” “Orangette” and “Grapette.” The front door had about three wooden steps leading to a screen door through which, once inside, you were able to take in all the wonderful odors that such places had to offer. The combined smells of fresh ground coffee, apples, bananas, oranges, fresh bread and of course, to a three year old, the intoxicating smell of candy. There is a great variety of scents we can think of when it comes to candy but one of the most clear is the fragrant smell of bubble gum. An irresistible treasure, a box full these individually wrapped pieces of gum were probably placed at eye level and within reach of small hands for temptation sake.

• Continue reading