Watchman Magazine

Dear Watchman Magazine reader:

On July 22, 2000 my wife and I wrote the Florida College Board Members about our concerns over the issue of the “days” of Genesis 1-2 and Florida College. While we did not specifically request that each of them respond to our letter, we were hoping to hear from them. We have heard from only two board members. On July 24, 2000 Fred Pollock responded by e-mail and told us that he was appreciative of our letter and that he shares the same concerns that we have. Some days later, Larry Coffee responded by letter and basically said that there was no problem at Florida College and that as long as Ferrell Jenkins was Head of the Bible Department that everything would be ok. I disagree, of course, with Brother Coffee’s assessment of the situation at Florida College. If any of the board members would like to reply to our letter on Watchman Magazine, Stan Cox, editor of Watchman Magazine will gladly publish it along with our letter.

I am reproducing our letter to the Florida College board members in full below with the hope that it will help brethren see what the real issue is and how we can work together to resolve it. If you have similar concerns let me encourage you to write the Florida College board members and express them.

Share This

• Continue reading

Dear Watchman Magazine reader:

On July 25, 2000 I wrote Brother Jenkins, head of the Bible Department at Florida College, about my concerns over the issue of the “days” of Genesis 1-2 and Florida College. Except for a few of my own family, no one but Brother Jenkins has seen this letter until now. I had not heard from Brother Jenkins concerning my letter, so on August 28, 2000 I wrote him a brief e-mail asking him if he had received my letter and if he had any plans to respond to it. I still have not heard from Brother Jenkins.

I was hoping that Brother Jenkins would respond but he has not. I thought my positive relationship with both him and Florida College in the past would place some priority on my letter and that he would take it seriously and respond. I guess I was wrong. I know Brother Jenkins is busy, as all of us should be in the Lord’s kingdom, but has he gotten so busy that he cannot communicate with his own brethren anymore? The only way for all of us to resolve this issue to communicate and study together. I stand ready to do that. I am always open to discussion of these matters. I hope Brother Jenkins is open to the same. I will continue to wait for Brother Jenkins’ reply. If Brother Jenkins would like to publish his reply to my letter on Watchman Magazine, Stan Cox, editor of Watchman Magazine, will gladly publish it along with my letter.

Share This

• Continue reading

Dear Watchman Magazine reader:

On July 22, 2000 my wife and I wrote Brother Caldwell, President of Florida College, about our concerns over the issue of the “days” of Genesis 1-2 and Florida College. Except for a few of my own family, no one but Brother Caldwell has seen this letter until now. We had not heard from Brother Caldwell concerning my letter, so on August 28, 2000 I wrote him a brief e-mail asking him if he had received my letter and if he had any plans to respond to it. On August 29, 2000 Brother Caldwell responded to me by phone about my letter. We spoke for about an hour. Brother Caldwell was very kind and courteous in his response and I thanked him for responding to my letter. However, I am not completely satisfied with Brother Caldwell’s response. I do not agree with him in whole as to how he has chosen to resolve this issue. I accepted his apology concerning one point I raised in my letter and thanked him for it. But, there are other points in my letter that have been left unresolved between us. Since our phone conversation was not recorded, if you would like to know how he responded to my letter I would encourage you to contact Brother Caldwell. I’m sure Brother Caldwell would be glad to answer any questions you might have. Or, if you would like to contact me about what Brother Caldwell said I would be glad to relate his response to you as best I can recall it without misrepresenting him. If Brother Caldwell would like to publish his reply to our letter on Watchman Magazine, Stan Cox, editor of Watchman Magazine, will gladly publish it along with our letter.

Share This

• Continue reading

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!

Share This

• 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.

Share This

• 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.

Share This

• 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:

Share This

• 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.

Share This

• 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?”

Share This