Truth Magazine

By L. L. Applegate

Ruling power begins, and ends with the local congregation (Acts 20:28). Elders are told to feed the church He purchased with His blood (1 Peter 5:2). Feed flock among you, taking the oversight thereof. In the 6th Ch. Acts verses 1-6 we have example of caring for widows. Such was within the framework of the local church at Jerusalem. Notwithstanding, many depart from the New Testament example and build centralized homes (Institutions) separate and apart from the local church to care for widows and orphans.

Such homes (Institutions) were unknown in the days of the Apostles and are not recorded in New Testament. Many thousands of dollars are spent for buildings (Institutions) for the aged so that children or nephews may send their mother or father there, thus freeing them of caring for them in their own house. Read 1 Tim. 5:3, 4: “Honour widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.” Let us hear what Apostle Paul said relative to those who would not care for their own. “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim. 5:8). These scriptures tell us how to care for widows and orphans. We have members among us today who say we have no New Testament example for such work so it is left to man’s own judgment how such work is to be done. Read what the Prophet Jeremiah said in Jeremiah 10:23: “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” Let us learn not to go beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6). Those who transgress and go beyond the New Testament example have not God Quo. 9). Churches of the Lord who send money out of church treasury to Institutional homes, whether it be for widows or orphans, are sinning, whether they realize it or not. There is no Bible authority for such. But we do have Bible authority for what we do (Col. 3:17).

Institutional homes such as homes for aged and orphan as we have them among us must come to an end. They originated in the heart of man and not of God.

Hear a small boy as he asks his father this question as they were on the way to old folks home.- “Father, where are you taking grandpapa?” Father’s reply, “Son, I’m taking him to the old folks’ home,” The boy said to his father, “Is that where you want me to take you when you get old?” The father’s answer: “We’re taking grandpapa back home with us.” Please note the truth brought home to this father by his son.

Christian reader, would you prefer going to an institution rather than being home with loved ones? If you have no one, children or nephew, then make your home with a Christian family in your home congregation where you may be able to worship God in spirit and in truth (Jno. 4:24). (Copies free upon request from his widow, Mrs. L. L. Applegate, Cottondale, Florida 32431)

Truth Magazine, XX:23, p. 11
June 3, 1976

By Voyd N. Ballard

I read with interest and appreciation Larry Ray Hafley’s article “Reviewing Gordon Wilson On Faith And Works” in Truth Magazine, Feb. 12 1976. While I have had no contact with Gordon since 1963 when he caused serious trouble in the church in Clovis, California, I have strongly suspected that he has been in sympathy with Ketcherside and his cohorts for some time. Evidently he has not only been in sympathy with them, but the transcription of his speech as quoted by Brother Hafley is proof that Gordon has been teaching false doctrine since 1972.

As Brother Hafley says, “Brother Wilson’s dissimulation is long overdue in being reviewed.” Gordon “WAS RAISED BETTER,” this I know. I have known the Wilson family most all of Gordon’s life. Gordon was married to my oldest daughter in March of 1956. His father, John W. Wilson was one of the first sound gospel preachers I became acquainted with when I came to the state of California in 1946. I worked closely with John off and on for several years while his children and mine were growing up. John was (and so far as I know still is) one of the able and capable preachers and debaters with the knowledge and ability to defend the Truth against every form of false doctrine. I have heard him again and again in debates with denominational preachers where he laid this very doctrine that Gordon taught in Hazelwood, Missouri so far in the shade that the denominational preacher was never able to recover from the sledge hammer blows John struck against it. So, I know that Gordon knows better. His dad taught him better, and Gordon started out as a young preacher with the determination to preach and defend the Truth as he had been taught and as his daddy had always done. What “hindered him that he should not continue to obey and defend this Truth?”

I do not know. but I do know this false doctrine needs to be exposed, and I thank God for such papers and Editors as Truth Magazine and Cecil Willis and now The Gospel Guardian and James Adams with staffs of writers who have the courage and willingness to do it. May your tribe increase, and may you never be turned aside by those who “don’t like the way you do it.”

These fellows like Gordon think they have discovered some “new truth.” What they are teaching is neither “new” or “truth.” It is as old as denominationalism and just as false as it was when some of us “old timers” were debating Baptist preachers years ago. Denominational preachers still preach this “Faith only, Grace only” doctrine, but it is next to impossible to get any of them to attempt to defend it in debate anymore. The last debate I had with a Missionary Baptist preacher was about four years ago. In this debate he made the very same argument that Gordon makes in his Hazelwood, Missouri speech. The only difference is that the Baptist preacher made the argument stronger and better and as Brother Hafley says he, while just as wrong as is Gordon, was at least “consistent.”

But, as I said, It is next to impossible to get a denominational preacher to attempt to defend his “Faith only, Grace only” doctrine in public debate, and I suppose it would be even more impossible to get one o# these Ketcherside boys with their “new truths” to attempt publicly to defend their false doctrines. In case any of them get up enough courage to attempt it, I will walk across a forty acre field of cockleburs barefoot if necessary to meet them in public debate. According to the transcription of his speech Gordon Wilson says, “no alien sinner is ever said to be justified by works.” I am willing to affirm that “No man (alien or otherwise) in any age was ever said to be justified by his faith until that faith had been expressed in obedience to the commands of God.”

True, we are not saved by our own works, but we are saved only in our obedience to the commands of God. These commands to the alien sinner are: Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance of sins, confession of Christ as Lord, and baptism in water (Mk. 16:15, 16; Acts 17:30, 31; Rom. 10:9; Acts 2:38). Peter was sent to aliens to tell them “words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” He told them, “God is no respecter of persons (what He requires of one He requires of all). But in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him” (Acts 11:14; Acts 10:34, 35). Gordon says, “Neither man nor any other New Testament writer ever uses the word “works” with approval, of the obedience of an alien sinner. Never! Look it up in your concordance, my friend!” Gordon, and those of his persuasion would do far better if they would “look it up in the New Testament.”

Paul and James are not “talking about two different periods of time in the lives of people” as Gordon wants to think. They are talking about different kinds of works. There are three different kinds of works set forth in the New Testament:

1. Man’s works which cannot save: Eph. 2:8, 9. Titus 3:5 says, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” The washing of regeneration is admittedly water baptism; so Paul is saying, “Not by – But by” i.e. “Not by our own works, but by Baptism!” Gordon has heard Foy E. Wallace, John Wilson and other able preachers make this argument time and time again. And there was a time when Gordon said, “Amen” to it. The argument was true then and it is still true today Paul and the New Testament have not changed – Gordon has!

2. The works of the Old Law by which man could not be justified (Acts 13:39; Gal. 2:16). Paul and James do not contradict each other, nor are they talking about different people. Paul was talking about the works of man (man’s own righteousness) in Eph. 2. In Rom. 4 Paul uses Abraham as an example of one saved or justified without the Law of Moses. He shows Abraham was not justified by the works of the law. Paul is not saying Abraham was not saved by works of obedience, but that he was not justified by the works of the law, since his obedience and justification was long before the law. Abraham was justified by his works of obedience to God as pointed out in Heb. 11:8, 10. James uses Abraham to show that a man is justified by working the righteousness of God. “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou has faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?” James says this fulfilled the scripture, and then quoted Gen. 15:6: “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.” Which is exactly the very same scripture Paul quoted in Rom. 4:3! No Sir, Paul and James were not talking about “two different time periods in the lives of the people they addressed.” They were talking about the same period of time, the same person, and the same Old Testament Scripture, which both agree was fulfilled when Abraham’s “faith wrought with his works, and by works was made perfect.” Both agree Abraham was justified by works of righteousness (obedience) and not by the works of the law.

3. The works of righteousness (obedience to the commands of God) without which no man (alien or child of God) can be justified. “Though he was a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” Heb. 5:8, 9). If “all them” does not include the alien I would like to see the scripture that excludes him.

It is a shame that these fellows have made shipwreck of their faith; It is even a worse shame that they continue to parade themselves before the churches as loyal gospel preachers. If they are determined to continue in false doctrine it would be much better for them and for the church if they went into denominationalism all together. Even the liberals cannot stomach such foolishness.

Truth Magazine, XX:23, p. 10-11
June 3, 1976

By Roy E. Cogdill

“In unity there is strength.” This is just as true in the church as in the nation. A strong church must be a united church. We want to study Bible unity, particularly as it is applicable to the local church.

We more often apply unity to the church universally but the most common and fundamental application of the obligation to be united as the scriptures present the matter is to the congregation. Churches of Christ will be united for there is but one divine pattern for them all and when they conform to the divine pattern sufficiently to enjoy identity as such they will have a common faith, a common salvation, and a common hope.

The real problem of unity is not in the singularity of the church as contrasted with denominationalism or many churches. Here the problem is conversion to the Lord. Any attempt to affect unity among the human organizations men have built in their efforts to “establish a righteousness of their own” must necessarily be on the basis of compromise. Where the smaller and weaker will be swallowed up by the larger and more powerful religious bodies in affecting some kind of union without actual unity. This is what the “Ecumenical Movement” amounts to and all it amounts to.

Every union meeting held, such as the Billy Graham campaigns, is a demonstration of union without unity. People who wear different religious names, hold to different religious government and organizations can “go together” into a union-drop their sectarian names, creeds, and organizations either temporarily or permanently but they do not have unity. They have union. They do this they say in order to reach more people and save more souls but if it works for six weeks it would work for six months or a year or all of the time and when they are unwilling to forget their denominational identity for all of the time it proves that they think more of their sectarianism than they do of unity-even though they talk about it a great deal. It proves something else, too. If leaving off their denominational identity will save more people, then their denominational peculiarities stand in the way of and prevent the salvation of men for who Christ died and this is a severe indictment of denominationalism.

This sort of federation or union is what the “Federal Council of the Churches of Christ” have tried to accomplish. They may have federation but they very evidently do not know what unity is in the sight of God. Nor can they affect it upon such a basis. We learned as children in school that fractions cannot be added until a common denominator is found. Even so there can be no unity among people of different religious bodies until they are all converted to Christ and come into the body of Christ.

The Catholic recognizes the voice of the church as supreme; then comes the voice of tradition and least and last of all the Word of God. The Mormon recognizes the Book of Mormon as more perfect and supreme than the scriptures. This is the only basis upon which he can be a Mormon. But a Christian can recognize only the authority of Christ in the scriptures. Therefore, until he can convert the Catholic and the Mormon, and the Baptist, and the Methodist, and all other sectarians to the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice and the sole standard of authority in religion, there can be no unity. Of course, each might make certain concessions and compromises until they affect union but it could never be the “unity of the Spirit” no matter how much peace might exist.

There are no compromises that truth can make for the only variation or substitution for truth is error. When convictions in truth are sold out for the sake of peace then peace with men has been purchased at the expense of peace with God. This is too great a price. Peace at any price is not worth having. You can unite with the Devil on his terms.

When convictions concerning truth are sold out, then one has only policy without principle to guide him. When a Gospel preacher or church surrenders their convictions to the point that they can “come down on the plains of Ono” and even discuss “Ecumenical Movements” on the same platform with a Catholic Priest or a Christian. Church preacher they will either repent and return to their first love or eventually go all the way. There is no conviction or recognition of principles to restrain them.

In California, in a previous decade, there was witnessed a “movement” among us headed by Beam to persuade the rest of us to persuade the rest of us to “fellowship” everybody and everything in peace. This was his conception of unity and his contention was that the basis and means to achieve unity was to love everyone enough to fellowship them and draw no lines against error. I heard him contend many years ago in Abilene that “love will accomplish unity.”

Today we are having some more of the same. Ketcherside and Garrett and Chris Lyles, ahve held, according to the religious news, forums on “Fellowship.” Ketcherside and Garrett have swung from the brand of compromise and are promoting the”Anything-arian” type of fellowship — where anything goes. Chris Lyles formerly stood for the truth but has gone into the liberal camp after the example of his brother, Cleon Lyles, and is now looking around for a “pass” into the plains beyond that flows with the rewards (milk and honey) of popularity and prominence. He will find it too.

There is no ground for unity among unbelievers and the only ground for unity among believers is the Word of God. It must conform to the divine pattern– “The Unity of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:1-6). Nothing short of it is in harmony with the prayer of Christ (John 1.7) or Heaven’s will as the Spirit reveals it. Every other course is walking after the flesh (Gal. 5) and -will bring spiritual death.

Truth Magazine, XX:23; p. 8-9
June 3, 1976

By Cecil Willis

Previously, we learned that there was a plurality of persons instrumental in the making of man. God said “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26). There were three divine persons active in the whole of creation, and likewise three holy persons active in divine providence. Then we studied in Matt. 3, the account of Jesus’ baptism. Jesus was being baptized; the Holy Spirit was descending like a dove; and God spoke from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son.” So we have already learned there were three divine personalities. We want to continue our study of the Scriptures, showing this to be the Bible truth. But from time to time, we need to stop to consider objections that might be made.

Objections Considered

It is sometimes objected, that if there are three distinct persons in the Godhead, we are therefore worshipping three Gods instead of one. We would have a plurality of Gods. But some seem to be unable to understand that the Deity can consist of three persons. They seem to have no trouble understanding how Deity could manifest Himself in three persons, and yet be one God. But whether these objectors can understand how it can be or not, the Scriptures declare that the three are one. In the following passage notice the mention of each separate person, and then the categorical statement that they are one: “For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in the earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one” (1 Jno. 5:4-8). Regardless of what men might say, or whether they believe it or not, the apostle John says the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. Someone asks, “How can three be one?” I reply by asking, “Is it any more difficult to believe that three can be one than it is to believe that one can be three?” Is it harder to explain how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be one (remember it does not declare them to be one person), than it is to explain how one person, Jesus, can be the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? It is not a matter of determining which is the harder to explain, but a matter of ascertaining what the Scriptures declare to be the truth on the subject. And we have just seen from the Bible where the three are one, and I believe it. I do not worship a plurality of Gods. I worship the one Deity, which consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

But if the charge of those who claim we are “Tritheists” (worshippers of three Gods) were true, they would only have indicted themselves also. If because I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate persons, I am a worshipper of three Gods, are they not worshippers of three Gods while Jesus was on earth, the Holy Spirit was descending to earth, and God was in heaven? They believe in three manifestations. They are therefore guilty of worshipping three divine manifestations. Actually these objectors worship one Diety which consists of three divine persons just as we do. But they choose to call these persons manifestations, instead of persons. But the manifestations are in the form of persons.

Then we are asked, “What about Isa. 9:6?” So let us just consider this passage. The passage reads: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” This passage is cited as showing that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are one person. I think it is apparent that it does not declare this. Nothing more is contained in this passage than the truth revealed in Heb. 1:3, and in Phil. 2 which says that Christ was made in the express image of God. Jesus partook of the nature of divinity. He had the attributes of God. This passage in the original language is a difficult one for the translators. In fact, the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) omits entirely the expressions “mighty God,” and “everlasting Father.” The Hebrew, the original language of the Old Testament, reads “father of eternity,” as the footnote of the ASV indicates. It simply means that Jesus is the Father or author of the ages. The expression deals with time, and not with the nature of the Godhead. The footnote in the Greek says He is the “Father of the age to come.” So this passage is not declaring that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all one person.

Argument Resumed

Now let us resume looking at passages which tell us that Jesus and the Father are not one person. In Jno. 14:28 Jesus says: “Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father, and the Father is greater than L” Jesus says that the Father is greater than He is. Is Jesus declaring that He is greater than Himself? How can Jesus be greater than Himself? Yet this is precisely the implication if the “Jesus Only” doctrine be true. Jesus also declared that He was going to the Father. Was Jesus going to be with Himself when He said “I go to the Father.” Since the Father was greater than Jesus, as the passage declares, and since one cannot be greater than himself, therefore Jesus was not the Father.

All of us remember the pitiful last words of our Lord on the cross of Calvary. As Jesus hung on the cross in mortal agony, at the ninth hour he cried, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Jesus could stand the terrible agonies o# the cross, and do so in silence, but when God turned His face from that terrible scene, Jesus cried out as though in a cry of death. Immediately afterward, “Jesus uttered a loud voice, and gave up the ghost” (Mk. 15:33-37). But notice particularly the expression, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Think about the doctrine we are discussing, and then relate it to this passage we are studying. Jesus was being crucified on the cross. But since there is but one person in the Godhead, for such the doctrine declares, to whom was Jesus praying on the cross? Who was Jesus asking not to forsake Him? Really, the original language carried a beautiful thought with it. Jesus is asking “For what purpose hast thou forsaken me?” But of whom is He inquiring this? Of Himself? Is Jesus, while hanging on the cross, praying, “Jesus, Jesus, why hast Thou forsaken Thyself?” Certainly not. He is praying to the Father above, a separate being from Himself. This passage indubitably shows that Jesus and the Father are not one person.

In 1 Tim. 2:5, we find this reading: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and men, the passage says, Now, where there is a mediator there must be three persons involved. There must be the two parties at variance, and the mediator. In this instance, there is God, men, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Literally, a mediator is one who stands between two. Moses stood between God and the Israelites, and presented the cause of the Israelites to God, and spoke to the Israelites for God. But Christ is our mediator. But how can Jesus be our mediator between God and man, if He is the one God of this verse? The passage shown says “there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Jesus was Deity in human flesh, thus he could represent the cause of both God and man. But if Jesus is the one God of this verse, how can he serve as a mediator between Himself and another? Paul says a mediator is not a mediator of one in Gal. 3:20. If a mediator is one who stands between two, how can Jesus be both the one God and the mediator in this verse? And if he is not the one God and the mediator also, then there are two persons mentioned in this passage, and this destroys the “one person” doctrine.

Another passage similar to the one just used is 1 Jno. 2:1: “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” The meaning of the term “advocate” is similar to that of the “mediator.” The word “advocate” is translated from the Greek word paraki~-,tos, and according to Henry Thayer, this word means: “one who pleads another’s cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, advocate.”

How can one plead another’s cause before himself? If Jesus is the judge, and Jesus is the advocate, then Jesus is pleading man’s cause to Himself. But this would be contradictory to the meaning of the term “advocate.” The truth is: Jesus is our lawyer who stands before God, the offended, and the judge, and pleads for our, the offender’s cause. Thus we have God, the judge, Jesus the pleader, and man the offender, all implied in this passage. Jesus is not both the judge and pleader. God is the judge, the offended; and Jesus is pleading with Him in our behalf. Not only does it deny the doctrine under review in this lesson, but it is a wonderful thought to know that Jesus is pleading in our behalf. Many of us, by our lives, are giving the Lord little upon which to plead for us. We expect Him to do it all. But Jesus only intercedes when we have done our best, and can go no farther.

We have previously stated that the doctrine tinder review in this series of lessons, is subversive of the Sonship of Jesus Christ. Of course this is denied, by saying that these people believe Jesus to be the Son of God. This they do, if they are permitted to define what they mean by the statement “Jesus is the Son of God.” But by the time the explanation is given, Jesus is no longer the Son of God. He has suddenly become His own Son. If God is Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is Jesus and Jesus is Jesus, then if Jesus is the Son of God, He is the Son of Jesus, or His own Son, and this precisely is the sense in which I declare the doctrine subverts the Sonship of Jesus. And I think that this fact is apparent to all.

If I know my own heart, and if I have any insight into my fellow men, we are interested in truth. We have spent time in studying this doctrine in order that the one who reads might see the foundations of our faith, so that he may rationally decide for himself. I do not expect any person to believe what I believe, simply because I believe it, but if inspired reasons can be given for one’s faith, it should become the faith of all. Hence Next week “The Persons of the Godhead.”

Truth Magazine, XX:23, p. 2-5
June 3, 1976