Watchman Magazine

Editor’s Note: This article is a response to Bill Robinson’s article which appears elsewhere in this issue. To read Bill Robinson’s article, click here.

As a teenager, Bill Robinson, Jr. was baptized during a gospel meeting I conducted in California. His father and I were good friends and I had no one on whom I could depend any more than Bill Robinson, Sr. I encouraged Bill, Jr. when he decided to preach and continued with help and encouragement long afterward. I was supposed to have performed his wedding ceremony when he got married but was too ill to travel at the time. I have felt a special warmth for him and his family through the years and have been a good friend to them. Because of this close association in the past, I am especially disappointed with his article. I took it as a personal insult, publicly proclaimed. He accuses me and the other signatories of the most heinous crime, that of being a party with premeditated intent on dividing the church as well as being a group of creed makers forcing our will on the church!

• Continue reading

Editor’s Note: This article by Bill Robinson, Jr., is reviewed elsewhere in this issue by Maurice Barnett. You are encouraged to read both articles.

An “Open Letter” has been circulated about the alleged consequences of what some have taught regarding Genesis One, especially at Florida College. I am not an alumnus of the school even though I have managed to preach the gospel for the past 27 years (tongue firmly planted in cheek). Furthermore, I am not an apologist for those named in the “Open Letter” or the college – its merits or demerits must be evaluated by each individual. What those accused have written in their defense has not only been articulated extremely well but it has been presented in an obvious spirit of “sweet reasonableness” (Phil. 4:5). For the record, I am personally acquainted with all of those named in the “Open Letter,” with the exception of one, and count them as friends. Florida College is a human institution. Thus it exists apart from the church (universal and/or local) and from any other institution. The 50+ signers of the “Open Letter” are acting as if Florida College is amenable to the church when it is not even supported, much less promoted as part of the work of the church. If brethren ever become like the very thing they oppose then the “Open Letter” is a classic example of it. The very nature of the letter is an attempt to determine the boundaries of fellowship for Florida College as if there were boundaries of fellowship to be imposed on Florida College.

• Continue reading

Editor’s Note: This article by Dan King is a review of Hill Roberts article appearing elsewhere in this issue. We encourage you to read both articles.

In spite of the fact that brother Hill Roberts has declared repeatedly that he will not discuss these matters with those of us who wrote and signed the Open Letter, he has recently posted another response on his web site to what has been written regarding his positions, and by this writer in particular. It appears that he will discuss them, but only on his terms, when and where he determines. Since we could not get him openly to debate these issues, we are happy to receive this response and have another opportunity to, in this limited sense at least, answer his quibbles and reply to the additional points he has made.

Hill divides his response into five sections and offers comments on these five separate topics. Since these are the only points he wishes to address at this time, we shall limit ourselves to the same five areas of discussion. At the end, we shall add a few concluding thoughts and questions regarding this controversy and Florida College.

• Continue reading

Floods, Science and Religion, Kinds, Evening and Morning – Sustained
(c) 2000, Hill Roberts, Permission granted to publish whole and without alteration

Editor’s Note: This article by Hill Roberts continues the discussion generated by the Open Letter found elsewhere in this issue. You can find other articles written by Hill Roberts and those who have reviewed him and his teaching. In this issue, brother Daniel H. King, Sr. reviews this article.

A. Concerning the Flood:

I believe in a worldwide flood. I believe it was global. However, for physical reasons, I do not expect to find any global deposits in evidence of the global flood of Noah. There has been misunderstanding of this. In a recent public virtual-forum I wrote:

• Continue reading

In Matthew 16 the inspired historian revealed a promise made by Jesus to Peter and his other disciples. The promise concerned a significant aspect of God’s plan of redemption for mankind. In verse 18 Jesus said, “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” The church of Christ is a divine institution, formed by Christ, and governed by principles established by Him and His ambassadors, “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19).

Unfortunately men have continually shown themselves unwilling to acquiesce to Christ’s will regarding His church, and have altered the divine plan. Departures have been seen with regard to the worship of the church. Men have promoted innovations such as instruments of music to accompany the singing which is commanded in scripture, and have altered acts of worship such as the Lord’s Supper to the point where they are almost unrecognizable distortions of the divine plan. Men have distorted the work of the church as well, a common example of this is the present emphasis on the church as an agent of social change. This social emphasis is a far cry from the work of evangelism and edification indicated by Paul when he declared the church to be “the pillar and ground of the truth” (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15). Men have changed at their whim the organization of the church. There has been the activation of the “universal” church, the centralization and consolidation of authority; and the alliance of the church with human institutions, councils and societies. Among the distortions of God’s blueprint for the church, and the focus of this article, is an assault on the concept of church autonomy as revealed in scripture.

• Continue reading

Once, when “a certain lawyer” attempted to ensnare Jesus with a question, the Lord replied, “What is written in the law? How readest thou” (Lk. 10:26)?

Regarding the current controversy concerning “the days of Genesis 1,” let us ask, “How readest thou?” Are the days referred to literal days, or are they long ages of time as evolutionists theorize? Let us cite a portion of the text, and ask, “How readest thou?”

“And God said, Let there be light; and there was light….and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day” (1:3-5).

“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years….And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day” (1:14-19).

Without argument, just by reading the text, what is your sense or understanding of the language? Are the days figurative, referring to long periods of time? Does each day represent millions of years? “How readest thou?”

The matter of silence in Bible authority is just as important as the matter of God’s voice. What God says will not matter if we do not respect his silence equally. As many religious errors result from abusing God’s silence as result from disregarding his voice. These simple statements deserve much elaboration and this edition of “Solid Food” will be occupied with their consideration. What does God’s silence on any given question imply?

What Does Silence Mean?

Before the Protestant reformation, John Wycliff was a very influential reformer of the apostate church. Among his followers was Bohemian John Huss (1373-1415), who, earlier than Luther, opposed the papal sale of indulgences and use of armed force. Huss’s own followers, though, were deeply divided into two camps.

One group known as the “Utraquists” forbade only those practices specifically condemned by the Bible, thus tolerating anything without explicit condemnation. The other group, known as the “Taborites,” rejected all practices for which express warrant in the Bible could not be found, thus rejecting transubstantiation, the worship of saints, prayers for the dead, indulgences, priestly confession, dancing, and other such amusements.

• Continue reading

The internet has an immense potential for the proclamation of truth throughout the world. As this column is presented from month to month, we will be addressing some of the ways an individual Christian or a congregation can utilize the internet for the purpose of preaching the gospel. But, first things first. Many know nothing about more about the internet than, “When the arrow turns into a hand, you can click your mouse and it will take you somewhere else!” For many, the idea of establishing a web site for the purpose of preaching the gospel is so far-fetched as to be unworthy of serious thought. This is unfortunate, because it is a rather simple and inexpensive process. Following is a list of FAQ’s (internet lingo for “Frequently Asked Questions”) which will help guide you through the process. If anything remains unclear, or you want more information, please feel free to write and ask.

• Continue reading

The church at Ephesus receives ample attention in the scriptures. Besides having two epistles written to it (Ephesians; Rev. 2:1-7), the space of two chapters of the book of Acts is given to describing events involved in its establishment and early growth, along with Paul’s parting words to its elders (Acts 18:19-19:41; 20:17-38). Ephesus was an important center for spreading the Gospel to regions round about it (Acts 19:10). Also, brethren there worked hard in the service of God during a large part of its history (Rev. 2:2-3). In many ways the church there stands as a worthy example for churches today.

What a boon it would be for the cause of our Lord if such churches were established in various parts of the world today! In light of this, let us study some things involved in the planting of the church at Ephesus.

• Continue reading

Before we deal with the question as to the advisability of using the designation, “church of Christ,” perhaps we should establish that it is a scriptural label. In 1 Thessalonians 2:14, the Spirit cited “the churches of God.” However, when he wanted to speak of one such church, he spoke of, “the church of God” (1 Cor. 1:2). Thus, the singular of “churches of God” is “church of God.” In Romans 16:16, the Holy Spirit mentioned “the churches of Christ.” Since the singular of “churches of God” is “church of God,” what is the singular of “churches of Christ”? (If you do not know the answer to that question, there will be no need for you to worry, or to read further. Bless your heart, God will take care of you.) Over the years, some have said it would be best if we ceased to put the name, “Church Of Christ,” on our meetinghouses. Various reasons have been given. “It’s confusing.” “People with a negative view of the church won’t attend when they see the name.” “It’s too traditional.” What shall we say to these objections?

• Continue reading

In Luke 16, Jesus first spoke a parable about an unjust steward. The point of the parable was plainly stated when Jesus concluded it: “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon” (Luke 16:13). The word “mammon” signifies material goods or wealth.

The Pharisees who heard Him were said to be “lovers of money” (Luke 16:14). They “derided” Jesus for His teaching instead of listening to Him. Thus, Jesus rebuked them saying, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God” (Luke 16:15).

Jesus went on to cite one example of their tendency towards self-justification as noted in their frivolous practice of divorce and remarriage. While they engaged in this evil practice, they claimed to be doing right (Luke 16:18). These Pharisees needed to be sobered up! They needed to understand that their ungodly desire to live for their own pleasure would bring punishment. Those who engage in or justify unlawful divorce and remarriage today need to see the same. God has never been fooled by the veneer of acceptability attached to conduct He declares ungodly. The Pharisees tried this tack and it failed miserably as Jesus consistently denounced their sinful actions with rousing denunciations.

• Continue reading

Searching the Scriptures, Vol. VIII, No. 7, July 1967

(The following article is a reprint from Searching The Scriptures, May, 1962 in explaining the scriptural view of love as it applies to those in error.)

Denominational views are generally known by the subjects that are discussed in pulpits and papers, and the subject of love occupies a top place in nearly all religious groups. I would like to search the scriptures with you on the Bible meaning of love in an efforts to see if this subject is any more accurately represented by denominational teachers than many other subjects with which they deal.

Love is one of the key words in the word of God. The fact that God loves man is again and again stressed by every inspired man who was used by the Spirit to reveal the will of God. 1 John 4:7-21 is an example of the importance placed upon love by the word of God. Several facts are given in these verses which show that love is indispensable to fellowship with God. John says that “God is love” and that “love is of God.” Since God loves us, we are instructed to “love one another”. “If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.” “God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.” This is the theme of John in this section of his epistle, and he concludes the chapter by saying: “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also” (1 John 4:20,21).

• Continue reading

¿Por qué debemos estudiar acerca del hogar? ¿Debe incluirse este tema en los estudios bíblicos de la congregación?

Este tema merece mucho estudio. Debe ser predicado en el púlpito; debe ser enseñado en las clases bíblicas; y debe ser estudiado en el hogar mismo. Debe ser enseñado intensamente a los hijos.

Dios tiene leyes y enseñanzas con respecto a la familia. El es el Fundador del hogar. El es el Autor del matrimonio. El nos explica todo en cuanto al origen y al propósito del hogar. Nos dice cuál es el papel de cada miembro de la familia: del marido, de la esposa, y de los hijos.

La Biblia describe las bendiciones que Dios provee para la familia que sigue sus enseñanzas, y a la vez describe la miseria de aquellos que no las respetan.

En los arreglos de nuestro Dios existe un perfecto orden.

Existe orden en el universo, y en toda la creación de Dios.

• Continue reading