|
 Mimeographs
are available to many who have no business using them. A stencil
in the typewriter, and the knowledge that what is written will
be multiplied, and may influence the thinking and conduct of
people, will have a sobering effect on some. But it seems to
drive others to vent their spleen, or feed their ego; and write
as though multiplied folly is no longer foolish.
We
have received what claims to be an “intelligent” discussion
of the restoration slogan: “We Speak Where the Bible Speaks,
and are Silent Where the Bible is Silent!” The writer makes
the sage observation that he “and every preacher in the church
use words and phrases ... which are NOT found — per se— in
the King James or other accepted versions.” He accuses some
brother, who evidently advocated the slogan, of using such words
as: “slogan” “Bible” “catch-phrase” etc., and
informs us, “Brethren. NOT ONE of those words are ‘Bible
words’.”
What
a shock it would be to those pioneer preachers who coined the
slogan, to learn that they were saying we must use the same
words used in the English text. I suppose our mimeo editor
thinks the only way one can “speak the truth” is to say, “the
|
|
truth,” and those words alone.
Our
editor says he agrees with the slogan “in principle; that is,
we are to teach and practice NOTHING which God has not
authorized.” Won’t he be dazzled when he learns that is what
the slogan meant in the first place? But he will have a lot of
backing up to do, with respect to his plea for consistency
with the slogan, when he tries to show us where God authorized
the church to support general welfare societies, unwed mothers
homes, fishing camps, preaching societies or organizations other
than the single local church. etc., etc.
We
are not asking him to “find these words” in the King James
or any other accepted version of the Bible. (See article on
generic authority, in this issue, page 7.) In fact, all the talk
about “words and phrases, per se,” are camouflage — to
charitably grant that the writer is really more intelligent than
such remarks would leave us to believe.
We
would not bother to review such material, except to point out
that multi-printing and truth are not necessarily the same. But
you know that!
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
