Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 14
August 9, 1961
NUMBER 14, PAGE 2,10a

"Who Has Changed?"

A. C. Grider

In a recent issue of the Gospel Advocate, an effort was made to show that the Advocate has not changed on the institutional question. I marvel that anybody among us still says he has not changed. I don't believe anybody or any paper among us can truthfully say no change has taken place in their thinking on matters which trouble the church. But the ridiculous thing about the matter is that no problem would be solved if it could be proven that none of us have changed or that all of us have changed or that some of us have changed.

But that the Gospel Advocate HAS changed is so evident, I am amazed to hear one try to prove that it has not. In fact, there has been such a COMPLETE change in the position of the Gospel Advocate, on the questions which now trouble the church, that I can cite the issue and the page number in former issues of the Advocate for every position I hold on every innovation now being foisted upon the churches throughout the country. In fact, every argument now being made by the Advocate in favor of institutionalism has been met and answered in former issues of the Advocate. That's right, every argument, even down to the little silly quibbles, which the Advocate now makes, has been met and answered by the Advocate. It is my purpose, in this article, to point to some of the arguments and show where, when and through whom the Advocate answered them. Perhaps I shall write more on the same subject later.

The Advocate crowd charges that we who oppose their denominational machinery are doing nothing to carry on the work that must be done. But that argument was met and answered by F. B. Srygley in the Advocate of July 9, 1925, Page 650.

We are now accused of being the cause of the trouble in the church over these innovations. But that argument was exploded in the Advocate of June 28, 1934, Page 609, by Cled Wallace.

The Advocate people charge that we are opposed to cooperation. But the Advocate writer answered that argument and exploded that charge. See an article by F. B. Srygley, in the Advocate of May 16, 1935, Page 461.

The Advocate crowd likes to suggest that we are quarreling while the house burns down. But the argument was met and answered by the Advocate of April 23, 1936, Page 389, F. B. Srygley was the writer.

The Advocate now says it is better to do wrong than to do nothing. But that argument was met and answered by E. A. Elam, Advocate, Feb. 11, 1915, Page 129.

The Advocate writers frequently call us "antis" because we call for chapter and verse. But the charge has been met and exploded. Read the article in the March 21, 1935, issue of the Advocate, Page 269, by F. B. Srygley.

They say we are "legalists" because we will not go along with their innovations. But David H. Bobo, Advocate, Dec. 8, 1938, Page 1139, exploded that false charge.

The Advocate crowd says we should try to build up and not destroy. But that charge has been answered in the Advocate by W. R. Brightwell, Aug. 12, 1937, Page 757.

They say we are divided over the "how" of doing certain work. In the Advocate, April 5, 1924 Page 323, F. B. Srygley exploded that argument and showed it was false.

The charge that we are "cranky" about the HOW is being made in several quarters by the writers of the Advocate. But Pride E. Hinton answered that in the Advocate of Feb. 21, 1929, Page 175.

They argue now that 2 Cor. 8 provides for general benevolence. But you can see that such was denied by W. E. Brightwell, Advocate, Jan. 24, 1925, Page 714.

The Advocate now supports the "Sponsoring" and "Promoting" efforts of churches all over the country. But in the Advocate of Feb. 21, 1935, Page 173, F. B. Srygley opposed such a set-up.

The Advocate now defends the idea of the paid agent system of collecting funds for preaching the gospel. But the Advocate of April 25, 1935, Page 397, has W. E. Brightwell condemning such as unscriptural.

The Advocate crowd makes a big thing out of their "no pattern theory." But that argument was met and exploded by W. E. Brightwell in the Advocate of April 25, 1935, Page 397.

The Advocate writers and all institutional men take Acts 11:27-30 and apply it to evangelistic work. But such an argument was met and answered by the Advocate of Jan. 3, 1935, Page 3, by F. B. Srygley.

The Advocate crowd says their schemes are scriptural because churches can pull out and quit if something goes wrong. But M. C. Kurfees, in the Advocate of March 7, 1918, Page 224, met that argument and showed that such was what made the thing unscriptural.

The "Million for the Billion" scheme is supported by the Advocate now. But an exact set-up was condemned by F. B. Srygley in the Advocate of Aug. 20, 1925, Page 805.

The Advocate now would encourage the building of million dollar church buildings, but such has been condemned in the Advocate by David Lipscomb, July 1, 1891, Page 31 (Reprinted in the Advocate, Jan. 14, 1926).

The Advocate would now have all who do not join up with their schemes to be quarantined. That was met and exploded by G. C. Brewer, Advocate. Aug. 10, 1933, Page 746.

The Advocate crowd now claims churches must combine their resources to do the most effective work. In the Advocate of Feb. 25, 1932, Page 250, F. B. Shepherd answered that error and exploded the false argument.

I have given twenty arguments now being made by the Gospel Advocate, which have, in times past been met by the Gospel Advocate. Time would fail me to recite all of the answers the Advocate has given to their present questions.

We are accused of refusing to affirm anything. The Advocate has answered that charge. We are accused of opposing a method when we actually oppose an arrangement. The Advocate has answered that charge too. The Advocate says the "principle" of cooperation is found in the New Testament. But the Advocate has met and exploded that reasoning before. The Young people must be encouraged now, according to the Advocate. But the Advocate in times past met that argument. The Advocate now won't defend its teaching. But the Advocate exploded such cowardice in days gone by. The Advocate now endorses various schemes if they are under a group of elders. The Advocate met that argument and answered it.

I repeat what I said earlier. The Advocate in times past has answered every argument they now make. I can read in the OLD Advocates where both sides were discussed. But I can read in the NEW Advocates where both sides cannot be discussed. I can read in OLD Advocates where the Advocate position was debated. But I can read in NEW Advocates where debates on certain questions should cease. I can read in OLD Advocates where church work should be done through the church. I can read in NEW Advocates where such work should be done through societies. I can read in OLD Advocates where innovations were condemned. I can read in NEW Advocates where innovations are defended. I can read in OLD Advocates where it is NOT the work of the church to build and maintain benevolent societies. I can read in NEW Advocates where it IS the work of the church to build and maintain benevolent societies. Who has changed? Who has changed, indeed?

--4620 Preston Highway, Louisville, Kentucky