Christian Messenger. (Bonham, Tex.), Vol. 13, No. 14, Ed. 1 Wednesday, April 13, 1887 Page: 3 of 8
eight pages : ill. ; page 40 x 26 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
.
■ M
CHRISTIAN MESSENGER.
Does the Book say that was the reason?
Does it not say the reason the wayside
bearer did not bear fruit was that the
devil caught away the word out of his
heart? And that the thorny ground
hearer let the cares of the world and
the deceitfulness of riches choke the
word out of his heart ? The stony soil
is the only one that was bad at the
start, and the record says that the stony
ground hearer “for awhile •believed.
Now what is Eld. Dalton going to do
with that ? He says that none but the
elect can believe, yet here is the stony
ground hearer that ‘‘for awhile be-
lieves,” and in time of temptation falls
away! fie has not shown that the
Spirit of God went before the word and
prepared the heart of the good ground
hearer, so that he could bear fruit, and
passed by the pthers. Here is where
proof is needed, and where no proof is
presented. Bro. Dalton expects us to
believe without evidence, for he does
not present any evidence. If he will
show that the Spirit of God ever did go
before the word and prepare the heart
of a sinner for the reception of the
word, I will give up the proposition.
Just one example will do, or just one
text that states it. The fact is, he ut-
terly misunderstands the parable of the
sower, as he does nearly all the rest of
the Bible, and puts a false construction
upon it. The design pf that parable
is not to show the different kinds of
hearts or soils in the world, but the dif-
ferent kinds of hearers of the word,
and the disposition made of the word
after it is heard. And Jesus concludes
the parable by saying, “Take heed
therefore how ye hear.” Lhke 8.18.
He next returns to his exegesis of the
“letter that killeth,” and affirms that
that has reference to the word of truth
or gospel! Notwithstanding Jesu
says, “The words that I speak unto
thee, they are spirit and they are life,”
and Paul says the gospel is the “power
of God unto salvation,” and James says
God begets us “with the word of truth,”
and Peter says we are “begotten again
not of corruptible seed but of incor-
ruptible by the word of God;” Eld.
Dalton insists that the word killeth !
Now, Bro* Dal ton, if you are honest in
that interpretation, your brethren ought
to send you to school. You are too ig-
norant to be trying: to te^ch the Bible
put here in this enlightened country.
You ought to read the passage. Paul
- says: “Who also hath made us able
ministers of the new testament, not of
the letter but of the spirit, for the letter
killeth but the spirit giveth life. But if
/ the ministration of death written and
engraven in stones (that is the letter
that killeth) wa$ glorious, so that the
childremof Israel could not steadfastly
behold the face of Moses for the glory
of his countenance, which glory was to
* be done away, how shall not the minis-
tration of the spirit be rather glorious.”
Eld. Dalton would have you believe
of the Spirit and not of the word, is one
of the mysteries[of Baptistism! Bro. Dal-
ton, it will take a direct and miraculous
operation of the Spirit to help you out
of that difficulty! You never can get
Put of it by means of the word of truth.
He next quotes Eph. 2. 4-6, where it
is said God quickened those who were
dead in sin, “together with Christ,” and
he concludes that God quickens dead
sinners into life just like he quickened
the dead body of Christ in the tomb.
But the Book does not say that, Bro.
Dalton. The Book says God begets or
quickens sinners, “with the word of
truth,” and not without the word of
truth, as you affirm. We are sorry you
can not make a single argument with-
out contradicting the Scriptures. I
would notice his final text, (Eph. 2. 20-
22,) if it had any bearing upon the
question. . The Ephesians were not
built upon the foundation of the apos-
tles and prophets without the written
or preached word. If you will go to
Acts of Apostles, and read about the
conversion of these Ephesians, you
will find that Paul went into the syna-
Paul’s making tents ? Where would I
be doing wrong, Bro. Burnett ? You
would no. doubt answer, in the fixed
salary part. Now, in all candor, would
I not. sustain the same relation to the
church that you do in your Messenger
work ? You write or print the gospel,
and I preach it: that is all the differ-
ence so far as principle is concerned.
But Bro. Burnett thinks that my “entire
trouble arises from his (my) misappre-
hension of the nature of the Christian
Messenger. He considers it a church
institution, or something belonging to
the kingdom of Christ, when it is
simply a good work of the world, like
school teaching, which a Christian may
engage in for the support of himsplf
and family.” Now, Bro. Burnett, if it
is simply a good work of the world,
why call it “Christian?” Why not call
it “Bonham Messenger,” or “ Worldly
Messenger,” or some other kind of a
Messenger? If it is not Christian, don’t
call it that. Ir I ever teach the gospel
in school, I shall call it by some Bible
name, but while I teach a scientific
school, I shall call it by some worldly
gogue and spake boldly for the space name- Farther, if I should erer teach
of three monts, and that he disputed in
the school of Tyrannus for two years.
So there is no proof here for your un-
scriptural theory.
I have now followed the gentleman
through all his meanderings, until he
has come out at the same hole he went
in at, and shown that he has no argu-
ment to sustain his proposition. I shall
a Bible school, I would think it a church
work, because preaching the goSpel is
church work. Now I think the editor
of a Christian paper, or a teacher in a
Bible school, occupies the same rela-
tion to the church as an evangelist does,
who is engaged in preaching promis-
cuously over the country. Each one
teaches the Bible, the only difference
demand the verdict of this intelligent being in the medium through which
audience, for I have won it by every
rule of logic and Scripture. He has
not sustained a single point in the en-
tire controversy. I demand an uncon-
ditional surrender.
REPLY TO BRO. BURNETT.
Bro. Burnett confesses that he is be-
becoming a little tired of the pot-and-
skillet argument, as he calls it. I do
not doubt it, for it has been thrust at
him so often, and he has never been
able to set it aside yet, only by his own
statement. I used it in order to get his
comment, that I might ventillate it a
little more thoroughly than it has been,
to show the inconsistency of Bro. Bur-
nett’s position. Now Bro. Burnett says,
“If Bro. Burnett has no authority to
print a newspaper,* does that prove that
Bro. Grogan has a right to sell the gos-
pel?” I answer that Bro. Burnett claims
all the authority necessary for his news-
paper work, and if my memory is not
at fault, he a short time ago cited the
case of the apostles writing the gospel
as a parallel case, and authority for his
writing or printing the Messenger. If
that is the kind of authority Bro. Bur-
nett has for the newspaper work, he
must, according to his own argument,
follow their example and not sell any
more Messengers, for the Bible is
silent about their selling any of their
that the apostles were not ministers of writings. But Bre. Burnett, seeing this
the word of truth, which they were com-
manded to administer in all the world!
yet they were ministers of the Spirit
which they never were commanded to
administer! It would be refreshing to
have hip\ tell us how the apostles min-
istered the Spirit without words! Also
to telL, us what the apostles meant
when they said to the disciples, “Look
ye out among you seven men of honest
report whom we may appoint over this
business, but we will give ourselves
continually to prayer and to the minis-
try of the word.” How they could give
themselves continually to. the ministry
of the word, when they were ministers
inconsistency before him, aimed to
dodge it by stating that “the Christian
Messenger is not a church institution
but a secular business, and we have as
much right to follow it as Paul had to
make tents for a living, or Bro. Grogan
has to teach school as a business.”
Right here I think Bro. Burnett (and
other of our editors) is in error. Sup-
pose I should start out over the country
hunting up our brethren and soliciting
them to let me preach for them for so
much money, adopting this as a means
of living ; would this be considered any
part of church work, or would it be
considered a secular business like
their teaching is presented. If there is
a distinction that will warrant the dif-
ference made by Bro. Burnett, will he
explain it in such terms that we may
all be able to understand it. But Bro.
Burnett says he “talks money in a
money business, but he does not preach
money from the pulpit, or sell the gos-
pel.”- Now if the living of an evangel-
ist is not a money business, will Bro.
Burneit please explain what it is. Bro.
Burnett seems to think that his is a
right smart of a money business, Jrom
the way he canvasses for the Messen-
ger. I must confess that, so far as the
churches were concerned, it was not
much of a mon«y business with some
of our evangelists last year, if we can
judge from the reports given through
the Messenger. “Bro. Burnett talks
money in money business.” That is
right, Bro. Burnett. Talk money in
money business, and talk gospel in
gopel business, and be sure you talk
each in its right way, and don’t try to
apply to one the teaching that belongs
to the other. Now, Bro. Burnett makes
a marked distinction between a secular
business and church work or preaching
the gospel, which is right, if he could
only get it properly defined in his
mind, what belongs to the gospel side
and what belongs to the secular side.
Well, I guess Bro. Burnett would say
the finances of life belong to the secu-
lar side. Then, if finances belong on
the secular side, and the necessaries of
life or a living depends on finances,
then the living belongs on the secular
or temporal side, and the gospel work
on the gospel or spiritual side. Is that
right, Bro. Burnett ? If not, please ex-
plain how this distinction between gos-
pel work and secular work should be
made. Again, Bro. BurnAtsays, “It is
our confident belief that if he (Bro.
Grogan) would trust the Lord and the
Lord’s people, both would do more for
him.” He even offers to go the Lord’s
too many such cases, lest a failure on
his part in the future, as it has been in
the past, might leave you to pay so
many suits that the brethren will not
make them up to you, and you become
bankrupt. Now the Lord pays all his
debts, if be has any, and fulfills all his
promises, but he does not send down
clothes nor money from heaven to sup-
ply the lacks occasioned by the failure
of his people. Bro. Burnett says, “Why
not adopt the Methodist system of as-
sessment and quarterage?*’ Because
that violates the principle of a free-will
offering, as taught by Paul. Now,
while the Scriptures do not furnish all
the minutiae of our financial or secular
matters, they do lay down every
principle to govern us in such
matters. Hence the point with
us is not to look for a scriptural
precept or example for all our little
business matters, but to look for the
great principle of right and wrong
that should govern us in the whole
course of life, supporting an evangelist
as well as other things. In this matter
we are told (1 Cor. 9. 14) that they who
preach the gospel should live of the
gospel, and (2 Cor. 11. 8) that m preach-
ing to the Corinthians he had “robbed
other churches, taking wages of them”
that he might minister to them. - Erom
these two passages we gather: 1. Shat
the preacher should be suppo^d. 2.
He should receive wages. Now what
does the word wages mean? Webster
defines it: “A compensation given to a
hired person for his or her services.” Is
it possible that Paul was a hire^
preacher, and preached for wages ?
Bro. Burnett says we must not do that,
but follow his example. How is this ?
Paul hired, we must follow his example,
but we must not hire. Bro. Burnett,,
please explain.
L. B. Grogan.
reply. •
Bro. Burneit is happy to be permit-
ted to explain any seeming inconsisten-
cy in his teaching or practice ; and he
must say that the last two or Ujjpe sen-
tences in Bro. Grogan’s lengthy essays
contain the only argument that has yet
been- presented upon the question at
issue since this contoversy began. We
might very well pass by in silence all
the rest that has been written, as
having no bearing upon the question,
(for it really has no bearing,) and give
our attention exclusively to these two
or three points. It requires a consider-
able stretch of charity on our part to
waste so much valuable space in the
paper debating whether the Christian
Messenger is a newspaper, or a preach-
er of the gospel! and whether Bro.
Burnett has a right to print a newspa-
per, (which nobody doubts,) in order
that Bro. Grogan may excuse himself
for selling the gospel at so many dol-
lars per sermon! We have invited
Bro. Grogan, and all the digressive
scribes, to come up to the question at
issue, and offer something in defense of
their position, if they have anything to
offer, and not consume the space of the
paper with that pot-and- skillet argu-
ment, which has been answered a score
of times, and never did have any bear-
ing upon the question. If the skillet
could prove that the pot is as black as
itself, that would not whiten the skillet
in the least. Two blacks do not make
one white, and two errors do not make
one truth. This is the last essay that we
shall publish on this foreign issue,but if
Bro. Grogan has anything in defense of
security that I would receive a suit of the hireling system of preaching the
clothes or the money to buy them. Btol
Burnett, don’t go the Lord’s security'in
gospel, or in favor of missionary con-
continued on 7th page.)
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Burnett, Thomas R. & Wilmeth, C. M. Christian Messenger. (Bonham, Tex.), Vol. 13, No. 14, Ed. 1 Wednesday, April 13, 1887, newspaper, April 13, 1887; Bonham, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth913920/m1/3/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Bonham Public Library.