Links Library

 1. Change Agents
 2. Church Growth
 3. Oaths & Covenants
 4. New World Order
 5. Hitler & the NIV
 6. Hegelian Dialectic
 7. Do Elders Rule?
 8. Holy Entertainment
 9. Books
10. Watchman Database

    Paul Proctor
    J.E. Choate
    Gary McDade
    Wayne Coats

    Secret Conversion
    NIV, Alert Level-5
    Sublett Exposed
    Some Call It Heresy
    Precious Moments
    Trick or Treat

   1. Madison Church of Christ

    1. Churches
    2. SundaySchoolinExile

Chat Room

Quote of the Month

Mail Bag

See How Others Voted

Know Your Bible

New This Week

Concerned Members


Subscribe yourself or a
friend to our email updates.

Enter Your Email

Get the

Spiritual Sword

A Special
About The
Community Church

Place text ad here
See all text ads

Place your banner ad here.         See all banner ads

How The New Liberals
Dig Up The Bones
Of The Old Liberals
by Wayne Coats


The encroachments of modernism and liberalism within the body of Christ is altogether obvious to anyone who is even half alert. To warn some brethren of what is happening over the brotherhood is about as successful as jumping over the moon on a pogo stick.

I am confident that I can convince anyone who is honest that there is a departing from the faith and that such departing is being led by a "Network" of liberals. I do not believe the liberals are honest. I perceive them to be dishonest, liars, frauds, thieves and church rogues devoid of any semblance of integrity. Of course I say this when I think there are no liberals.

Honest people are willing to study matters in an effort to resolve their differences. This spirit is totally lacking among the liberals. Their tactic is to ignore those who question their notorious teachings and practices and of course this is the practical thing to do, since liberalism is completely and totally intellectually bankrupt.

We are not the only ones to face the onslaughts of Digression. Our forebears were besieged with every tactic that Satan could hurl against them. Many, if not most of the congregations and preachers were lured into the cesspool of liberalism. Those brethren who had toiled, laboured and sacrificed so much, were often forced out of the meeting houses which they had helped build, and those good, sound brethren were scattered about to meet wherever a place could be found.

We will be giving some of the many warnings which were sounded by steadfast saints and at the same time we will show who was to blame for the strife discord and division. New liberals are just digging up the bones of the old liberals.

While I was a student at Vanderbilt Divinity School, I enrolled in some Church History courses which were taught by Dr. Bard Thompson, Dr. Herman Horton, and Dr. Wayne Bell. It was to be expected that two of those teachers who were members of the Vine Street Disciples of Christ Church in Nashville, would make great efforts to explain how the church of Christ split off from the Christian Church. Try as they would, they never succeeded in substantiating their case. It simply cannot be done and I sincerely believe that only people afflicted with severe prejudiced minds would even make such impossible efforts. The liberal Digressives would like to blame the good old brethren for all the division.

It is highly significant that Robert Hooper who is an elder at Rubel Shelly's Church and a professor at Lipscomb has written his version about the division which occured in 1906. Hooper actually wrote that David Lipscomb led a group aside, "into a seperate fellowship" in 1906. How any man could pervert, twist and change the truth in such manner is beyond me. Hooper is a Lipscomb professor and an elder in Rubel Shelly's Church. That might be the answer.

Hooper apparently forgets, or either he doesn't care that some of us have read as many books of history as he may have read. One thing is absolutely certain with reference to history. The facts cannot be changed or altered. Some neophytes blinded by prejudice, can attempt to rewrite history and discolor the facts but genuine historians are very well aware of such childish tactics and can disclaim such foolishness.

It is not the task of an honest historian to attempt to rewrite history. A real, objective historian will simply chronicle the facts of history. Facts are stubborn things.

Please lay aside all prejudice, preconceived notions, unfounded assertions and baseless assumptions and let us see what Brother Lipscomb and others wrote about all the trouble which occured. We can see what happened and who caused it. I have every word Brother Lipscomb ever wrote in the Old Gospel Advocates and I believe I have sense enough and sufficient integrity to understand what was taking place.

Frankly, there is no excuse on the top side of God's earth for any man to accuse Lipscomb or those aligned with him of leading a group off into another religious party. Such blasphemy is unsconcionable and without excuse.

"Oh, for an honest false teacher." Our new liberals in the church have done a fair job digging up the bones of the old liberals and modernists who went off into Digression. In this work, we will simply, "Show and Tell."

Wayne Coats
705 Hillview
Mt. Juliet, TN 37122
January 1, 1994

Chapter One

One of the very poignant and sad stories in the Old Testament has to do with the battle between Israel and the Philistines, along with the results. The information is found in 1 Samuel 4:1 ff. Israel was defeated in the battles without doubt, due to flimsy leadership and disrespect for Almighty God.

When the daughter-in-law of Old Eli gave birth to a son, she called his name, "... Ichabod," saying, "The glory is departed from Israel: because the ark of God was taken... And she said, The glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken" (1 Sam. 4:21-22).

Tis a terrible tragedy when the people of God can become so demented, distracted and unconcerned as to allow the ark of God to be taken away by heathens. That has occurred and continues to occur in our time. Do we care?

One of the amazing things in all history is to look at the tremendous spread of the gospel of Christ during the early days of the Restoration Movement. The growth of the church was nothing short of phenomenal. The Stone and Campbell efforts merged and the truth became triumphant.

Alexander Campbell wrote about the "unprecedented growth" seen in the early Restoration Movement. He said he knew of not one thing in all history as amazing as the rapid spread of that noble effort. Satan does not like to see people obey God. He will ruin every effort when allowed to do so. He can be resisted if brethren will put forth the effort (James 4:7). "Aye, there's the rub."

Not long after the Restoration Movement had spread across the land, troubles began to develop. Preachers began to compromise the Word and give forth with liberal views. Is there anyone among us who can figure out who caused the trouble which ultimately resulted in division before the world? Were these who brought in all sorts of innovations, the troublers? Were those who opposed the innovations to be blamed for the division? I truly believe that one should not expose ones colossal ignorance or disgraceful dishonesty by laying the blame at the feet of those faithful brothers who stood against all the departures. I suppose liberals have no qualms about anything-- if they can work matters around to their advantage. Look at the evidence. See for yourself. Do not stick your head in a pot. There are far too many pot-heads already. We do not need a new crop of such mindless characters being turned loose. Liberals will not tell you the truth about these matters.

The faithful brethren of yesteryear tried to warn about the old "Change Agents" but they were not very successful. Please read slowly, carefully and repeatedly the warnings as herein given. Do you think we have learned very much from experience? Are we like a bunch of ignoramuses who do not like to be bothered? Just what are we like? That is a crazy question of course to those who blubber about "Our Identity Crisis" and "We Don't Know Who We Are."

I hope and pray that the reader will read the statements as given by many of the older brethren and then look at my COMMENTS. Surely we can see that in many congregations, "The Glory of the Lord is Departed."

Chapter Two

In 1836, T.M. Henley wrote an article which appeared in the Millennial Harbinger. He said:

"It does appear to me that there is a falling off in some measure from what we set out with ~ a restoration of the ancient gospel and order of things and a pure apostolic speech. But it seems to me like a departure from the simplicity of the Christian institution to have cooperation meeting with presidents and secretaries, calling for messengers of churches and laying off districts."


Was Henley just being an alarmist? Did he not know better than to sound an alarm? Did he not know better than to sound an alarm? Were not those presidents, secretaries and districts, little harmless matters? Why act like a knucklehead and be so negative? What was it that "we set out with?" The aim was to restore the ancient order of things and a pure apostolic speech but some of the preachers had a notion to warm up to the sects. Like today, a lot of preachers were never really converted to Christ. This explains why there were so many religious freaks in pulpits.

In 1844, Tolbert Fanning wrote:

"An apostacy has commenced. Preachers are beginning to talk about their clerical brethren."
Old brother Fanning should be living today and hear what some of the preachers are saying. Of course what the modernists are saying is what they have copied from the liberal element who lived in the days of brother Fanning.

Some preachers are so afflicted with ignorance that they really do not know how to be born of water and of the spirit, thus any broom-stick with a pair of britches on is considered a brother and dumb elders (???) will support the wackos. Ephesians 5:11 has no meaning to them. Ask a liberal elder to quote the passage. He will usually blink like a Hoot Owl.

Things had gotten so ridiculous that by 1855, Tolbert Fanning and William Lipscomb began a paper which they called, The Gospel Advocate. Fanning wrote:

"I determined by the help of the Lord to give the subject of cooperation a thorough examination (GA, 1855, p.110)."
All along through the years the Gospel Advocate was in the fore-front as a defender against liberalism with its innovations. The paper and its editors were "despised and rejected of men." The ultra-liberal Christian Standard paper depicted David Lipscomb as an old woman with a broom trying to sweep back the waves of progress.

In recent years the Advocate has all but ceased its opposition to liberalism. I made a visit to Neil Anderson who publishes the Advocate and begged him to please turn the paper around. I might as well have tried to talk to Adolph Hitler. Tis sad that a paper which has been of such value in opposing the liberals, digressives, and modernists down through the years has all but lost its influence for good. What is the position of the Advocate today? Who knows? It has abandoned its orginial purpose for sure and if the publisher/and editor thinks for one moment that good, solid, sound and faithful brethren will rally around a weak, insipid, straw in the wind paper, they are dead wrong.

The Gospel Advocate had been in operation for two years when S. B. Giles wrote in 1857:

"Such are always deploring our lukewarmness and inefficiency and lauding the order, zeal and progress of some of the sects. That there is some departure from Gospel purity, and relaxation in dedication by the brotherhood, I think requires but little sagacity to discover."
Sound familiar? The leading liberals would have very little to say if they would just shut up about the old dried-up traditional church. They laud the sects while making fun of brethren. Such characters as Shelly, Cope, ad nauseam can really berate the old brethren. Cope can write about the "dying gasp" of the outdated church. Of course all the liberals are fearful of their shadows. It shouldn't take much effort for the liberals to meet a dying corpse. Why should the modernist amoung us be so shaky?

In 1859, Ben Franklin wrote regarding the departures and his article was published in, The American Christian Review. He said:

"It is now wisely discovered that the terms of pardon laid down in the New Testament, as advocated, propogated, and defended with such unprecedented success by the disciples, for the last thirty years, as one man expressed it 'have rendered us ridiculous in the eyes of the world, and that we must go on to perfection.' But where have these men gone to in going on to perfection? Some of them have gone so far as to reach the silly, anit-evangelical practice of praying for the conversion of sinners at the mourners bench. Others of them have progressed so far as to make the remarkable discovery that the voice of conscience is the voice of God. Again it has been discovered that men cannot believe the testimony of God till the spirit quickens him and gives him life. It is again maintained that men in our time speak by inspiration and that miracles should be performed in the church. What use have such men as these for the Bible."
Who are the uncircumcised infidels among us who ridicule the plan of salvation? Who are the Neo-Calvinists among us who are prattling about the leading of the Holy Spirit? What about the new lights among us who are given to dispensing spiritual gifts? Yes, there are those who haven't learned any better than to wait for the spirit to quicken them. Indeed, what use have the liberals wackos for the Bible?

If elders would wake up and quit acting like Zombies, liberalism could be slowed to a snails pace. What do you say? Why did old Ben Franklin act so foolish as to write against the departures of his day? He was trying to save a cause from being destroyed by a pack of liberal rogues.

We need some Ben Franklin's today but that might cost one a friend, or maybe a dime or two. Loyalty to Christ means more that some seem to realize.

Isaac Errett had not reached the complete stance in modernism and liberalism to which he later plunged but he had started in a down-hill run by 1861 when he wrote in the Millenial Harbinger:

"We are compelled therefore to recognize as Christians many who have been in error on baptism, but in the spirit of obedience are Christians indeed."
The copy-cat liberals among us could save time and effort if they would just print those old asanine articles written by Errett, Garrison, Pendleton, et. al. They are babbling the same nonsense today. If people can be in error on baptism and be "Christians indeed," pray tell why people cannot be in error on faith and be "Christians indeed"? Of course to be in error on baptism is to be in error on faith. How blinded must our liberal brethren become before they become unaccoutable? And somebody tried to deceive me into thinking the liberals are smart. Nuts!

Liberalism tends to spread like lice. The liberals feel compelled to say something regardless of how stupid it might be. W. K. Pendleton wrote in 1861:

"To plead for union, and at the same time exclude the really pious from the communion of the body and blood of the Saviour, is in the very nature of things, to destroy the practical power of our plea."
What was, "Our plea?" Was it not a plea to restore New Testament Christianity? Was it not a plea to "speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent? " Was it not a plea to reject denominationlism?

Was the table of the Lord not in the kingdom? Jesus said it would be (Luke 22:30). Is there but one way to enter the kingdom? Can one enter the kingdom without being born of water and of the spirit? See John 3:3-5! Is a person in the kingdom just because he is pious. This is too purile to even answer, but such is liberalism.

It wasn't written today in 1994, but it came fromt the pen of Moses E. Lard in 1865. That was 130 years ago, but it sounds so familiar. Brother Lard wrote:

"He is a poor observer of men and things who does not see slowly growing up among us a class of men who can no longer be satisfied with the ancient gospel and the ancient order of things. These men must have changes; and silently they are preparing the mind of the brotherhood to receive changes."
How could even a moron read the above and conclude that Lipscomb, Lard and others were responsible for the division which became open and apparent in 1906?

Who were the men who became dissatisfied with the ancient order of things? To what did their dissatisfaction lead? How did the digressive Christian Church get started without all the changes which were brought in by the liberal elelment?

Honesty is the best policy for liberals only when it suits their policy.

In 1866 the bugle horn for the liberal modernist gang began to really blow when The Christian Standard was launched. Isaac Errett was the editor. He wrote about editors and other papers, calling them:

"...earthborn and legalists."
Brother when you oppose and expose a liberal get ready to be labeled a "legalist." Who cares about the labels from the liberals? That is the best they can do. Not one thing is as cheap as the talk of the liberal element in today's church. We call them liberals because among other things, that is what they are.

Sure they are liberals. Who in his right mind would consider them to be conservatives? It is a fact that in every area under the sun, matters must be legal except in the realm of N. T. Christianity. If it is in law, medicine, education, business, transportation, etc, everything has to be legal. Someone with more patience than I might try to explain this to the dunderheads who want to whine about their "legalistic brethren." Do they want us to be illegal?

From the pointed pen of Moses E. Lard, we read another piercing article which came from the Apostolic Times in 1869. Brother Lard wrote:

"They are partial to the 'pious' in other sects; yet they pounce unmercifully upon the faults of their own brethren. They appear doubtful that their brethren are right in anything. They claim to have made greater progress in spirituality, in the inner life, and in the secret walks with God... Closely as they have gone to the presence of God, so closely have we; deeply as they have drunk at the fount of spiritual life, so deeply have drunk we. Not a flower blooms on the tallest peak their feet have ever pressed whose fragrance we have not inhaled. These men lack the gift to see themselves as others see them. These men who know more, ought to show a little more patience until we learn better or die off."
Good brethren, when you behold one liberal, you have beheld them all. What did Moses E. Lard see among the up-starts of his day? He saw a pompous, arrogant, smart-aleck, overbearing, haughty, high-minded, puffed-up, egotistical, bragging, bloated, type of personality. The basic personality structure of liberals is the same. They stick out like the tail feathers of a peacock in full strut. Like a blimp they are full of hot air and they are so very cautious about getting cornered, lest their bloated ego might get deflated. Brother Lard hit the target. You and I need to hit.

In giving his warning to that of others, Robert Graham wrote in 1869:

"... there is among ourselves a falling off from the simplicity of the gospel, a conforming to the mode of the, 'other' denominations, the loss of zeal for the spread of the gospel for fear people will think us solicitous only to build up a party. With the uniform experience of past ages before us, the tendency of men to make the gospel popular under the plea of extending its influence, and that, too even at the cost of its purity and power to save, should make us keen to detect and fearless in our condemnation of all departures from the faith."
When brother Graham wrote about, "the uniform experience of past ages," did he really believe the liberals, the digressives, the innovators, would give a hoot about experience? Some people and even some billy goats can learn from experience. Some of my brethren cannot seem to learn anything from experience. The crux of the matter is, they are too ignorant of the old Digression Movement and they are too lazy and unconcerned to find out. That's the reason we have so many blissful people in the church.

The Christian Standard really got hooked on the matter of "Legalism." A veritable barrage of charges were constantly being hurled against the legalist. David Lipscomb replied in 1871:

"We have been pained for some time to see reproach cast upon those who insist upon faithful obedience to the law of God as the condition of his blessing-as 'legalist' and the principle that required the submission as 'legalism.' Some of our progressive brethren have even gone so far as to deny there is any law in the New Testament as there was in the old."
I have tried to tell everyone that the new "progressives" are just a bunch of copy-cats. They are without any solid platform. The same prattle which Lipscomb opposed 123 years ago is the same flimsy spiel of the new sect among us. They speak with a forked tongue. They bleat that we are not under law but under grace but ask one of those fearful fellows is he gets a check from the church. Ask him if the clones in his church are taught to give and ask him by what law or rule. Ask him if he has a mind and/or heart. Ask him what Hebrews 10:16 teaches. Ask him if his mind is empty of the law of Christ? Do not expect any sensible answers. The old liberals and the new liberals were/are both experts in the language of Ashdod.

From The Christian Standard of 1871 we read:

"The dispensation of the gospel is a dispensation of grace; as such it must be received into the heart by faith and love, not by work or works... I know my brethren. I know that they have certain forms of words current among them that are hindrances to their own progress. Baptism for the remission of sins is one of these forms; law of pardon is another. The form of words, baptism for the remission of sins is unexplainable and should be thrown out of use. No one believes it and yet it is constantly used. You teach, Baptism for the remission of sins. I teach, Christ crucified for the remission of sins. Which of us is most likely to reach the Baptists?"
It would be interesting to have Robert Hooper tell us who is leading people aside in view of the quotations given thus far. Was David Lipscomb making a strong plea for change? Was he leading people aside? Who was to blame? What about those new forms being used? Did such rot come from Lipscomb? You can hear such garbage being poured out of the liberal jugs today.

Who is it that keeps harping the old Calvinistic tune of grace alone? Who is it that runs down the Jubilee and asserts that we need to get rid of the old biblical expressions such as "blessings," "righteousness," and "sanctification"? Who is it that keeps bragging about the new brand of "Christology" which has been borrowed from Barth, Kung and other modernists? It's the copy-cat liberals.

In 1872, Ben Franklin wrote:

"In our decided and determined opposition to the departures being made from the primitive gospel, in our opposition to church fairs, festivals, church concerts, useless outlays in gorgeous and fashionable temples of folly and pride called churches, instruments of music etc, we have sinned against Dr. Progress, Mr. Fashion, Sir Custom, and offended the taste of their friends and the spirit of the world in general. We are opposed to no man, but opposed to all departures from the faith."
It would be wonderful if we had more brethren who would arise in the spirit of Ben Franklin and dare to "oppose" all the "departures from the faith." Pray tell what one has lost of value when one loses the friendship of some modernistic, digressive liberal? John had his head cut off and Jesus was spiked with nails to the cross but today we had rather switch than fight. Oh, but the devil must be having a picnic when he can influence the liberals so much.

Ben Franklin sounded forth with his pen of fury in 1872 when he wrote against the church changes. He said:

"... they think that change is in us but are unconscious of the change in themselves. They point to nothing in which we have changed, nothing new in us. The trouble with us is about the new things they are introducing, the new departures they are making, their 'progression' which is really retrograding."
The church changers get riled up when someone hollers "woah." They want to change the bride of Christ into that which would be nothing more than a "great whore" (Rev. 17:1). The liberal sects do not agree among themselves as to what needs to be changed. One will say one thing and another will say something differently. When we get through following the innovations of the "Change Agents," we will be like a ring full of circus clowns trying to change their attire between stunts. Liberals are fairly freakish.

Let us ask Almighty God to please help us to have more men like Joseph Franklin who, in 1873 wrote:

"I steadfastly believe that the current innovations might have been kept out, or might be put out, if preachers were not afraid to attack them. Presently, the respectable denomination, 'The Disciples Church' will receive the right hand of fellowship as an evangelical church."
Does anyone know a preacher who is afraid? How do fearful preachers act? Can we spot, pinpoint, identify and mark them? How do little toddlers act when they are fearful? Cowardly preachers are nothing more than overgrown babies. They have earned to hide their cowardice and fear somewhat better than babes and sucklings. They are just grown-up sucklings who may have learned to swindle the comotose church members.

So? The fearful preacher is 500% positive. He would not dare have anyone to think that he is a mere 100% positive, jolly-good fellow. He has learned to excell in bragging on all the church members, including the whoremongers, adulterers, libertines, lunatics, and especially the elders who qualify by being the husband of a wife and who has managed to father a few children.

The spineless pastor/preacher never deals with any "issue." He lets it be known that he will not waste his time with issues. What he means is, he is too dumb to really know what is happening over the brotherhood and he is also afraid to say anything lest he lose some good, contributing social club members. The preacher with the shakes seems to be unaware of the fact that the podium upon which he stands to present his sugar-coated bile, has most often been erected and maintained by valiant soldiers of Christ who refuse to sell out to the devils crowd.

The fearful preacher surveys the situation and fits into what ever slot is available and like water he will conform to the shape desired. He can be round, square, cubed or whatever. He is so positive in bragging that he even brags on himself for being so sweet and lovable. He loves the elders and he loves the old ladies and sometimes he makes a mistake and loves the young ladies, but even so ~ he is positive. He prints a church bulletin which amounts to a bragging sheet. He never mentions anything that would cause anyone to take offense. Even the devil is welcome if it means another number to brag about. He writes that he was so bless in attending a school that did not emphasize "brotherhood issues," and the poor, miserable, creature would be as helpless as a babe in swaddling clothes when the renegade rogues and church thieves move in. Do not doubt that they are on the way. Most of the motley crew of positive, cowardly preachers will join in with the liberals and some of the others will sit around and whine. I know some who actually do not have sense enough to deal with "issues."

I do not want to go to hell for any reason but of the many reasons ~ I surely do not want to spend an eternity in hell with fearful, cowardly preachers. That is where the fearful will be (Rev. 21:8). Save your breath in trying to help a spineless preacher. Just expose him and oppose him whenever possible and let folks know him for what he is.

I respect preachers who respect God.

J. W. McGarvey:

"If one really desires to see modernism and liberalism in its most rancid form, take note of what happened to Brother McGarvey."

J. W. McGarvey was dismissed by the Board of Curators of Kentucky University.

"My Removal"
"The Purpose long cherished in the heart of John B. Bowman has at last been accomplished. Mordecai no longer sits at the kings gate refusing to bow down when the great Haman goes in and out."
Brother McGarvey had opposed the modernists who were taking over the Bible Department in the University. Actually the University was an outgrowth of efforts by brethren who had started a school in Lexingtion, Kentucky. In the course of time, the Bible School merged or was rather "submerged" into the University. The long story is sorry, sordid, shameful and a disgrace. The short story is that the liberal Digressives stole, "The College of the Bible." Brother McGarvey was treated worse than a galley slave. The liberals have just about succeeded in stealing all of "OUR" colleges and Universities in this era.

Tis enough to make a buzzard vomit to see the idolatry offered by a certain segment ~ to the schools. To deny that some of the colleges and universities control congregations is but to flaunt one's stupidity. Either you line-up or you are lined-out. Do you tell me that such isn't true. You either get on the list or you get on the "off" list. That may bother some brethren very deeply but I figure I can go to heaven and never see a liberal college and university.

We can preach about problems, difficulties and errors within congregations and some of the brethren will grin like a mule eating saw-briers but mention the hellish modernism and/or liberal teaching which is being sanctioned on a university campus such as that which is taught at Lipscomb and the fat is in the fire. Indeed Ephraim is joined to her idols (Hosea 4:17).

The lessons which we should be learning from the experiences of Brother McGarvey and others, just cannot seem to penetrate our thick skulls. All the schools were lost to the Digressives, but don't tell anybody.

F. G. Allen in 1879:

"Some of our preachers are so vague, sometimes they are months trying to get the people to understand what they meant and what they didn't mean. There is no necessity for this. What the Bible clearly teaches on any subject may be so presented that the people will understand it ~ cannot help but understand it."
"Some of our preachers..." do not have very much sense and almost no common sense. Common sense is a wonderful quality which sometimes is not very common among the clergy. A Baptist preacher spoke in chapel at the local high school. He strutted forth and announced that he was going to read John 14 in the original Greek. Not a student knew what was read and of course that was no bother to the preacher. He wanted attention focused on HIM. He, like the old Pharisees was trying to say, "How Do I Look?" It would have been far more impressive if he had read John 14, in German, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Latin and Gaelic.

Oh, how some of the brethren like attention and a good way to get attention is to, "say it in Greek." It matters not how plain a verse or word may be in the English text. The good brethren cannot understand the English until the Greek is explained ~ which of course is the original explained by the translated word.

Do preachers not really know that the brethren know when some ignoramus is just trying to show off? Do preachers not know that they are trying to vaunt themselves when they try to spend so much time in Greek? I have preached all over the world and most of my brethred do well to understand English. This is not to disparage brethren. It is saying however that we would do well to stay with that which relates to our understanding.

Some people came to Jesus on one occasion and they said, "... tell us plainly..." (John 10:24). Our Lord told others, "I will show you plainly of the Father" (John 16:25). His disciples said, "Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb."

If brethren cannot take Bible verses and deal with them in plain, simple, understandable language, they are suffering for severe mental, emotional and personality problems. You know, it might be that some of the upper scum brethren think that I have serious problems. At least they can usually understand what I say.

In 1880, John F. Rowe wrote a warning in, "The American Christian Review," wherein he said,

"That there is rapidly growing up among us a new order of things in contrast with the old order of things, as advocated by A. Campbell and his associates, is a fact that is becoming more apparent and pronounced every day. There are two classes among us ~ those who represent, 'The Ancient Order Of Things' and those who represent, 'The New Order Of Things.' It is manifest that these two parties are not only not acting in sympathy, but that the men of 'The New Order Of Things' are determined to crush down, if possible, the 'Ancient Order Of Things."
"What more can we say than to you we have said," is the expression found in the old song, "How Firm A Foundation."

Brethren, do we earnestly apprehend that the devil is on an extended vacation? Do we, can we, actually believe that Satan wrought havoc in the church as described by Brother Rowe? How successful was the devil in getting brethren to move away from "The Ancient Order Of Things" as advocated by A. Campbell and his associates?

When men moved away from the old order and began a new order, who was to blame for the ensuing troubles? Does Robert Hooper have any information on that matter? The new liberals are not content to start a New Order Of Things, but like the devilish characters in the days of Brother Rowe, they want to "crush down, if possible, the Ancient Order Of Things." A fellow has to be pretty rotten all the way through when he makes it his aim to destroy the work of God among us.

The liberals do not know anything that is really NEW. Back in 1880, M. J. Breaker could sneer and set a pattern for the Johnnies-come-lately liberals. Breaker wrote:

"Christians are asked to unite on the basis of the primitive church in Jerusalem, but in reality no one wants to return to the condition of that church."
Breaker burped it long before Shelly said it, but both manifest cold contempt for the word of God. If we deny that Christians are to be united, we make God, Christ and the Holy Spirit to be liars. We must be united. There is no other option (Eph. 4:1-6). No intelligent person would take the Bible and try to prove that division, discord, and confusion is right. Men will make stupid assertions that division or diversity is right but not a solitary one of them will resort to biblical proof. WHY? They know better than to display their ignorance in such matters.

Division is sinful and Biblical unity is scriptural and right. The primitive church in Jerusalem was guided, directed and moved along under the direction of the inspired Apostles. Yes, the devil did intervene when he could but such is not the pattern, unless one wants to be a liberal.

We have certain modernists in the church who belittle the idea of following the pattern of the first century church. I will present on point which will forever sound the death knell to the liberal tom-foolery.

If we are not to unite upon the "basis of the primitive church in Jerusalem," then no man nor group of men can tell us upon what basis we can be united. To even try to set forth some basis of unity would be the most high-handed, arrogant, pierce of foolishness which any tyro could offer, but such is liberalism. Indeed the sorry mess seen in cultic and denominational groups is the result of liberal thinking.

So the Jerusalem church is not a pattern! Just open the Bible and look at the word, "WAY." There are other words which convey the same principle but only one word will knock the liberal view into oblivion.

Jesus said, "I am the way..." (John 14:6). What does "way" denote? Does "the way" mean anything and every thing some rebels want it to mean? The way just means the way. Try getting to the Father without going by the way. This way is a pattern, a standard to be followed. The liberal thieves want to present other ways (John 10:1). When Jesus said, "... narrow is the way that leadeth unto life and few there be that find it" (Matt 7:14), was he trying to teach many ways, no way, or one way? Can we obtain that life without accepting the way? Had not the Jerusalem church accepted and become subservient to "the way"?

When Saul of Tarsas went to Damascus, he was searching for "... any of this way..." (Acts 9:2). They would be of this Way, but they would be the church (1 Cor. 15:9; Phil. 3:6; Col. 1:13). Saul, "... persecuted this way unto death..." (Acts 22:4). Saul persecuted Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 22:8). Saul persecuted, "... them that believed on Christ" (Acts 22:19). Saul persecuted the saints (Acts 26:10). If one was of this way, that one was a member of the church. If one was a member of the church, that one was of "this way." How many loud-mouthed liberals will eliminate, reject, refuse, set aside and dispense with the WAY?

When Apollos needed teaching, a husband and wife took him aside and "... expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:26). "Who wants to return to the condition of that church ~ that way of God?"

In Ephesus Paul spake for three months in the synagogue, "... disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. But when divers were hardened and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them..." (Acts 19:8-9).

Paul preached the kingdom but men spake evil of that way. They didn't like the route laid out by the apostle. Do any of our liberals want to be in the kingdom or in the way? "Who wants to return to that...?

It was while Paul was in Ephesus that, "... there arose no small stir about that way" (Acts 19:23). There were many ways in the city but "that way" caused a big stir. Did God change "that way" because people were a bit uncomfortable with it? How long was "the way" to last? Which liberal has been able to eliminate the way of God?

When all the liberals get through with their mouthing, we will still be able to read, "by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, which is to say, his flesh." (Heb. 10:20). Some people have no respect for the death of Christ and some brethren have no respect for the way of Christ, "And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of" (II Pet. 2:2). Who wants to go back to the way of truth? There is a right way (II Pet. 2:15). It is still, "... the way of righteousness" (II Pet. 2:21). Yes, "the way" is the pattern, and to babble about respecting the pattern is to reject the way. Liberals are not known for their rational thinking.

To those who are completely blind but still able to faintly hear, let them shout aloud what J. H. Garrison wrote in 1880. Hear him please!

"Are we a denomination? It occurs to us there is another question lying behind that, that will help to answer it. It is this: Are we a church? If so, we are certainly a denominational church like the rest."
Do you think that Garrison was so demented as to think that he would pose a question which would "help" to determine if the church of Christ was just another denomination? Without a doubt he and his ilk had so far apostatized into modernism and infidelity as to think that the Body of Christ was a "big, sick, denomination" (shades of some of the little liberals today). The Digressive squirmers got what they set out to get, when they turned their sect into a full-fledged denominational "Disciples Church." And to think that a lot of our men today sit around like toad-stools and yak, "It won't happen here."

We need acres of men in our time like old brother Joseph Franklin. He kept his quill in the ink-bottle. In 1880, he put the situation in clear perspective.

"What have we got? Occasionally there is one such (who would have had an education had there never been a Bible College), but for one such, scores of pedantic striplings who prate about the illiteracy of our ablest men, snivel because people prefer common sense instead of their dry speeches, and make indecent haste to sell out the reformation for the fellowship of the sectarians."
Well of course we are hearing the same kind of caterwauling, sniveling remarks by the pedantic striplings in our time. Mark it down! A liberal neophyte or embryo is a fellow who thinks he has to say something. I have yet to see or hear from one who really has something worthwhile to say.

I sincerely believe that if I sneered at the positions proclaimed by the older preachers, I would get rid of the yellow streak down by back, march forth like a man with some affirmative or negative propositions. Of course Judas Iscariot, i.e., "Judas Popoff" never had a debate. He was too yellow, both inside and out. Shades of the liberals, that is.

The year was 1881. The writer was E. C. Weakley. The statement was:

"We were once, as a religious people, a unit in our faith and worship. But how things have changed in some churches called, "Christian Churches," within the last few years. Some of our preachers and editors are now contending for human institutions ~ organs, festivals, societies, etc... Dear brethren, do come back and be satisfied with the purity and all sufficiency of the holy scriptures."
Brother Weakley saw the "Change Agents" at work in his day and those heretics were very successful in starting the Digressive Church. Is that what the new Change Agents want? Of course it is but rather than act like men with ethics and go on over and join with the Digressives, they will cause trouble, discord, and alienation all over the brotherhood. It takes a fairly decent man to "shun the very appearance of evil," but then on the other hand, I do not know any decent liberals.

The devils work NEVER slows down. In 1883, brother James A. Harding wrote:

"The innovators are rapidly gaining ground in Kentucky in the face of an overwhelming majority who are standing opposed to them, and who favor standing by apostolic teaching and practice in the worship; simply because those who are from the old paths do not stand firmly and consistently by what they believe to be right."
As I write this brief comment, I am in the great state of Kentucky engaging in a Gospel Meeting. For decades, the Bluegrass state has been known for soundness, loyalty, firmness, deep conviction and a strong determination upon the part of good, old brethren who gave their very lives in spreading the precious seed of the kingdom. What a legacy they left us (John 4). There are still many fellow soldiers of Christ scattered over the state who will die rather than recant.

"The innovators are rapidly gaining ground in Kentucky..." It grieves me to know that brethren in some areas will, "... not stand firmly and consistently by what they believe to be right." Can we not take a stand as the Bible teaches?

I have publicly exposes some of the absurd and foolish positions being advocated by professors at David Lipscomb University, and I plan to continue to do so. I refuse to let anyone put a gag around or in my mouth as long as false teachers are on the rampage.

Brother Harold Hazelip who is the president of Lipscomb has a brother living close by. He reportedly said that he would not attend the meeting because I had opposed brother Harold. Whoopee! I would oppose my own brother or the brother of anyone else who is involved in flagrant error.

On Sunday I preached on "Worship" and exposed the ridiculous and sectarian idea that, "Worship is How We Encounter a Holy God." Encounter classes are scheduled for the forthcoming Lectureship at Lipscomb. Encounter theology is down-right stupid. It was the basis of the theology of Marting Buber and Emil Brunner, two infidel German theologians.

Well, I just haven't learned when or where to keep quiet relative to the liberals. They can really whoop it up but I must be as silent as old Zacharius. All the congregation save on seemed to really appreciate the lesson on "Worship." The "save one" soul was a very young girl who had gone to Abilene to study. After the service the "save one" soul tried to "convert" me. I had really touched a sore spot. I mean the fat was in the fire. If brother Harding was till living, he might want to reprint the article which he wrote 111 years ago. It is most appropriate, not only in Kentucky but all over the brotherhood. Not enough brethren want to wrestle (Eph. 6:12).

The American Christian Review of 1883 carried an article by brother John F. Rowe which is most timely. The title of the article was Fellowship With Sects.

"Can we in any sense identify ourselves with such sectarian bodies? Can we, in the fear of God, and as the conservators of the ancient order of things, religiously mingle with them and sit down at their communion tables? To do so is to return willfully into Babylonian Captivity. Religiously, we must remain a distant people, or else give the lie to all our pretensions of restoring the apostolic church, in doctrine, in faith, in obedience, in worship and in discipline."
It's the same old theme, the same old song of the devil which is being played all over. The looney tunes and merry melodies of the sect-loving, left-wing lunatic wackos in the schools and churches have already arrived in Babylon and they compass land and sea to make proselytes, only to reshape them into sons of hell. The sect-lovers would do a great service if they would go ahead and join the sects. The devil had rather they stay where they can deceive more of the shallow saints.

In 1883, David Lipscomb wrote in the Gospel Advocate:

"We have not doubted, for years that if the course of adding innovation to innovation, pursued by many is persisted in, that division and separation will come. Nay, it ought to come. God will cause it to come."
Poor brother David just didn't know any better than to print such a scurrilous piece. The wretched fellow didn't know that he was well on the way to "leading the church aside into a separate fellowship" (quote Robert Hooper). Those adding all the innovations were as innocent and harmless as little lambs. Men like Lipscomb were the dirty culprits, when they opposed those innovations. When men pursue the course of changing everything about the church which can be changed, they should be blamed for causing trouble. When some old fogey, some croaker, utters a word of opposition, then everyone can see who troubles Israel. Even a Lipscomb University teacher and a member of Rubel's church can see where the trouble arises. Yes sir! Hooper tells us that Lipscomb led the church aside into a different fellowship. I think the man needs to read Revelation 21:8, and become a bit concerned.

Two Parties: James A. Harding; Gospel Advocate; 1884-p. 462.

"It is an undeniable fact that there are two wings to this reformation and that they are drifting apart."
That two-winged monstrosity would not have developed if brethren had not gotten so smart. Did brother Harding belong to the old wing or the new wing? The two wings were not together and obviously did not get together. In 1906, the break-up was offical although the cleavage had existed for years.

If there was one wing for a number of years (and there was as any student of Restoration History knows and can prove), then pray tell who developed the other wing and how was it developed? The same senseless onslaughts of liberalism which caused the church to split back during the days of brother Harding, is at work in our day and the church is being divided all over the nation. The liberals with their gobble-de-gook are causing trouble anywhere they can. The entire lot will split hell wide open. God hates division (Prov. 6:14). He hates every false way (Psm. 119:104). The liberal element couldn't care less about Jesus' death for unity. In fact as we survey their track record, we wonder if they care about anything ~ except themselves.

In 1884, brother Lipscomb wrote:

"At what period of the worlds history have the learned, the institutions of learning, the wise, the scholars, the big preachers, the great popular crowds and current events in the church, been on the side of maintaining in its purity, the word of God?"
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Rom. 1:22).

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe... Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God hath chose the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty (1 Cor. 1:19-27).

"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again the Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain" (1 Cor. 3:18-19). Nuff said!

Robert Hooper might not like what brother Lipscomb wrote in 1885, but it shows who was changing. Take note!

"The same authority that changed the order of God in reference to the work of the church can change the faith. You have sown to the wind; you must reap the whirlwind."
Who changed? What was changes? Did Lipscomb change? Did he know who changed? Who sowed the wind? Would Lipscomb agree that he was the culprit? Would he agree with Hooper that he was responsible for leading the church aside? Lipscomb is dead and cannot defend his views as expressed in the Advocate. He deserves better than to be slandered.

J. M. Barnes wrote in The American Christian Review in 1885,

"But brother Rice, there will grow out of the church of Christ in the United States a sectarian party. They will be composed of the progressive party and organ elements. Let them go; the sooner the better. They are a curse to cause we plead... we will fight for the truth against innovations."
Brother Barnes was a true prophet. Just look at the disgraceful, sectarian party which developed. What a curse indeed! The progressives with their innovations became a sect. Who opposed the innovations? Did the brethren who stood against all the innovations become a sect? Ah, but they stood firmly for the truth and the liberals went off into apostacy. Even Bob Hooper cannot twist the writings of brother Barnes and others who were committed to, "... fight for the truth against innovations."

1887 ~ The kettle is still boiling, being fired by the Digressives. Brother Lipscomb wrote in the Gospel Advocate:

"Brother Highbee never makes a protest against division, to those who introduce the occasion of this strife. Brothers Garrison and Spencer ~ the 'two sweet tempered men' compare us to the hypocritical pharisees who crucified the Saviour. Brother Garrison says we are legalists, we dishonorably represent the brotherhood, and remind him of hypocritical pharisees who persecuted the Saviour."
Change the names from sweet-spirited Garrison and Spencer to Shelley-Cope and a few other babblers and the article of Lipscomb which is 107 years old would be completely up to date.

The new breed seems to relish the display of their dishonesty in charging the "mainline church with waving the flag of division." A man must be a moron to not see who is dividing the church. Could Garrison, Spencer, et. al. not see the source? We get a bit impatient with folks who have no regard for telling the truth. Can we not read from those who clatter about changing the church? When they do change and there is opposition, who is to blame?

Brother Green sent his statement to the Gospel Advocate in 1888:

"When I became a member of the church almost fifty years ago, I never expected or dreamed that I would live to see the change in doing the Lord's work, as it is called, that I have seen."
When I began to preach fifty years ago, I never expected or dreamed that I would live to see a gang of reckless change agents creating chaos, discord and confusion as I now see it.

Brother Green and other brethren in olden times should tell us something but we are so hard-headed that we will not listen. Yes, the same wicked system opposed by the old brethren, is spreading rapidly. The imps of hell and the god of this world (II Cor. 4:4) will at least know that there was one voice crying in the wilderness against their hellish efforts. Soldiers of Christ must arise.

Isaac Errett ~ The Compromising Digressive ~ 1889:

"We are compelled therefore to recognize as Christians many who have been in error on baptism, but who in the spirit of obedience are Christians. There is a people of God among the sects."
The sweet and affable Errett was most compelling. To people who refuse to think, very little compelling is needed. Absolutely no proof is needed. A certain class love darkness rather than light. How did Errett and his stripe know that it is just fine to be in error on baptism? Is it of the truth to be in error? When one is in error, is one following the truth? Listen to the liberals as they try to ape the old Digressives. Why will we never learn?

Chapter Three
More Bones Disinterred

1890; Brother J. A. Clark asked,

"How is it that we can give a man Christian (big C) fellowship and at the same time give him church (little c) fellowship, if he belongs to a denomination which we do not?"
When Jereboam wants altars in Dan and Bethel he will construct them. When the Digressives wanted to fellowship the denominations, they built the flimsy system. They developed the BIG C and the little c. R. Shelly has the BIG F and little f. He didn't originate such fool-hearty ideas. The old liberals were operating their system long before Shelly came on the scene.

Fellowshipping false teachers means much more to the liberal element than keeping fellowship with sound brethren. The Bible still teaches, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph. 5:11). That will include the BIG C, little c and every other kind of alphabetical lie.

In 1890, brother Lipscomb printed an article entitled, "Is Rationalism Rife in Missouri." The article stated,

"The New Theology has been spreading with alarming rapidity during the last ten years. A mutual admiration society has been formed in Missouri and when one member of the society would make a bold rationalistic statement, the other members would applaud. Their very pompous actions would seem to say, 'We are the only advance thinkers.' This society cannot brook opposition."
I have repeated it over and over and over. The liberal, modernistic, infidel never changes his tune. The fakers can be identified in 1890 or 1990. They are the same fradulent, egotistical, boorish, bragging blockos wherever and whenever they exist.

They refer to their pharisaic/clique as "front runners" and of course conservative brethren are not even in the race. Jim Woodroof blowed, boasted, and bragged to the tune of being more enlightened than conservative brethren. A small fire-fly has some "enlightenment." Just enough to rival the light of liberals. In order to find, "the only advanced thinkers" we have to look among the liberals. They are so advanced that they cannot seem to say their piece with any degree of sanity. They are certainly advanced for sure when they get to the point (which is where they are) that they "cannot brook opposition." They can certainly whine like a sickly pup when they are opposed.

1890; J. W. McGarvey wrote:

"It is evident from this,and from other signs of the times that a general debate on the question of higher criticism is to be thrust upon us. The devotees of 'advanced thought' have thrown down the gauntle and it must be taken up."
Well who was it that got gourged on "higher criticism?" Who was it that thought they were "advanced thinkers"? Who was it that threw down the gauntlet? Who was it that caused all the trouble? Maybe brother Robert Hooper can figure that out. Brother McGarvey was there, but he must not have know who was leading the church aside. Advanced thinkers are not too advanced on some occasions. Oh for an honest, false historian???

F. D. Srygley ~ 1890; "Rationalism: Spirit Not The Letter"

"To put the whole thing in its simplest form, the thing is that any man who is right in the spirit or motive will be accepted of God no matter what the outward form of his conduct may be. It puts a man's salvation wholly upon the ground of his own honesty, and taboos the idea that anyone will be damned who has the spirit of obedience ~ no matter how grave may be his mistakes as to the letter of the commandments.

Those who talk flippantly about keeping the spirit of a command while sneering at the letter of the law, or the exact thing commanded, are but the logical premises of which rationalist are the necessary conclusion, whether they so understand and intend or not."

Read the piece again from the pen of brother Srygley. He heard the same kind of nonsense from brethren about "the spirit of obedience" that we are hearing today. I suppose when a man "intends" to obey, he has the spirit of obedience. The Samaritans on Mt. Gerazim have the spirit of obedience when they offer their animals on the sacrificial altar. Every false system on earth apparently has some kind of right spirit of intent of obedience.

Back in 1891, the venerable I. B. Grubbs wrote:

"How can you or I be loyal to Christ while practically making alternations in the basis of fellowship as determined by divine legislation? The recognition of others as Christians on the basis of our fallible judgement and the extension to them of our Christian fellowship in every way that is compatible with our own loyalty to Christ, may be well enough, but the virtual tampering with an ordinance of Christ is extremely hazardous to say the least. One might come desiring to enter into this larger fellowship while actually denying that Jesus has been raised from the dead. To what disastrous results, the adoption of your new basis of fellowship would lead."
Some of the liberals were having all sorts of religious spasms while trying to fellowship the sects. The idea of a "larger fellowship" would allow someone to fellowship anyone. The larger fellowship was a BIG F Fellowship. Everybody could fellowship anybody. Everybody was in fellowship with everybody whether they wanted to be or not. Even the devil could be fellowshipped if he would join some BIG F Church. It takes a few free-wheeling liberals to take care of every situation. If they do not have a remedy, they can search among the old liberals and find just exactly what they want.

I've never found in the Bible where I am to be concerned about fellowshipping everyone who has his thumb stuck up. We must be concerned about fellowshipping God and Christ. When that occurs we will not have to worry about whether we will be right. When men walk in light ~ men can have fellowship (1 John 1:7ff).

In 1893, "The Congress of Liberal Religions" had its sessions in Nashville, Tennessee. The fellow who was selected to be President of the Association of preahers was Lin Cave.


Lin Cave and R. C. Cave had both abandoned the faith although they had been or claimed to be members of the church. It might seem strange that preachers would renounce the faith but such has been true altogether too often. When men do not love the truth, a working of error will be given from God (1 Thess. 2:11). I should think that God can and will send whatever is needed to any maverick who tries to make a mockery of God.

Incidentally, any number of Nashville preachers would qualify to serve as the President of "The Congress of Liberal Religions" and their elders would surely boast and puff about the situation. If you want to know the reason for so many pied-piper preachers, read II Thessalonians 2:11. Surely you can believe the Bible.

J. D. Tant stated in 1899:

"... in Tennessee and you will find that David Lipscomb's great power has saved Tennessee from the many innovations which have divided the churches in Texas."
How ignorant could old brother Tant be? He had visited in Tennessee and had seen the influence of Lipscomb as presented through the Gospel Advocate. Did brother Tant misrepresent the matter? He knew of the devils success in Texas which had been wrought by the Digressives. Of course the wicked stench of modernism and liberalism had spread over the state of Tennessee as well, but every historian worth his salt knows that a strong, powerful, and effective influence was steadily going forth through the pages of the Advocate. I just do not know how Bob Hooper came up with the fool notion that brother Lipscomb led the church into a separate fellowship. Lipscomb did not know that, J. D. Tant did not know that, James A. Harding did not know that and no one else knows that including Bob Hooper. Cunningly devised fabled do differ from historical facts.

1901 ~ Alfred Elmore:

"Among us there is practically a division and ought to be a separation."
I will repeat the words of brother Elmore. "Among us there is practically a division and ought to be a separation." I am repeatedly asked about the division which is so evident between the liberal church changers and sound brethren. Brethren ask, "What will be the outcome?" The present outcome is already division and no fellowship. The outcome will certainly be that people will spend an eternity in torment. Division is sinful, wicked and such a terrible disgrace. It keeps the world from believing in Christ. "He that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:15-16). He that causes unbelief will be damned. The liberals cause division which causes unbelief, which brings damnation. The brethren who support liberal preachers will split hell wide open, but I do not know how we can convince them of this truth. Truth is truth and error is error and never the twain shall meet. We cannot please God and encourage error. Brethren, please stop supporting the sources of error and they will dry up to mere trickle.

J. H. Garrison wrote in 1903:

"It follows that truth adapted to one place and to one condition of the church and world, does not meet the demands of a different time and a different state of the church."
When one reads from the pen of J. H. Garrison one is likely to run across most any absurb idea such as the quote given. Do you observe how the modernists, Bible-denying, skeptics and agnostics never bother to try their hand at giving any kind of proof for their utterances?

What Garrison is saying has been picked up by Shelly and his "Wineskins" parrots. They all keep chirping the same inanities.

The liberals have no use whatsoever for truth. They will change any portion of the scriptures when they get ready. You think I'm not telling the truth? Read what the church troubles are writing. Garrison said it exactly as Shelly et. al. are saying today.

Does truth change like the seasons? The devil would like us to grab hold of the big lie, but we know better. My Lord said, "I am the... truth..." (John 14:6). Can we apply or adapt Christ to all kinds of conditions today but think that He will be inadequate for another time and another condition? This is pure stupidity gone to seed. We need to remember, "Thy word O Lord, is forever settled in heaven" (Psm. 119:89).

Brother J. D. Tant wrote in 1903:

" I am glad to note that circumstances are forcing the lines to be drawn in Tennessee between the churches of Christ and the Digressives, as is the case in Texas."
Brother Tant:

n 1903, there were brethren in Tennessee and Texas who had the good sense to see what was happening, who was causing all the digression and fortunately they refused to go along, and they drew the line at the word of God.

There are good brethren in Texas, Tennessee and elsewhere who are still standing for the ancient order of things as the brethren did one hundred years ago. We have the same specious tales, the same sugar-coated spiels and are greeted by the same cowardly actions. Brother Tant, liberals are like leopards in one respect. They never change their spots. See one ~ see all!

More and more of the liberal men who have any integrity left, are getting on out into the "community church" outfit. It will be so much better when the complete break comes. I would initiate it immediately if the brethren would meet at "Sand Creek" or ELSEWHERE. As long as timid elders fill up tubs of butter for half-baked preachers, we will continue to be cursed with such chameleon characters.

James A. Harding wrote in 1904:

"It appears to me to be a deliberate and systematic effort to induce disciples of Christ to give up all effort and hope of securing the unity for which Christ prayed. It is a bungling brazen effort to betray the religion of Jesus into the hands of its enemies and is as bad no doubt in God's sight as the betrayal of Judas."
The Digressives were joining in with the sects in all kinds of Union meetings exactly like Rubel Shelly, Walt Leaver, James Vandiver, Marvin Phillips, Max Lucado and many others. The old Digressives and the new Digressives are the ones who turn aside from the faith.

I wonder since brother Harding mentioned Judas, if Robert Hooper thinks Jesus and the eleven led a movement aside into a separate fellowship ~ like brother Lipscomb supposedly did! Did brother Harding know who was going astray? Did he know about those who were becoming just another denomination? He was alive and looking at the matter from a personal perspective. Oh yes I think he also had some interest in telling the truth. Some people had rather tell the truth than twist the truth.

Charles Young- 1904; "Historical Documents Advocating Christian Union"

"A great need was felt for a Journal of superior culture and the broadest conception of the unsearchable riches of Christ. A paper that would deal with all living questions in the spirit of patient inquiry and blameless toleration and that would discover the truth in its fullness, maintain it without bigotry and rancor and yet with true knightly courage and dignity, and guide its readers into the best fields of literature and revelations... Errett has molded the church of the present."
For culture, broad-mindedness, tolerance, compromise, and a loud voice for liberalism, Isaac Errett and "The Christian Standard" could not be surpassed. For bigotry, rancor and unsurpassed prejudice in favor of liberalism, not anything has been able to match the Standard until the modernists moved forward with the Nashville based "Wineskins." The "Wineskins" editors could copy article from the old Christian standard and they would be just exactly suited for Wineskins purposes.

The sweet-spirited Standard became the voice of the liberals and was very influential in the North. The Gospel Advocate proved to be a constant thorn in the side of the liberals especially in Middle Tennessee. I'm sorry to say that as of the present the Advocate is about as weak as Samson when he was shorn of his locks. I firmly believe with all my heart that IF the Advocate had fought the forces of liberalism within the last decades, as was true of its stance in the long ago, the church in Nashville and other areas would not be damned by liberals.

1906 ~ Lipscomb ~ "The Sand Creek Case" ~ The Judge wrote:

"Have the defendants departed from the faith? Taking all things into consideration and with not sort of personal feeling, and from all the evidence submitted and the able arguments of course, and from a keen desire to do right in this matter and to follow the law, I must come to the conclusion that they have not."
A law suit was held in Circuit Court and the circuit judge wrote: "The complainants, a part of this congregation, in their desire for progress, seem to have grown dissatisfied with existing things."

The thieves, in the name of PROGRESS did not want to abide in the doctrine of Christ. They didn't like the "existing things." They wanted to change the church. They wanted renewal. They wanted to take over the church property at Sand Creek. Such is typical of those who are two-fold more the sons of hell.

The Circuit Judge refused to grant the petition of the liberals and the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the decree of the Circuit Judge. How much intelligence would it take for one to understand just who was departing from the faith. The Judge did not think "the defendants had departed from the faith." Someone tell Robert Hooper about the decision of the Judge.

1907 ~ David Lipscomb replied to S. D. N. North:

"These disciples (the Digressives ~ w. c.) have SEPARATED (caps mine ~ w.c.) from the Christian Churches that grew out of the effort to restore pure, primitive, christianity... while these churches have departed from the end and have set aside the principles of fidelity to the word of God as the only sufficient rule of faith and practice of Christians."
S. D. N. North worked for the U.S. Census and he became aware of two distint groups of religious people who claimed to be somewhat similar yet somewhat dissimilar. He wrote to David Lipscomb for information and brother Lipscomb sent the preceeding facts. Why did Lipscomb say "these disciples have separated..."? Why did Lipscomb not say, "I have led a group aside into a separate fellowship"? Well of course Lipscomb was not a liar. He knew who had separated, I know who separated, you know who separated, and Bob Hooper knows who separated.

Lipscomb said, "These churches (Digressives) have departed... have set aside the principles of fidelity to the word of God..."? Lipscomb was not a liar. The Digressives seem to have no compunction of conscience at all. I have not yet seen an honest liberal ~ and you have not either. There is no such species. Liberal historians (???) presume to be so smart as to be able to rewrite history for the conservative brethren who are not so smart.

The Battle Continues! 1908 ~ David Lipscomb:

"What he (Garrison) labors for as the greatest blessing, I abhor as the greatest curse that can affect the people of God. Elder Garrison thinks to bring about the conglomeration of denominations into one body is to bring about christian unity. I believe it is the greatest hindrance to unity in Christ possible. We have done nothing to bring about the present condition of affairs. We have thought to remain faithful to God and His word."
Garrison and his crew had already become a full-fledged denomination by 1908 and the spirit of compromise was at work in every place. Unity meetings, somewhat like unity forums at Joplin, Mo., or Revivals such as Leaver-Shelly-Phillips et. al. help to conduct ~ have been quite common among the liberals. Such shenanagans indeed is a disgrace and a curse. Of course there would be no liberals if brethren behaved themselves and respected the word of God.

The church of Christ is not a denomination nor is it a part of a denomination and is not to be joined or conjoined with the denominations.

If Lipscomb had, "done nothing to bring about the present condition of affairs," then I would truly like to know how he managed to lead the church off into a different fellowship. Oh for an honest false teacher ~ someone with a "unity-in-diversity" mentality can change Lipscomb into Lipsdumb any day.

J. C. McQuiddy ~ 1908:

" I have predicted that the day was not far distant when the digressive churches in Nashville would accept sprinkling as baptism."
Brother McQuiddy was correct in his prediction. As Digression moved along, more and more foolish practices developed including the practice of accepting sprinkling, having women preachers, union meetings, communion on any day of the week and of course whatever men or women desired.

When the current digression slows down a bit, it will be seen as a new replica of the old digression. What did some of the people think of brother McQuiddy and his prediction? They saw that the old brother was correct. How do we wake up a crew of zombies in Nashville and elsewhere? Now that the battle has been raging for many long years, someone says, "It is now time to stand against..." What time has it been for almost twenty years when liberalism has been running wild? So, "It is now time?" Hog wash! For some of our slow-pokes, it is never time until it is too late.

David Lipscomb on "Liberalism:"

"The man who depends on these men or their teachings, whether he intends or not, aids and abets the spread of rationalism and infidelity in the land. The man who can see no apostasy in this widespread adoption and advocacy of these destructive theories proclaims himself more than half of apostate and infidel."
There were the proclaimers of apostasy and then there were the supporters who comprised the cheering section. Brother Lipscomb could see no difference and if there is none, preach it, support it to your own damnation. Today when the loquacious liberals and infidel apostates need a Nashville audience, there are plenty of people who will join the cheering and clapping crowds. The devil would have few proclaimers if there were not so many supporters. Just listen to some of the money droppers, visitors, supporter of the renegade apostates if you want to hear such great and wonderful excuses. Tis enough to make the angels weep. Supporting false gods and golden calves can have no justification whatsoever.

When if ever will we learn to oppose error instead of supporting it? Brethren, please stop giving your money, time, children, and help to liberal schools, apostate preachers and turncoat elders who refuse to abide in the doctrine of Christ.

Gospel Advocate ~ 1932, John B. Cowden:

"I am disfellowshipped both at McMinnville and at Florence and at all the other congregations in Middle Tennessee where I formerly preached. Who made the tests of fellowship? Everyone knows that younger preachers and leaders in the churches of Christ did, and are therefore responsible for the breaking of fellowship."
And just who was the mighty John B. Cowden? He was the "front runner" for the Digressive element in Tennessee. He was an eighteen wheeler, a Sherman tank and a lear Jet combination until he tangled with the likes of young Grover Cleveland Brewer and "leaders in the churches of Christ..."

Cowden, the Christian Church Giant was a part of "The Commission on Unity" which had found a sizzler in O. E. Payne and his views on Psallo. Paynes book was being popularized and promoted by the Commission, which was not the best way in the world to promote unity. Through the efforts of Cowden and F. B. Srygley, a debate was arrayed between N. B. Hardeman and Ira M. Boswell. The rest is history ~ wich cannot be distorted, rearranged or lied about to any degree of success.

Do you see how John B. Cowden accused G. C. Brewer and others of causing all the trouble? John B. Cowden thought he could be free to promote liberalism all over the state of Tennessee, and others were supposed to be real still, say nothing, and try to be tolerant.

Good brethren ~ you will never read anything more akin to the Cowden fiasco than when you read some of the slush being "slung" at faithful saints by men who are enconsed in some of "our universities" along with their wacko supporters.

"Do Not Touch Us," seems to be the one-sided slogan. "Let Us Alone" is the liberals song. "Send Us A Check," but stay off our deck.

Who is causing the problems/ Ask some of the parents whose children are returning from the Bible (???) classes at Lipscomb et. al. Let the word be read first hand. Do not ask me.

We know what happened to the Digressive movement back during the thirties and forties. It just about died out all over Tennessee. A strong Gospel Advocate and a rip-snorting faculty at Freed-Hardeman College who were not trying to play, "Hide and Seek" or "Blind Man's Bluff," would prepare young preachers to buckle on the whole armour of God and go forth prepared to preach the inspired word of God. Did it work? Will it work? I suppose it depends on which history professor one might ask. T'would be better not to ask some of them. Yea verily!

1934 ~ Charles H. Robinson:

"The critics think they are sufficiently endued with knowledge to enable them to salvage enough of the Bible from the debris to prevent its total destruction."
The critics are a strange group of people and their claims to superior knowledge are manifest to all who will waste a bit of time and read their books of wisdom (???). The Bible means no more to the new liberals than a good, used Sears Catalog. Just flip the pages and pick out what pleases the taste and forget the rest.

We need good sound men in our schools such as the late brother Robinson. He had no use for modernists or liberals, yet it is the case that the school where our dear brother taught for so many years has sadly turned away from the warnings left by brother Robinson and other sound brethren.

An alarming condition ~ Date: old but new!

"Liberalism seems to be the theme of the day with many striving to 'slush' the plain teachings of God's Word. Multitudes are unconscious to the simplest things the gospel and are unable to distinguish between the body of Christ and the denominations. The goal seems to be members by any method for showings sake, rather than additions to God's family by teaching and obedience from the heart to, 'that form of doctrine.' "
Without assigning a date to the article given on the preceeding page, when do you think the piece might have been written? How modern and up-to-date does it sound? How valid is the article in its description of liberalism? Read the article again for it depicts the unchanging tom-foolery of liberalism. Brethren should know what happened when the Digressives took over. Brethren knew back yonder in 1893 when the preceeding article was written and what was being done 101 years ago. Do the apostates really want to take the church away into wreck and ruin? Of course they do. What else does the devil have in mind? It would help if brethren would awaken out of their stupor and see what is happening. It is already too late and has been too late for some time.

Chapter Four
When Did Liberalism
Ever Make Sense?

If we deny that Christians are to be united, we make God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit to be liars. We must be united. There is no other option (Eph. 4:1-6). No intelligent person would take the Bible and try to prove that division, discord, and confusion is right. Men will make the stupid assertion that division or diversity is right but not a solitary one of them will resort to biblical proof. Why? They know better than to display their ignorance in such matters.

Division is sinful but Biblical unity is scriptural and right. The primitive Church in Jerusalem was guided, directed and moved along under the direction of the inspired Apostles. Yes, the devil did intervene when he could but such is not the pattern, unless one wants to be a liberal.

We have certain modernists in the church who belittle the idea of following the pattern of the first century church. I will present one point which will forever sound the death knell to the liberal tom-foolery.

If we are not to unite upon the "basis of the primitive church in Jerusalem," then no man nor group of men can tell us upon what basis we can be united. To even try to set forth some basis of unity would be the most wrong-headed, arrogant, pierce of foolishness which any tyro could offer, but such is liberalism. Indeed the sorry mess seen in cultic and denominational groups is the result of liberal thinking.

So the Jerusalem church is not a pattern! Just open the Bible and look at the word "way." There are other words which convey the same principle but only one word will knock the liberal view into oblivion.

Jesus said, "I am the way..." (John 14:6). What does "the way" denote? Does "the way" mean anything and everything some rebel wants it to mean? The way just means the way. Try getting to the Father without going by the way. The way is a pattern, a standard to be followed. The liberal thieves want to persist in other ways (John 10:1). When Jesus said, "... narrow is the way that leadeth unto life and few there be that find it," (Matt. 7:14), was he trying to teach many ways, no way, or one way? Can we obtain that life without accepting the way? Had not the Jerusalem church accepted and become subservient to "the way?"

When Saul of Tarsus went to Damascus, he was searching for "... any of this way..." (Acts 9:2). They would be of this way but they would be the church (1 Cor. 15:9; Phil. 3:6; Col. 1:13). Saul, "... persecuted this way unto the death..." (Acts 22:4). Saul persecuted Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 22:8). Saul persecuted, "... them that believed on Christ" (Acts 22:19). Saul persecuted the saints (Acts 26:10). If one was of this way, that one was a member of the church. If one was a member of the church, that one was of "this way." How many loud-mouthed liberals will eliminate, reject, refuse, set aside and disperse the way?

When Apollos needed teaching, a husband and wife took him aside and, "... expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:26). "Who wants to return to the condition of that church ~ that way of God?"

In Ephesus Paul spake for three months in the synagogue, "... disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. But when divers were hardened and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them..." (Acts 19:8-9).

Paul preached the kingdom but men spake evil of that way. They didn't like the route laid out by the apostle. Do any of our liberals want to be in the kingdom or in the way? "Who wants to return to that...?"

It was while Paul was in Ephesus, that, "... there arose no small stir about that way" (Acts 19:23). There were many ways in the city but "that way" caused a big stir. Did God change "that way" because people were a bit uncomfortable with it? How long was "the way" to last? Which bull-headed liberal has been able to eliminate the way of God?

When all the small-minded liberals get through with their mouthing, we will still be able to read, "By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh" (Heb. 10:20). Some people have no respect for the death of Christ and some brethren have no respect for the WAY of Christ, "And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the WAY OF TRUTH shall be evil spoken of" (II Pet. 2:15). It is still, "... the way of righteousness.." (II Pet. 2:21). Yes, "the way" is a pattern, and to babble about respecting the pattern is to reject the way. Liberals are not know for their rational thinking.

For a number of years I have tried my best to find something in the philosophy of liberalism that makes sense to me. I haven't found it. It isn't because I have no acquaintance with the liberal and modernists views. A fellow is pretty sick to assume that only a liberal is capable of understanding another liberal. Moreover it is moronic to think that the liberals are the only ones who can think and reason properly. I know that liberalism is nothing more than a warmed over smorgasbord of indigestable jargon couched in a language and stirred up like a hounds breakfast. If one wants to study liberalism, one needs to have a pair of glasses with all kinds of colors. There will be theological relativism, narrow-minded subjectivism, church changes, and the historical Jesus who is at work as the being and the meaning of meaning.

With liberalism, it is always relevance first. Truth has no place for the liberal. In fact truth really amounts to whatever the interpretation of the liberal happens to want at the moment. It is for this reason that liberals have real problems agreeing on anything. Little liberals find out what Big liberals think and the little ones pick their papa.

One might like to know how a new liberal can be so brilliant as to separate the words of God from the words of men. Only a god is sufficient for such a task. When the liberal god is finished, I'd like to ask him what claims can he make for the inspired word of God. He might as well try to dip sop with an Atheist.

The poor liberal has no sure word of truth, inspiration, or authority. He may sputter around trying to make a case but it is sheer relativism and destroys faith and trust in the Bible. Corner a liberal and watch him squirm. He will spit and sputter about the words of the Bible being human. He will run off in search of the Holy Spirit for help. He usually tries to get the Holy Spirit to help a mere human to grasp a word. The liberal doesn't trust man, the Word, or the Holy Spirit. He has concocted a useless system wherein the Word of God is tried by the words of men, whereas the words of men have ever been tried by the inspired of word of God.

Liberal brethren would make excellent Catholic clergymen. to the Catholic, tradition is the authority. That means that faith is merely what men say. In this respect liberalism and catholicism meet in a common bond... but the cords of that bond are weak as a spiders web.

I almost laugh aloud when I read from some freakish liberal about "scripture being fulfilled." It must be that there is a vast difference in fulfilling scripture and in voiding scripture.

A few years ago, there were some neophytes in the church who had to say something so they borrowed a bit of the old Ashdod notes from the modernists and we heard a few squeaks about, "The man, not the plan." That nonsense sounded smart to some, but without miracle workers the man and the plan could not be separated.

Our liberal brethren are bragging again that we must look to Christ instead of the scriptures. We have learned a "new" word. Some of us can even spell it and we know where it came from. After World War II, Karl Barth tried to wrest theology from German Rationalism and he stressed a new "Christology." A new liberal has not yet arrived until he can spout off about "Christology." We must follow Herr Barth and look to Christ and not scripture. Barthian theology is absurb, contradictory and only fit for the dung-heap.

When we look to Jesus, we look to one who stressed the authority of scripture. Jesus was not a dumb, silent, zombie. He did talk. What Jesus said is recorded in scripture, and scripture in part is what Jesus said. Is that which Jesus said, to be considered valid? Did Jesus speak authoritatively? Is Jesus' word authoritative? Does the authority of Jesus, bind his word upon us? Does the word bind the authority of Jesus upon us? Will the authority of Christ allow me to cancel scriptures?

The modernists want to give me the man but withhold the plan. We have heard the wind blow before. It must be significant that the apostles accepted the man and the plan. The Holy Spirit never did confuse the matter by having the apostles preach a little while on the man and then preach a little bit on the plan.

I would like to tell people about Jesus but to do so I would have to cite scripture. Maybe I could tell people what Jesus did and just refer to Shakespeare.

It would require some time and effort but it might be impressive to study how the apostles relied upon the scriptures. Just a few tid-bits might help us, unless we are blinded by the stupid idea that we must look to Christ and not scripture. Please consider: II Corinthians 3:14, II Timothy 3:15, Romans 4:23, I Corinthians 10:11, I Peter 1:12, Galatians 2:8, Romans 15:4, Romans 9:17, Acts 4:25, Galatians 1:1; 1:8; 2:7, I Thessalonians 2:13, II Corinthians 2:13, II Corinthians 10:8; 13:10, I Corinthians 11:2, II Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6, I Thessalonians 4:2, John 16:12, Acts 20:35, II Corinthians 5:19-20 and I Corinthians 7:10.

The liberal is at his very best when he avers that the scriptures come by man so there is the human element. Because of the human element, there are errors in scripture. You see then how we must look to Jesus rather than scripture. But we look to scripture and learn that Jesus was a human being. He was "found in fashion as a man..." Being human, then whatever Jesus said or did was likely to be shot full of errors. This is the brillance of liberalism.

It would be sweet and nice of the new liberals if they would step aside long enough to let God get in a word occasionally, but the liberal would not last long if he tried to operate without a god he could control.

Did you know that the ever prevailing work sheet for liberals is, "What is truest in newest?" In theology, the nineteenth century belonged to Schleiermacher and the twentieth century Dons have done a superb job of chirping the theology of the old German Rationalist.

To Schleiermacher, the important thing was a study of MAN and his human experiences. When we look at the Bible, we only see what men THOUGHT God might have said. Hence the Bible is a simple collection of Jewish ideas about God and is just a human book. My liberal brethren cannot escape their roots. Let them come on and show some honesty, Liberalism is infidelity in a new robe.

When a liberal professor gets through with one of his subjective lectures, what he means is that some ordinary clod-hopper who is not trained to be dishonest, will have to depend upon some expert for whatever kind of faith he may espouse. It is the case that the interpreter becomes the mediator. The new mediator becomes the authoritarian interpreter and the non-expert must kow-tow to the theological expert. A few folks might occasionally want to know what happens when the experts disagree. One should not ever ask negative questions of such positive professors.

The liberal is so intwined, enmeshed, engulfed, enraptured and embalmed in the old historical critical method that he cannot possibly have any respect for inspired scriptures.

Examining the method and its results we are assured that history consists of:
    1. Events
    2. Man's statments of the events.
The statement of man regarding events might catagorize events into myths, tales, legends, and cococtions. It is historical inquiry that enables us to think in certain ways while looking at scripture. We will take a selection of scripture and submit it to history. What we believe about the selection will depend on how we consider the matter from a historical perspective. Only a historian can tell us whether the selections are genuine and valid. Bultman and some brethren can sort out the myths. When "events" are mere "myths," then we can have a selective faith. That is how the liberals operate. A prime example of the methodology of modernists and liberals is seen in the resurrection tales. There was a felt need, and the tale was farbricated to fulfill the need. See how we have finally been rescued by the historical-critical method of the liberals? The historian was not present when Jesus arose from the grave, but he will guess about the matter at Easter time. Scripture is never sufficient evidence.

Have you considered that our liberal brethren are as elusive as eels? I do declare that some of them just refuse to repond to letters. I suppose they know why? I know they know or imagine that the less there is to defend, the easier it will be for them.

Brethren, I do not believe in liberalism, modernism or other "isms." I reject the theory of evolution in all its forms. I did not spring from a monkey. I do not believe any man did, but if so, I cannot understand why he sprang upward and landed in a liberal professors chair.

Please let me know when this page is updated

Place your banner ad here.         See all banner ads