Truth Magazine

By Jerry Parks

Most of us have heard preachers refer to the writings of men like Thayer, Arndt and Gingrich, Liddell and Scott, Westcott and Hort, Vine, etc. for many years. If you were asked about these men you would probably reply by saying these men were Greek scholars, and that is right. But what else do you know about these men and their writings? When did they live and why are their reference works so often quoted?. What are , the credentials of these men?

There are, of course, different areas of scholarship that we might investigate, such as lexicographers, grammarians, historians and commentators; but in this study we will confine our investigation to Lexicographers and Grammerians.

Lexicons, Grammars and Word Studies

A lexicon is defined as being “an alphabetically arranged book setting forth the meaning and etymology of the words of a language; a dictionary; specifically applied to dictionaries of Latin, Greek, or Hebrew.” The word “grammar” is defined as “the science that treats the principles that explain the correct use of language in either oral or written form; a book or treatise on such usage.” Certainly we realize the importance of a textbook on the usage of the English language. Grammars are likewise very important to the study of the Greek language.

I remember hearing Brother Franklin Puckett say, “Words are signs of ideas, they are the vehicle of thought.” God has chosen words to be the means of communicating his thoughts to man. Unless we know the meaning of the words employed and their usage, we will never be able to understand the idea that the authors were trying to communicate. Since the New Testament was written primarily in the Greek language, we can see what a useful tool the lexicons and grammars are in helping us to ascertain the correct meaning of any particular word or phrase.

Rather than being so quick as to say, “If you have to know Greek to understand the Bible, forget it, let us appreciate the work these men have done in this field. Many of them have spent their whole life in the study of this subject. No, you do not have to know Greek to understand the Bible but, remember, the New Testament was written in Greek and we are indebted to such men as we now have under consideration for the fact that we can, with relative ease, understand the meaning of these Greek words. Let us not make a preacher feel ashamed of the fact that he is familiar with the Greek language by chiding him every time he mentions the Greek. At the same time we should also warn preachers not to flaunt their knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and go around with an air of superiority and act insulted if anyone should question their understanding of a passage. Let me introduce you to some of these familiar people and their contributions to aid us in our studies of the Bible.

Joseph Henry Thayer (1828-1901)

Thayer was born in Boston, Mass. and educated at Harvard and Andover Universities. He was professor of the New Testament Criticism and Interpretation of the Divinity School of Harvard University from 1884-1901. Described as the “Prince of the Lexicographers, Thayer was one of the most respected of all authorities on New Testament Greek. He served as secretary of the American Committee of Revision for the New Testament which was responsible for the American Standard Version. Without a doubt, his most celebrated work was his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, first published in 1885. He spent twenty-two years in preparing this work for publication. His reference work is still one of the most widely used quoted of all Greek authorities.

Liddell and Scott

Henry George Liddell (1811-1898), a Biblical scholar, was born at Binchester in Durham. He was educated at Charterhouse and Oxford. In 1845 he was appointed White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy. From 1846 to 1855 he was headmaster of Westminister and thereafter was dean of Oxford for 36 years. He is remembered best as the compiler, along with Robert Scott, of the Greek Lexicon which bears their names. He also wrote the History of Rome (1855). It was for Liddell’s daughter Alice that Lewis Carroll wrote his famous Alice in Wonderland.

Robert Scott (1811-1887), a Biblical scholar born in Devonshire, England, was Master of Balliol College. Later he was Dean of Rochester (1870). Liddell and Scott worked together to produce their Greek-English Lexicon which was published in 1843 after nine years of work. It is still considered a standard reference work in its field. Their lexicon is more useful for classical Greek than koine Greeks the language of the New Testament.

Westcott and Hort

These men have become somewhat famous because of their being associated with the Revision Committee of 1881, which was the forerunner of the American Standard Version of 1901. Brooke Foss Westcott (18251901) was Professor at Cambridge University, Westcott along with F.J. A. Hort worked some twenty years on a modern Greek Text of the New Testament. This text was based, almost exclusively, on the Vaticanus and Sinaitic Manuscripts. Westcott published a considerable number of books but is best known for his work with Hort on their Greek text which has set the pattern for most of the current editions of the Greek text.

F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892) was a New Testament critic and Biblical scholar as well as Professor at Cambridge University. Hort edited the Greek text which formed the basis for the English Revised Version. The fifty-seven page introduction by Hort sets out the basic elements of the science of textual criticism. He was closely associated, not only with Westcott, but also with J. B. Lightfoot, the famous commentator. Due to his tendency to perfectionism, he was able to publish very little.

While one cannot deny the scholarship and genius of these men, both Westcott and Hort were somewhat liberal in their theology which was evidenced in a number of ways. I refer the reader to an article written by Luther W. Martin entitled “The Genuineness of Mark 16:9-20” in Truth Magazine, Vol. 19, No. 52, for a further discussion of this matter.

Arndt and Gingrich

When reference is made to A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, it is usually attributed to William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. However, when reading the title page of this Lexicon along with the forward and introduction, it becomes clear that in this reference work we have the combined Greek scholarship of a long list of men. Primarily, the labors of Walter Bauer must be recognized. The title page of this Lexicon indicates that the work of Arndt and Gingrich involved translating Bauer’s work from the German to the English and adapting it for our use.

Walter Bauer (1877-1960) of Gottingen, Germany began his work on this Lexicon in 1920. He was Professor at Gottingen from 1916 to 1945. Bauer undertook a systematic search in Greek literature down to Byzantine times for parallels to the language of the New Testament. In a review of Bauer’s work, published in the Foreword of Arndt and Gingrich’s Lexicon, they said, “Not only was there a gigantic amount of material to be mastered, involving the most minute acquaintance with the whole body of Christian literature, but this task required at the same time the gift of combining and relating facts and of preserving an adequate scholarly alertness which is granted to but few people.” It is also pointed out in this Foreword that “. . .Bauer’s analysis and arrangement of the small words so frequently used is a great improvement over anything of its kind previously done.”

F. W. Gingrich, of Albright College, Reading, Pa., was granted in 1949 a leave of absence from his duties at the college to give his full-time to the task of translating Bauer’s Work. This was under the direction of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. W.F. Arndt, American Lutheran scholar of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo., was .appointed to be the director of the venture. The Manuscript was finished in 1955. Acknowledgment is given in the foreword to men serving on an advisory committee. This committee included such well known scholars as: E. J. Goodspeed, B. M. Metzger, E. C. Colwell, etc. Acknowledgment was also given to the works of such men as Moulton and Milligan, Nestle, and Robertson. With the value of the most up-to-date archaeological findings and the benefit of the learning of past scholars, this Lexicon is rapidly becoming one of, if not the most, widely used of all Lexicons.

James Strong

Strong was born in 1822 in New York City and graduated from Wesleyan University in 1844. He was Professor of Exegetical Theology in Drew Theological Seminary from 1868-1893. He spent $10,000.00 and thirty five years of his life in methodical work on his concordance of the Bible. This concordance lists every word of the Revised Version of 1881 which differs from the K.J.V. It includes an appendix for the A.S.V. This concordance has served as a standard reference work since 1894.

A. T. Robertson

A. T. Robertson was professor of Interpretation of the Greek New Testament at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for nearly a half century and was one of the most brilliant and popular Bible scholars of llis day. A world famous authority on the Greek New Testament, Dr. Robertson was a powerful preacher and lecturer and a prolific writer with forty-five volumes on both popular and profound subjects to his credit. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research was his greatest contribution to the serious Bible student, but his many more concise New Testament interpretations have been equally helpful to the average Christian. Among his most popular works are Word Pictures of the New Testament (6 Vol., pub. 1930) and A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ.

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

Gerhard Kittel, a German Biblical Scholar, was born is 1888 and died in 1948. Kittel was professor of the New Testament both at Greifswalh and at Tubingen Universities in East Germany. Kittel was the author of many scholarly works but is without doubt best remembered for his Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Since the publication of the first volume of the German edition, this work has secured for itself a solid and lasting place in biblical scholarship throughout the world.

The purpose of this reference work is not only to serve as a lexicon of New Testament words but also to give a more extensive exposition. Many single articles are the length of a small book. The usual procedure is to present the word in its secular Greek background, then to assess its role in the Old Testament, both in the Hebrew and the Septuagent texts, next to discover its usage in such sources as Philo, Josephus, etc, and then to see its varied usages in the New Testament.

Kittel worked on this from 1928 till the time of his death in 1948. The work was completed by Gerhard Friedrich who has been professor of New Testament at the University of Eralanger since 1954. G. W. Bromiley was then called on for the monumental task of translating this reference work into English. Bromiley is professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California.

William E. Vine

W. E. Vine, a Biblical scholar of the highest regard, received his education at the University College of Wales and the University of Wales. He is considered an authority on the ancient classics. He is the author of a number of familiar commentaries, but best known for his reference work entitled An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

The work of a scholar’s whole life, it is intended for the non-specialist with little or no knowledge of the Greek, and for the scholar as well. It is different from such lexicons as Thayers, etc. in that it is based on the English text rather than the Greek. The book serves as a dictionary, concordance, and commentary in one volume. Dr. F. F. Bruce noted in the Foreward: “The book is full of careful exegesis, and the student or teacher who makes it his constant companion in the study of the scriptures will find that he can afford to dispense with a large number of lesser aids.”

Vine’s work makes available to the ordinary reader the expert knowledge contained in the more advanced works. In fact, as Dr. Bruce also noted, “This Expository Dictionary comes as near as possible to doing for the non-specialist what is being done for the specialist by Kittel’s Theological Dictionary to the New Testament.”

Let me close by referring the reader to a portion of the Foreward of Vine’s Dictionary:

“Anyone who makes a serious and substantial contribution to the understanding of the New Testament, renders a public service, for if religion is the foundation of morality, by the knowledge of God is the welfare of the people. As a book the New Testament stands alone and supreme, simple in its profoundness, and profound in its simplicity. It is the record in twenty-seven Writings, of the origin, nature and progress of Christianity, and in the quality of its influence it has done more for the world than all other books together …. But the fact remains that they that are entirely dependent upon a Version must miss much of the glory and richness of these Writings. Provided there is spiritual appreciation, he who can read the New Testament in the language in which it was written stands to get the most out of it. But, of course, all can not do this; Yet the average reader is not wholly cut off from the treasures which lie in the Greek of the New Testament, for these have been put within our reach by means of Grammars and Lexicons, the special purpose of which has been to aid the English reader.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 4, pp. 73-75
January 26, 1978

By Ron Halbrook

(Editor’s Note: This series of articles was prepared by Brother Halbrook shortly after the change of editors occurred. We commend it to you as a brief history of Truth Magazine and evaluation of the work of Cecil Willis and others associated with the paper.)

Breadth and Balance

As was true during its first six years, Truth Magazine was often spoken of as being “controversial” during the editorship of Cecil Willis. No apology should be made for a willingness to engage in controversy, but, actually, a very wide range of provocative material has appeared throughout the history of Truth Magazine. Besides a steady flow of information in “News Briefs,” there have been numerous reports on the progress and problems of the Lord’s work around the world. For example, “Area Specials” have exposed to public view some of the labors and laborers in various regions of the United States: Indiana (Dec., 1962), Kentucky (Nov., 1963), the Northwest (Nov., 1965), the Nashville area (May 22, 1975), and Louisiana (Oct. 2, 1975). Sometimes a whole series of articles has been printed on a given area of the country which needs special attention or help. Not only have there been frequent reports on the work in this nation, but also on the world at large. In 1971, Cecil said that so many reports were coming in that it was impossible to publish them all. “Reports are coming in from Japan, South America, South Africa, Ireland, Nigeria, Rhodesia, Philippine Islands, Mexico, Norway, Canada, England, Vietnam, India, Australia, Italy, the Bahamas and perhaps other lands that do not readily come to mind” (Vol. XV, July 8, 1971, p. 531). For some time, news-and-history articles have appeared on specific congregations, along with the church’s meeting place pictured on the front cover.

Whole issues have been devoted to some important theme: “Return Ye Unto God” (Sept., 1958), Worldliness (Oct., 1964), Denominationalism (Oct., 1965), The Church (Oct., 1966), Conversion (Oct., 1968), Jesus Christ (May, 13, 20, 27, 1976), and others. A special issue of 50 pages was devoted to discussion of Bible Departments and Colleges, an exchange of views between Ralph Williams and James R. Cope (Sept. 16, 1971). Material has appeared which was deemed worthy of publication in book form, such as James P. Needham’s Preachers and Preaching, published in 1969. Other articles have given rise to requests for further publication, such as David E. Koltenbah’s series on “The Three Methods of Argument To Establish Divine Authority and the Three Arguments in Acts 15” which appeared in July, August, and September of 1967, and in revised form in Biblical Authority: Its Meaning and Application (Florida College Annual Lectures: 1974) (pp. 80-94). Outstanding lessons on difficult subjects have been published, such as Franklin T. Puckett’s address on “The Messiah and Racial Problems” (Vol. VII, May, 1963, p. 183). Many of the excellent tracts published by Truth Magazine first appeared as articles in the paper, including these by the editor during this period: Can We Understand the Bible Alike? What Is Conversion? What Must One Do To Be Saved? Dancing, Reviewing A Baptist Tract, The Law of Moses and The Gospel of Christ, But What About the Thief on the Cross? Scriptural Worship, Church Discipline, and other.

Perspective on modern-day events has been given by various articles on the Restoration movements of the past 200 years. The editor’s good working knowledge of Restoration history and literature, has made significant contributions in this direction. His articles on “William Wesley Otey-March 14, 1867- November 1, 1961” (Vol. VI, Dec., 1961 and Jan., 1962) were followed by the publication of W. W. Otey: Contender for the Faith in 1964, printed again in 1967. Cecil thoroughly reviewed Bill Banowsky’s Mirror of a Movement in Volumn X, from December of 1965 through the following March. His other efforts in this field include “Indiana Cooperative Efforts: A History” (Vol. XII, Nov., 1967, p. 37), “Historical Backgrounds of `Campaigns’ In the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ,” (Vol. XII, Dec., 1967, p. 51), and a series on “The Saga of Daniel Sommer” (Vol. XIV, Sept. 24, 1970-Oct. 22, 1970). The editor has encouraged and printed much material along this line.

During controversy, someone always complains not only about “controversial” articles but also about “too many articles on one subject.” During the paper’s first six years, editor Vinson dealt with the complaint, and more recently editor Willis has dealt with it. The reader might find it interesting to see the list of topics Cecil Willis asked his writing staff to deal with during a July, 1974 meeting held at Memphis, Tennessee. The list includes first principles of the gospel, evidences, instruction for teachers, book reviews, denominational doctrines, world religions, work of the Holy Spirit, law and authority, word studies, cults, premillennialism, Restoration history, current religious scene, Old Testament character studies, positive exposition of Scripture, morality, worldliness, history of innovations, personal work, and local church needs! Specific writers were assigned to deal with most all of these from time to time, though each writer was left free to write on any need he perceived. Those who speak of preacher-papers, family-papers, church-needs papers, etc., need to realize that the above subjects are vital to alien sinners, individual saints, preachers, elders, deacons, families, and churches. Over a year after the Memphis meeting, Cecil reviewed the topic index and found “more than 400 articles, written by 125 different men” on a wide variety of subjects including: 14 articles on authority, 21 on baptism, 8 on Baptist doctrine, 30 book reviews, 4 on Calvinism, 39 on Christian living, 46 on the church, 38 reports from churches, 22 on denominationalism, 5 on discipline, 31 on evangelism, 8 on evidences, 15 on faith, 7 on the family, 12 on fellowship, 8 on grace, 6 on heaven, 12 on Restoration history, 15 on the Holy Spirit, 24 on Christ, 8 on Jehovah’s Witnesses, 5 on modesty, 11 on obedience, 13 on personal work, 20 on preachers and preaching, 29 answering Bible questions, 15 on salvation, 31 expositions of passages, 16 on teaching, and 17 on Bible word studies. “If a paper can have wider diversification in one year, I hardly see how such would be possible,” he added (Vol. XIX, Dec. 18, 1975, p. 898). Truth Magazine throughout its history has aimed at breadth and balance, though men may differ in their assessment of the emphases given at different times.

“Yes, This Is A Militant Paper”

From its beginning, Truth Magazine has been a valuable forum for controversial topics. It began as a medium to uphold truth against the destructive influences of modernism, and was soon to see its duty in upholding truth against a complex of institutionalism among churches. Much of the history of the issues, debates, and division which occurred around that complex, can be found on the pages of Truth Magazine from the late 1950’s to the present. Many editorials and other articles can be found examining the whole field of this controversy. In Vol. II, Ray Ferris debated Bill Heinselman on “Church Responsibility in the Field of Benevolence” (Mar.-Aug., 1958; done anonymously). When many brethren hesitated to take a public stand, waiting to see which way the “wind” would blow, editor Willis wrote on “Those 50 % `Antis’ ” (Vol. IX, Dec., 1964, p. 50). After saying “if you believe error is taught herein, fire away at it,” Cecil continued,

These are crucial times. We had better quit being afraid that our position might align us with this one or that one. Stand for what you believe to be the truth, and speak out! Your voice is direly needed.

Quite a number of debates on institutional issues are reviewed over a period of time. When editor Willis met Clifton Inman first in Parkersburg, West Virginia, then in Dayton, Ohio, September 19, 20, 22, 23 and October 31, November 1, 3, 4, 1966, respectively, they discussed “the sponsoring church type of congregational cooperation with particular emphasis on the Herald of Truth radio and television program and institutionalism with special emphasis on orphan homes.” James Needham continued, referring to Cecil, “His preparation for these discussions was very evident. His part of the discussion was also carried on in a very fine spirit of brotherliness, and high esteem for his opponent.” Likewise, Brother Inman “pitched his part of the encounter on a very high plane” (Vol. XI, Jan., 1967, p. 77). This excellent debate was published in 1968, and is still in print. From July of 1967 through September, Truth Magazine carried a written debate on centralized cooperation between the editor and William L. Carrell (Vol. XI), and another on church support of benevolent organizations from December of 1968 through February of 1969 (Vol. XIII). The debates and reports of debates tapered off as the 1960’s neared their end, for there was less contact and less direct controversy as those who took the opposing views went their separate ways. The brethren who had taken the liberal stand on this complex of issues, where destined to enter an era of internal controversy over the control and direction of their many projects (editorial “A New Era Begins,” Vol. XVIII, November 1, 1973, pp. 3-5).

The editorial “I Just Don’t Like the Way You Say It” reflects the pressures and difficulties of this period of controversy (Vol. XV, June 10, 1971, p. 483). A brother had written a letter saying that while he approved the truth taught by Cecil, he did not “always approve the way he says things”. This brother acknowledged his debt of gratitude to men like Cecil who “are in the forefront of the battle against liberalism without reservation.” Cecil commented that no one “preaching method” was essential to the progress of truth, “but we must agree upon the truth taught, for a lie cannot be substituted for truth which is in Christ. Let us all use whatever capability and dispositions God has given us to teach the truth as effectively as we can.” That was still his plea near the end of his work as editor: “Incidentally, if you think the paper should be improved, we invite you to submit your improved articles” (Vol. XIX, Dec. 18, 1975, p. 898). In “Truth Magazine and Controversy,” Connie Adams summarized the spirit of the paper from its inception when he said,

Yes, this is a militant paper. We mean to keep it so. The Devil has not called off the battle yet. There are still surging issues which need to be discussed. Brotherly reserve and restraint ought to be employed, but no quarter should be asked or given in the conflict between truth and error. If we are found in error, then let brethren get out their typewriters and point it out. We can take it (Vol. XVII, Nov. 23, 1973, pp. 60-61 ).

Spirit and Stamina Severely Tested Again

Few perceived how appropriate Brother Adam’s words were in November of 1973. Another controversy already was breaking out into the open. Once again, the spirit and stamina of Truth Magazine’s Editor, Associate Editors, and Staff Writers were to be severely tested. This time the complex of issues related to grace, unity, and fellowship, and the immediate consequences related to whether we should receive or reject baptized believers who were involved in missionary societies, instrumental music, premillennialism, institutionalism, centralization, social-gospel practices, and such like. Ultimately, the consequences related to our reception or rejection of so-called “Christians among the sects”-i.e., people in the human denominations.

This problem had been on the horizon for several years. In the combined issue of Truth Magazine for June and July of 1962, Leslie Diestelkamp wrote on “The Ketcherside Unity Plea” (Vol. VI, p. 194). “Toleration is his theme, and he begs for such, not only with regard to men but with regard to principles. The actual crux of his appeal is not only that we be patient with men in error, but that we be tolerant with the error they advocate and practice.” Recognizing Ketcherside’s power to “cause many”-especially “many younger men”-“to wander into denominationalism and destruction,” Brother Diestelkamp appealed to those who were even then being “swallowed up in this new movement to reevaluate their attitude and re-consider the contrast between the word of God and the new and fair words of Brother Ketcherside.” In his article on “The Ketcherside `Unity’ Movement” in November, 1964, Elvis Bozarth identified the January, 1957 issue of Mission Messenger as the turning point in Ketcherside’s thrust. Observing that very few articles had appeared on Ketcherside’s “unity” movement, Brother Bozarth summarized its meaning in these words: “It was conceived in compromise, born through capitulation, perpetuated by submission, and the result is surrender. This movement, like all threats to pure Christianity, must be stopped.” A few other early articles began to appear by Roy Cogdill, who said Karl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett had swung from being “nothingarian” to “anythingarian” (“What Does `Fellowship’ Include?”, XIV, Nov. 13, 1969, p. 20), by Cecil Willis (“Those ‘In Depth’ Studies Again,” XIV, May 14, 1970, p. 417; “A Paradoxical Fellowship,” XIV, Mar. 23, 1972, p. 307), and by Connie Adams (“The Fading Fear and the Spirit of St. Louis, I,” XIV, May 14, 1970, p. 419; “Old Song, New Singers,” XVII, Feb. 1, 1973, pp. 202-203).

A report of open controversy and an evaluation appeared in the issue for April 6, 1972, with Ray Ferris’ article “The Ketcherside Discussion in Tampa-Was It Wise?” Brother Ferris pointed out that Ketcherside’s “extremely liberal views” were gaining ground in the Tampa area and that he was seeking to establish his viewer among “some of the young people on the Florida College Campus.” For the next two weeks, Brother Ferris evaluated “Karl Ketcherside’s Strange View of Fellowship.” Recognition of this problem had been growing. Consequently, James W. Adams began a lengthy series with “The Birth of a Movement” in the March 22, 1973, issue (Vol. XVII, p. 309). Cecil appended.an “Editor’s Note” saying that 1,000 extra copies of each article in the series was being printed for wider distribution.

In “Theological Liberalism: Is There Any?”, on March 15, 1973, editor Willis expressed the opinion that “the Gospel Guardian editor”-then William Wallace -should have expressed reservation or disagreement with the Randall Mark Trainer article in the April 20, 1972, Guardian, which denied any “Theological Liberalism at Abilene Christian College.” A period of prolonged and trying controversy with the Guardian staff of that period was sparked by Cecil’s editorial plea, “Tell Us It Is Not So” (Vol. XVII, Apr. 26, 1973, pp. 387-389). Leroy Garrett had reported in the September, 1972, Restoration Review that his recent discussion with editor Wallace showed “he is reexamining his own position of fellowship,” “he finds it too difficult to live with his present position,” and “he is moving in our direction.” After waiting seven months for Wallace to refute or comment upon that report, Cecil called for him to “clarify the matter.” He added that Gordon Wilson and Edward Fudge needed to make their positions clear: “each one has left me a little hazy about where he stands on the Garrett-Ketcherside Fellowship issue.” Wallace then briefly said Garrett’s report was inaccurate, but did not explain what actually had been said; the Guardian’s editor began to treat the whole problem as one of personalities, papers, and preachers, rather than a doctrinal matter. While he genuinely wanted to be disassociated from the Ketcherside-Garrett stance, he was also determined to back his Associate Editor Fudge to the hilt. The disclaimers eventually published by Wilson and Fudge were ambiguous, or said nothing about the specific doctrines of Ketcherside which were the points of danger.

Next, Truth Magazine’s editor responded to Wallace’s March 15 editorial “Turning. Off Second Generation Preachers” with “Turning Off `Which’ Second Generation Preachers” (Vol. XVII, June 14, 1973, pp. 499-502). In the same issue, four Florida College students published an article lamenting the, Guardian’s “drift toward softer, more compromising themes” (Bruce Edwards, Jr., Patrick A. Jones, Jon Quinn, Mark Venable, “An Open Letter to the Gospel Guardian”). Wallace had refused to print it. In the same issue, James W. Adams continued his series including this revelation, made for the first time in print: “Brother Edward Fudge associate editor of the Gospel Guardian, was probably the first person to introduce, in a favorable way, the views of W. Karl Ketcherside to the student preachers at Florida College” (pp. 505-507). Adams was involved in subsequent controversy with Fudge, as the latter maneuvered to minimize the effects of charges on his doctrinal. compromise but without repudiating the positions he had taken (cf. “How Successful Is Ketchersidean Subversion?”, XVII, Sept. 20, 1973, pp. 707711). The September 20 issue carried Ron Halbrook’s “Introduction in Personal Form to the Reader,” giving the background to the five-part series “An Appeal in Love to Edward Fudge: Clarify Please” (Sept. 27-Oct. 25). Cecil felt the value of this series was that it “provided the documentation to prove what many of us already knew to be the erroneous positions of Edward Fudge, but which documentation we did not have readily accessible” (Vol. XVIX, Nov. 7, 1974, p. 8). As a result, Fudge did eventually modify his teaching on instrumental music, so as to admit it may be considered “sinful,” but he refused to modify his position on the instrument or anything else in relation to fellowship.

Willing to Make Correction?

The Gospel Guardian had little to say on the doctrinal problems of Wilson and Fudge, but shifted emphasis to personal charges aside from doctrinal import as in Wallace’s editorial “The Political Mr. Willis.” Cecil reproduced Wallace’s editorial and discussed it in “Reviewing My Friend, William E. Wallace” (Vol. XVIII, Dec. 13, 1973). Denying that personal interests were involved, Cecil appealed for concentration on Fudge’s “Calvinistic doctrine on grace and his latitudinarianism on fellowship” which had brought “wreck and ruin” to many young preachers. Professions to superior piety and supreme peaceableness by those promoting error or protecting errorists, were unmasked in Willis’ “Some Disappointing Incidents.” As it turned out, a faulty report was involved in his mentioning that Doyle Banta cracked that an airplane should crash through Cecil’s house (XVIII, May 9, 1974, pp. 419-423). When Cecil asked for and finally got a denial of the remark from Brother Banta, he acknowledged his mistake and apologized for the inadvertent misrepresentation, expressing regret that those who could clear up the origin of the story played mum (XIX, Apr. 3, 1975, pp. 323-325). Though the doctrinal errors Cecil continued to emphasize were not being corrected, some brethren took pleasure in highlighting this mistake, concerning which every effort was made to provide correction.

But, another thread of testing and sorrow wove its way into the controversy. The June 3, 1971, issue (Vol. XV, p. 467) explained that Lindy McDaniel’s Pitching for the Master would henceforth be published by Cogdill Foundation. The relationship of the papers and the men behind them was to be unexpectedly strained by disagreement over the grace-unity discussions. Lengthy discussions with Lindy, orally and in writing, convinced Cecil Willis and Roy Cogdill that he was for the second time enamored of the looser views on grace which were currently being debated. Lindy no longer felt identified with the position taken by Truth Magazine, and the Cogdill Foundation did not intend to risk supporting error. In an article entitled ” `In’ and `Out’ of Grace” in May of 1974, Cecil announced that by mutual agreement the Foundation would no longer publish Pitching for the Master (Vol. XVIII, May 23, 1974, pp. 451-455). Cecil’s “Lindy McDaniel and Our `Doctrinal’ Differences” in August 8 issue, was followed by Lindy’s “Answering Cecil’s Charges” on September 19. In that same issue, the editor summarized the problem: Lindy believed that a person using instrumental music or involved in institutionalism “as a result of ignorance or from the weakness of the flesh continues to stand in the grace of God, even though he has neither repented of nor confessed the sin.” The editor promised to document “Lindy’s vacillation on this question.” It was some time before this was done, as he waited to see what Lindy’s disposition might be and as he agonized over writing as accurately and fairly as possible. With full knowledge that dealing with Lindy had been and would be most unpopular, and only after counselling over the manuscript with many brethren, Cecil presented the full documentation in four parts between April 10 and May 1, 1975 (Vol. XIX). Lindy never accepted the offer to reply in full as he might think necessary.

Fortunately, the Ketcherside satellites lost the use of the Gospel Guardian as a launching pad when it changed ownership. The paper moved back toward its former soundness under the editorship of Eugene Britnell (Nov. 1, 1974-Sept. 1, 1975), and has continued on that basis under James W. Adams (Sept. 15, 1975-present). This does not mean, though, that the dangerous influence of these errorists has disappeared. As Leslie Diestelkamp had warned over a decade ago, “many younger men” have had their faith disturbed by the spread of this error and many have even wandered “into denominationalism and destruction.” In recent months, the Christians-in-all-the-sects slogan — “Christians only, but not only Christians” — has been used in advertising “gospel” meetings. Churches have been and are being divided by those pressing this pernicious approach to “grace and unity.” As Connie Adams said, “Yes, this is a militant paper. We mean to keep it so. The Devil has not called off the battle yet.”

(To be continued.)

Truth Magazine XXII: 4, pp. 70-73
January 26, 1978

By Thomas L. Andrews

People often say, “I would do something if I knew what to do.” This should be the attitude of every Christian. Can we say that the only things we leave undone in the service of God are those things we do not know to do? It saddens me to think of the number of people that readily admit, “I know I ought to . . . . ” The watchword now, as always, is “putting you in remembrance” (2 Pet. 1:13). A continual reminding to keep the commandments of God before us is essential. Upon knowing what God expects of us, it behooves each person to do it.

As we think about what is expected of us, we must realize who we are. I mean in a very basic sort of way. “The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3). Not many people would proclaim that they are God or the Son of God. However, we must understand that God expects us to submit to His authority and be humble as humanity. Arrogant and self-willed people are an abomination unto the Lord.

Paul also teaches that if we area man or if we are a woman, God expects us to be that which we are by our biological makeup. Certainly the sinfulness of abusing and leaving the natural sexual desires of man and women needs to be understood (Rom. 1:26.27; 1 Cor. 6:9.20). God wants people to experience their natural desires, yet these are to be satisfied in accord with His will. The child of God today perhaps has little difficulty with this aspect of God’s will but what about social behavior?

The social behavior of man and women is also a realm in which God has expectations. God expects men to be the head of women (1 Cor. 11:3). This has a two-roll requirement. Men must be so inclined as to be a head and women must be submissive to them. Although the husband is to be head of the wife and the wife is to submit to her own husband (Eph. 5:22.23), this is not the only headship of man. Women are expected by God to be submissive. There are too many passages in the Bible that teach in relation to this point for it to be casually overlooked (1 Tim. 2:9-15; 1 Cor. 11:2-16; 14:34; 1 Pet. 3:1-6; Tit. 2:3-5). It may be “in” today for women to “take the lead” and even to be “manish,” but it has never been nor never will be what God expects of women.

Do not misunderstand me. I believe in that old saying, “Behind every great man is a great woman.” It can also be said of such a woman that she knew her place and what God expected of her. Many women are important factors in the Lord’s work in various locations and as such do a great work. However, women do not have to challenge the authority of men to work in the kingdom. Women need to carefully examine their public behavior, modes of dress, attitudes, and actions so “that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Often the case is not that women are speaking so loudly, but that men are not speaking at all. This is to say that many godly women are looking for men to take the lead and the oversight. God expects men to accept the responsibility of being a head not only in the home but in other areas also. The Lord’s people are suffering because men will not develop as God expects.

The home is designed by God to develop children that will find the place in the work of the Lord (Eph. 6:4), yet many parents are failing in what God expects of them. Has God required of us an impossible task? Absolutely not! Our inquiry should be into our own desires, methods, and procedures of rearing our children. Lustful generations have found it easy to bring forth children, but let us realize that it is not so easy to bring up a child in the Lord. Yet this is what God expects.

As I write these words a startling thought comes to me. This is concerning the attitude that people have toward failure. “Everyone is doing it! So what.” The point is-what are the consequences of failing to do what God expects of us? This is a serious matter. To fail in what God expects of us is sin and “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). It is sad to see otherwise successful people fail in doing what God expects them to do.

Truth Magazine XXII: 4, p. 69
January 26, 1978

By Mike Willis

Those who believe in the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus to the account of the believer have used a number of arguments to prove their doctrine. Any treatment of this subject must examine those arguments in order to give a thorough examination of the material. Hence, I would like to consider some of the material used to prove the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus to the account of the believer.

The Greek Word: Logizomai

The Greek word logizomai is the Greek word cited in the dictionaries and encyclopedias as the word from which the English word “impute” is translated. The word occurs slightly over forty times in the New Testament and bears the following meanings:

1. Think, believe, be of the opinion. The passages in which logizomai bears this meaning are as follows: Rom. 2:3; 3:28; 8:18; 14:14; 2 Cor. 11:5; Phil. 3:13; and 1 Pet. 5:12. None of these passages have any relevance to the doctrine of imputation inasmuch as the word bears a different definition in these contexts.

2. Think (about), consider, ponder, let one’s mind dwell on. Again, this definition has no bearing on the subject of imputation but the passages in which logizomai bears this meaning are the following: Lk. 24:1; Jn. 11:50; 1 Cor. 13:11; 2 Cor. 3:5; 10:2, 7, 11; Phil. 4:8; Heb. 11:19.

3. Reckon, calculate. If any usage of logizomai is going to support the doctrine of imputation, this usage must be it. Consequently, we must give this usage a more thorough examination than we have given the other two usages. This definition is broken down into two categories in Arndt and Gingrich’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. (I have relied on Arndt and Gingrich throughout this examination of the word logizomai.)

a. Count, take into account. Let us rather carefully consider the usages where logizomai bears this meaning:

(1) 1 Cor. 13:5. “Love… does not take into account a wrong suffered.” Obviously, this verse makes no reference to imputation in the theological sense and, therefore, has no bearing on the study.

(2) 2 Cor. 5:19. “Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation” (vs. 18-19). This is one of the verses which some think support the idea of imputation as taught by the Calvinists. However, the trespasses of sinners are not counted against them because Christ became sin for us. There is no mention of imputing the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account in this passage. Sinners become the “righteousness of God.” “God’s righteousness, in brief, is tire quality that is stamped upon us by God himself when in heaven, on his judgment seat, he renders the judicial verdict that acquits us of all sin and guilt …. The instant that verdict is pronounced he is dikaios, `righteous’ ” (R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, p. 1054).

(3) Rom. 4:8. “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.” Sin is not taken into account when it is forgiven. Nothing is said about the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to the account of the believer.

(4) 2 Tim. 4:16. “At my first defense no one supported me, but all deserted me; may it not be counted against them.” Obviously, this is Paul’s request that God not lay sin to the charge of some who sinned against him and, therefore, has no bearing on the subject of imputed righteousness.

(5) Rom. 4:4. “Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor but as what is due.” This is discussing the difference between salvation by works (perfect obedience) and salvation by grace. Commenting on that difference, this passage says nothing about the subject of imputing the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account.

(6) Rom. 4:6. “Just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered.” Salvation comes to man apart from works; it comes through grace. But notice that this grace is reckoned, not on the basis of Christ’s perfect obedience being imputed to the believer’s account, but on the basis of God forgiving man of his sins! This says nothing about imputing Christ’s perfect obedience to the believer’s account!

(7) Rom. 4:11. “. . . and he (Abraham) received the sign, of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness which he had while uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be reckoned to him.” Inasmuch as this is talking about Abraham, it can hardly be discussing the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to his account. Notice that righteousness is reckoned to him. This righteousness is not the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to the life of a Christian but the divine acquittal-forgiveness of sins! The context discusses “those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered” but it says absolutely nothing about imputing Christ’s perfect obedience to the believer’s account!

(8) Rom. 4:3. “For what does the Scripture say? `And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” This passage mentions that Abraham’s faith was imputed to him for righteousness but says absolutely nothing about Christ’s perfect obedience being imputed to him.

(9) Rom. 4:5. “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” This passage again mentions that faith is reckoned as righteousness but says nothing about the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to the believer’s account.

(10) Rom. 4:9. “Is this blessing upon the circumcised, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say,`Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.” This passage again mentions that faith is reckoned as righteousness but says nothing about the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to the believer’s account.

(11) Rom. 4:22. “Therefore also it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Gal. 3:6. “Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Jas. 2:23. “. . . and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, `And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,’ and he was called the friend of God.” All of these three passages pertain to the one case of Abraham. They all teach that Abraham’s faith was imputed for righteousness; not one of them mentions that Christ’s perfect obedience was imputed to Abraham!

(12) Rom. 4:10. “How then was it reckoned? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.” In showing that Abraham was justified by faith and not by works, Paul asked whether Abraham was justified before or after circumcision. Again, this passage offers no support for those who teach that Christ’s perfect obedience is reckoned to the account of the believer.

(13) Rom. 4:23-25. “Now not for his sake only was it written, that `it was reckoned to him,’ but for our sake also, to whom it will be reckoned, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, Him who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.” Again, this passage considers the idea of justification by faith; it distinctly mentions that Jesus was delivered up as our sin offering but mentions nothing about His perfect obedience being imputed to the believer’s account. The reference in v. 25 to “raised because of our justification” cannot be twisted to teach the believer’s account.

(14) 2 Cor. 12:6. “For if I do wish to boast I shall not be foolish, for I shall be speaking the truth; but I refrain from this, so that no one may credit me with more than he sees in me or hears from me.” This is not even discussing the subject of justification much less the imputing of Christ’s righteousness to the believer’s account.

b. As a result of a calculation, evaluate, estimate, look upon as, consider. The usages of this definition have no relationship to the subject although here are the passages in which the word logizomai appears: Acts 19:27; Mk. 15:28; Lk. 22:37; Rom. 2:26; 6:11; 8:36; 9:8; 1 Cor. 4:1; 2 Cor. 10:2.

Conclusion

Whatever support might be given to the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to the believer’s account is going to have to come from some source other than the definition and usage of the word logizomai. There is nothing in the word’s usage which would ever have suggested the idea that Christ’s perfect obedience was credited to the believer’s account so that God saw Christ’s perfect obedience rather than the believer’s sins. In our next article, we shall consider some other arguments used in defense of this Calvinistic doctrine.

Truth Magazine XXII: 4, pp. 67-69
January 26, 1978