King Nicotine or King Jesus?

By Don Potts

One of the most common evils and gripping habits one can deal with, is the use of tobacco. Brethren also know that it is one of the touchiest subjects a preacher can deal with. For this reason, preachers have learned to leave it alone, declaring that it will do no good to preach on the matter. Could it be what they mean to say is, it will do them no good? It is strange how preachers can lift their bold (?) voices against some sin ,hat no one in a hundred miles is guilty of, or scold the young people for writing notes or chewing gum in services, but never seem to get around to reproving the sins of those who put the bread on his table! “Do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

The use of tobacco is no small thing, nor is it a matter of opinion! It is without a doubt, a sin. To sustain this proposition may I set forth two syllogisms and then endeavor to give the proof to substantiate the arguments.

The First Syllogism

(1) It is sinful to harm the physical body (1 Cor. 3:16-17).

(2) The use of tobacco IS harmful to the physical body.

(3) Therefore, the use of tobacco in human consumption is sinful!

The Second Syllogism

(1) Those guilty of sorcery or witchcraft. will be lost (Gal. 5:19-20).

(2) Those who use or administer for use, nicotine are guilty of sorcery.

(3) Therefore, those who use or administer nicotine will be lost.

For the benefit of those who are not familiar with the use of syllogisms, let me make this brief explanation. In the syllogistic form of argumentation, you have a major and minor premise and a conclusion that is drawn from these two premises. In order for the conclusion to be true, both premises must be true. The only questionable thing about these two syllogisms would be the minor premises. Let us see if they are true or false.

The questionable part of the first syllogism is the matter of whether or not tobacco is really harmful to the human body. Dr. Alton Ochsner, noted cancer expert, director of surgery of the Ochsner Foundation Hospital and professor of clinical surgery at Tulane University in New Orleans has made the following statements: “The implication is, as with the government, that there is still no definite proof cigarette smoking is harmful.

“And believe me, the tobacco people capitalize on this all the way. The AMA is supposed to represent us, the doctors. And there are no fewer than a handful of doctors who don’t recognize the fact that cigarette smoking causes cancer and these are very likely the ones bought off by the tobacco industry.

“. . . We have the Proof. We’ve had it for years and it’s overwhelming. A respectable medical man would have to be a fool not to recognize it.”

“Each cigarette he smokes he shortens his life 34.6 minutes. ‘The pack a day smoker pays with 11 1/2 hours for each pack he smokes.” “Habitual cigarette smoking, is suicidal. If one must commit suicide, it would be easier to put a pistol to the head and pull the trigger. It’s quicker, far less painful and far less expensive.” (Houston Post, Tuesday, July 21, 1959, National Insider, Vol. 7, No. 1, July 4, 145).

I could give other doctors and other statements but if a man is honest this will be sufficient. Dr. Ochsner, former president of the American Cancer Society states in no uncertain ternis that tobacco is harmful and even fatal to the user. I maintain the minor premise of our first syllogism has been sustained.

Our second syllogism status that to use or administer nicotine (in tobacco) is a practice of sorcery or witchcraft. First, let us define the term sorcery or witchcraft. Joseph Henry Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon renders the word “Pharmakeia” (Greek)-” a.-the USE or the ADMINISTERING of DRUGS. . . (caps mine, D.P.), page 649.” So, to use or administer drugs is a practice of sorcery or witchcraft of which Paul said,”that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:21). The question we must answer now is the relationship of sorcery and nicotine in tobacco. Dr. Richard H. Overholt, a Boston chest surgeon said: “the body of the long term smoker requires a replenished supply of nicotine for a feeling of well being. He is a victim of drug addiction. ” Dr. Alton Ochsner said: “tobacco is poison . . . it is as harmful and addictive as any drug, perhaps even more so.” “Rather than subsidize tobacco, it might be better to subsidize the growth of poppies for opium. In the long run I think it would be less harmful.” “This powerful poison is the source of all the ‘pleasure’ derived from smoking. It touches off the mechanism by which the adrenal glands release quick energy from the liver and muscles. You do get a ‘lift’ when you light a cigarette. But it’s exactly like the lift you get from cocain, heroin, marijuana (Gene Tunney, Readers Digest, December 1941). The reason for, the habit forming effects of tobacco is explained by the Encyclopedia Americana as “clue to its content of nicotine and related alkaloids.” Dr. Chevaher Jackson said; “The nicotine alkaloid is harmful. The insatiable craving for cigarettes created by their constant use is the result of the constant repetition of the toxic effect of the narcotic, nicotine, upon the nervous system. Once the tobacco habit gets a grip upon the nervous system nobody, that I have ever seen, could limit his use of tobacco to ‘a little.’ “Dr. Jackson says that nicotine is an alkaloid, a narcotic that is, a drug! Therefore, any one who either uses, raises or sells tobacco for human use is guilty of sorcery or witchcraft, and the Holy Spirit says such cannot inherit the kingdom of Heaven (Gal. 5:19-21).

Still, in the face of these indisputable facts, brethren continue to “puff” on their cigarettes and want you to believe that they are as pious as Peter. In the words of that familiar cigarette commercial: “We would rather fight than switch (or quit-D.P.).” Someone has described the situation like this:

“King Nicotine is my Shepherd; I shall cough and pant,

He maketh me to smell like a Billy Goat;

He lures me along paths of wickedness.

He controlleth my soul.

He weakens me in the times of sickness for “desire’s sake.”

Yea, tho’ I walk thru’ the valley of dingy smoke clouds,

I will still have my smokes; for that’s what I live for;

My stubborn will and stale smoke are part of me.

Thou preparest a dirty environment around me in the presence of all my acquaintances;

Thou has coated my lungs with coal tar;

Mv heart runneth overtime.

Surely unmanliness and a sickly pallor shall follow me all the days of my conscience stricken existence.

And I shall be a “victim of circumstances” forever.—Selah

Brethren, I ask, which will you choose, “King Nicotine” or “King Jesus?” “I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, diat both thou and thy seed may live” (Deut. 30:19).

Truth Magazine XX: 40, pp. 635-636
October 7, 1976

At Last . . . Now . . . an Open Confession: The Pattern of Ecumenical Liberalism

By Ron Halbrook

From No-Pattern On Doctrine To No-Pattern On Gospel

Ketcherside is caught in the same trap as many other ecumenical evangelicals: the trap of Liberal premises which they have accepted, running counter to their professions of fundamental faith. On the one hand, if the Bible is the Word of God, logic and consistency lead to the restoration concept of doing only what is authorized in the Bible. The Campbells and many others saw that if “the Bible, the Bible alone is the religion of the Protestants,” the necessary consequence is that we ninst “speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent,” This restoration of the inspired message as the only authority in religion involves the pattern concept and the restoration of the New Testament church. Those who try to retain fundamental faith in the Scripture and the Christ of Scripture while rejecting the restoration principle, are vulnerable to religious Liberalism. The arguments used to reject restoration involve the very premises of Liberalism.

Ketcherside (with Dodd) argues for pluralism and variety rather than uniformity in “doctrine.” But, they claim there must be uniformity and conformity rather than variety in “gospel.” Many of Dodd’s fellow liberals argue that he is “legalistic” in his view of a uniform “gospel,” just as Ketcherside argues that it is “legalistic” to require doctrinal unity. In other words, the very arguments which are used to destroy a uniform “doctrine” can be equally used to destroy a uniform gospel. ” Ketcherside says the New Testament manifests a variety of patterns in regard to the church. Liberals attacking Dodd’s uniform “gospel” say that early “preaching” exhibits “a plurality of theologies” rather than a uniformity! In arguing for their theories, they simply handle the “gospel” texts the same way Ketcherside handles the “doctrinal” texts. “Several Christologies can be discerned” in early preaching texts, they say. “Dodd maintained that a normative, centralized pattern of Christianity actually existed and influenced decisively the development of early Christianity,” but Liberals deny this pattern concept.

Worlev, a liberal, crosses over from Liberalism on “doctrine” to Liberalism on “gospel” by means of the No-Pattern Bridge. He cites W. D. Davies, “Let me insist again that there is no single ordered pattern to be discerned in all this liturgical and disciplinary activity of the Early Church,” thus the church of the New Testament “can assume many forms, and is not limited to any one particular form which is the expression of its being.” NOTICE THE NEXT STEP: “The earlier arguments that I have offered are intended to substantiate the same conclusion about preaching and teaching,” says Worley (emphasis added). H.E.W. Turner is then quoted approvingly, “Already within the New Testament itself there exists a considerable variety of theological traditions” (quotes from Worley, pp. 53, 55, 70, 174). With other ecumenical evangelicals, Ketcherside sits upon the horns of a dilemma: (1) profession of fundamental faith in Scripture and the Christ of Scripture, (2) assertion of the no-pattern premises of Liberalism.

Regardless of whether a man considers himself conservative or liberal on fundamental issues like the inspiration of Scripture, the virgin birth, and the resurrection, he finds himself in a quagmire if he tries to define and maintain the gospel-doctrine distinction. For instance, no one questions Alexander Campbell’s position on such fundamental issues. Yet, he tried to observe a gospel-doctrine distinction. His views of many things were evolving over a long period of time, and certainly his views on the work of spreading the gospel changed. In 1823, he not only opposed missionary societies but also apparently opposed the whole concept of supporting someone to labor in the gospel among the heathen. Instead, he proposed that a church, “though it were composed of but twenty,” could “emigrate to some heathen land. . . . support themselves like the natives, wear the same garb . . . and hold forth in word and deed the saving truth” (The Christian Baptist, I, 2, p. 45). Though with several motives, he nearly led the Brush Run church to emigrate from Western Pennsylvania to Zanesville, Ohio, in 1814. But by 1828 he was teaching that a local church could independently send and support “a person to declare the glad tidings to a people ignorant of them,” or “two churches or twenty may agree to . . . co-operating” in such work-as through the Mahoning Regular Baptist Association (which sent out Walter Scott in August of 1827; quotes Ibid., V, 8, pp. 196-197). But nowhere did Campbell have more trouble than in defining, maintaining, and consistently observing the gospel-doctrine distinction which he picked up from Dr. George Campbell (from whom Alexander picked up several mis-leads on words, as “reform” in Acts 3:19; Lard’s Quarterly, 1, pp. 174-175). Cecil K. Thomas correctly comments that Alexander Campbell had the same problem which C. H. Dodd has: “the difficulty . . . in making a precise and clear distinction between simple preaching, on the one hand, and interpretation or exposition, on the other” (Alexander Campbell and His New Version, p. 176).

Campbell Juggles “Gospel” & “Doctrine”

In 1823, though Campbell used the word “missionary” and not “evangelist,” he clearly made the evangelist one who announced glad tidings for the very first time in the world, who therefore had to possess miraculous powers to confirm the tidings, and who was no longer needed. “The Bible, then, gives us no idea of a missionary without the power of working miracles” (Christian Baptist, 1, 2, p. 42). The very nature of an evangelist’s work excludes his function or office from this age. Four years later, in July, he defined “the work of an evangelist” as “proclaiming the gospel to those who had never heard it.” Since now-a-days “this work is done by Christian parents to their children, and by the overseers of the churches . . . there is not the same reasons existing for an order of persons exclusively devoted to this work as there was in the apostolic age” (Ibid., IV, 12, p. 262). Notice that this has overseers, men he regarded as the “pastors and teachers” of Ephesians 4:11, EVANGELIZING OR PREACHING. After saying “an order of persons exclusively devoted to this work” was not appropriate to this age, the very next month he instigated the appointment of Walter Scott by the Mahoning Association to do this very work! Though Campbell avoided using the term “evangelist,” using instead “messenger,” he clearly describes Scott as an evangelist and later used that very term of him. Campbell commented joyfully in October of 1827, just as Scott began his labors, “He is to proclaim the word to those without, and to teach those within to walk in the Lord” (Ibid., V, 3, p. 74). So, after having pastors and teachers evangelize, he now has the evangelist teach!

Early in 1828 a Mr. W. of Clinton County, Ohio, rebuffed Campbell for rejoicing over the Mahoning Association’s appointment of Scott as an evangelist; Scott should have been appointed to preach the organization’s funeral: “how can an unscriptural association act according to the gospel?” Furthermore, on another occasion Campbell had said that ail evangelist’s work was to preach the gospel to those who had never heard it, yet 1-2 Timothy “show that Timothy’s business was chiefly among believers” at times. Campbell’s attempt to answer Mr. W. speaks for its own weakness and was obviously discarded by Campbell himself later: “Timothy, so far as he proclaimed the word, performed the work of an evangelist; so far as he read, taught, exhorted, and kept good order in the assembly, he performed the work of a bishop; and so far as he or Titus planted churches and set things in order which were wanting, they acted the part of apostles” as their “general agents” (Ibid., V, 7, p. 169-170; 8, pp. 195-196). In other words, “Timothy did more than the work of an evangelist while in Ephesus.”

In 1833, Campbell spoke of his own work “as an evangelist,” called Scott “air evangelist,” and commended the growing “number of evangelists” (Millennial Harbinger, TV, pp. 172-175). When Campbell brought out the second edition of The Christian System 1839, he said in a new section on “The Christian Ministry,” of the evangelist, “His work is to proclaim the word intelligibly and persuasively–to immerse all the believers, or converts of his ministry–and to plant and organize churches wherever he may have occasion; and then teach them to keep the commandments arid ordinances of the Lord.” Notice in this parallel statement that the latter work was not “more than the work of an evangelist” but was inherent to “the office of an Evangelist”: “But that Evangelists are to separate into communities their own converts, teach and superintend them till they are in a condition to take care of themselves, is as unquestionably a part of the office of an Evangelist, as praying, preaching, or baptizing” (ibid. X, pp. 458-459; Christian System, pp. 82, 84). So, an announcer or proclaimer can teach as “a part of the office” or work “of an Evangelist”!

In ail 1849 article on “Church Organization,” Campbell repeatedly says it is the work of an evangelist to teach the church: “As Evangelists they preached, baptized, set churches in order, and taught them to observe and do all things given to them in charge. . . . But Evangelists are standing functionaries in Christ’s kingdom, and as necessary to-day as they were in the age of Timothy and Titus; nay, more necessary.” Miraculous powers are “not essential to the work of air Evangelist. His work was to preach the word, baptize, teach and ordain.” He could not do his work as (in evangelist “without teaching, exhorting arid ordaining Pastors arid Teachers.” After converting the lost, “He collects them into a society, and organizes a church, and teaches them the way of the Lord” (ibid., XX, pp. 459-463). Campbell, no more than Ketcherside or anyone else, could not keep clear lines drawn between “Gospel” and “Teaching. ” The theory is not Scriptural, it is a disaster; attempts to observe it end up in shambles.

Those who try to maintain and define the gospel-doctrine position today are in a quagmire. Since the distinction is arbitrary in the first place, attempts to designate what is, included in the “gospel” are also arbitrary. Ketcherside says, “The Good News does not consist of what we must do for God, but of what God has done for us. . . . But the response of man is not a part of the Good News at all,” “The Good News, consisting of the seven great facts” was “complete . . . and this consisted of the life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, Coronation and glorification of Jesus.” “The apostolic epistles” are “not a part of the gospel at all” (Mission -Messenger, Dec. 1972, pp. 179-181). The idea that “gospel” is limited to historical events alone has already been exposed as unbiblical. The “announcement of good tidings” did include commands, duties, summons, and instructions, arid the epistles are indeed included in the authoritative announcement of heaven. Ketcherside’s strictures take nonsense of Paul’s statement, “But they have not all obeyed the gospel” (Rom. 10:16). Historic facts alone cannot be obeyed. When the Apostles preached “the gospel,” the hearers not only knew what God had done for them but also how God expected man to respond (Mk. 16:15-16).

Which Seven (Or Five Or Three) Complete Gospel Facts??

Seven great facts “complete” the gospel, according to Ketcherside. Yes, just seven, agrees his acknowledged mentor C. H. Dodd. But Dodd’s Seven Complete Gospel Facts differ from Ketcherside’s! Dodd says that Christ fulfills the prophecies of a new Age, he was born of David’s seed, he died, he was buried, he arose, he is exhalted, and he will come again as Judge and Savior (Apostolic Preaching, p. 17). “The outline is Dodd’s and not that of the early church” (Worley, op. cit., p. 42). One man’s arbitrary list differs from another man’s arbitrary list. T. F. Glasson “suggested that the idea of the imininent return of Christ as Judge should be orilitted” and “the idea of the preacher as a witness to all that has been proclaimed” added (Ibid., p. 156). Some form critics have narrowed the kerygma down to five and others down to three events. Several versions of the seven list have been proposed. Ketcherside’s close cohort Leroy Garrett claims “the virgin birth of Jesus . . . never became a part of the Good News. It was not included in the Kerugma (the thing preached) and no big point is made of it by the Christian writers, with most writers of the New ‘Testament not even referring to it. For this reason we would err” if we made fellowship depend on such an issue (Restoration Review, 1968 p. 150). On several occasions Ketcherside has said tiiat Billy Graham preaches the gospel, yet he proclaims the premillennial postponement theory which denies that the “coronation and glorification of Jesus” have yet occurred!

Those who follow the gospel-doctrine distinction have no objective criterion for determining exactly what the “gospel” is. The “gospel” turns out to be whatever subjective, arbitrary hodge-podge each theoretician can concoct at a given time. The real criterion is whatever is necessary to expand the circle of fellowship according to each man’s subjective desire. Though Ketcherside decries “opinions, deductions and interpretations,” his no-party party relies upon those very things in concocting its “gospel” (p. 179).

Whether consciously or unconsciously, Ketcherside has been remade after the image of an Ecumenical Liberal. His premises, language, and concepts reflect the pattern of ecuirienical liberalism. In studying the carmarks of Liberalism, his case is most instructive. For instance, he explains that divisions have come because “the heirs of our particular restoration movement . . . developed a legalistic approach to God’s revelation” (p. 179). “Legalism” has been a pat explanation of division by Liberal Disciples of Christ, as anyone knows who is even passingly acquainted with their literature. We shall not turn aside here to give quotations to prove something so well established and widely recognized. Representative books by Liberal Disciples include Alfred T. DeGroot, The Restoration Principle, Oliver Read Whitley, Trumpet Call of Reformation, The Renewal of Church Series: The Reformation of Tradition edited by R. E. Osborn, The Reconstruciion of Theology edited by R. G. Wilburn, and The Revival of the Churches edited by W. B. Blakemore. See also references to “legalistic primitivism” and “legalistic restorationists” in the newly published history of the Disciples by William E. Tucker and Lester G, McAllister (Journey In Faith, pp. 238, 361).

Ketcherside’s speech further betrays him as he uses the language of Liberalism and Neo-orthodoxy. Like Brunner, he speaks of “the divine-human relationship” (p. 179). Referring to his trip to Ireland and resulting traunia, he tells of his “encounter” with Jesus: “For the first time I came face to face with the Son of God. It was a kind of ‘Damascus Road’ encounter such as most sincere persons have at some time or other in their earthly existence” (p. 178).

Encounter and Discovery of Great New Truths?

Ketcherside’s conversion story, “encounter” and all, reads like a typical story of the metamorphosis of someone from a conservative to a Liberal orientation. His “encounter” led him “to completely revised concepts” (p. 179). “This meant that I had to reform my vocabulary to express my new thought patterns as I walked out of the gloom into everincreasing and brighter light . . . great truths began to become evident” (p. 180). Liberals always imagine themselves to be discovering “great truths” as they leave the “gloom” of “legalism” behind, most of which truths are denials of direct Scriptural teaching or Biblical principles. For instance, par for the course, he has changed his thinking about the value of debates. Whereas he “had been accustomed to debating,” he discovered the great truth that “we are no longer a frontier movement cornposed of backwoods settlers. The crude and boorish tactics which created swaggering heroes out of debaters in the rough-and-tumble days of yesteryear will no longer attract thinking people in our day” (pp. 179, 185).

Paul said the time would come when men would want “to have their ears tickled” and so would “accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires” (2 Tim. 4:3-4; NASV). People’s ears are itching for easy, soft, smooth teaching; there are plenty of Ketchersides willing to supply the necessary compromised, watereu-down, lenient teaching which tickles the itching ears! A “gospel preacher” is no longer expected to challenge error in its strongholds and its citadels; instead, he is expected to grin and play dead like a possum in the face of error. It’s “unchristian” to debate, so we must either pretend that issues between truth and error do not exist or else that such issues do not matter very much.

Ketcherside and other Liberals seem to think themselves just a little above the Lord and his Apostles with their “backwoods,” “crude and boorish tactics.” The dictionary says that to debate is to contend in words, to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments or views. It may or may not include formal propositions and rules of procedure. Debate is a verbal study, answer, defense, discussion. Paul was “set for” it, Peter said to be “always ready” to engage in it (Phil. 1:17; 1 Pet. 3:15).

Romans 1:29 does not prohibit such debating, for it only prohibits malicious fussing and feuding which seeks, not the salvation of souls, but harm and destruction to others. Envy, brawling, and deceit are bound up with such bitterness and ugly strife. A standard dictionary of Greek words explains “debate” in Romans 1:29 as “the expression of enmity” or hatred. But a debate or discussion which is centered around a desire to know, believe, and obey divine truth, and which therefore is an expression of love, is in no way related to the expression of enmity condemned in Romans 1:29. Our Lord debated, disputed, and discussed the things concerning his kingdom throughout his ministry. He did it in a spirit of genuine love, but men have always poorly understood such love. “And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up” (Jn. 2:17).

On Pentecost after Jesus arose, “the wonderful works of God” for man’s salvation were preached in many languages by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:115). Some who heard the Good News challenged the speakers (vv. 12-13). They were debating-offering verbal arguments. After hearing both sides of the discussion, hearts and minds were enlightened as to the truth (vv. 40ff). From this time on, repeatedly the preaching of the gospel included debatingstriving against the arguments raised to question the gospel, striving for the whole counsel of God. Paul disputed or debated concerning the gospel “in the synagogue,” and “for three months” at one place, even “daily in the school of one Tyrannus” (Acts 17:17; 19:8-9). Every New Testament epistle advocates the truth and specifically disputes some error concerning the gospel. Not one of them identifies earnest and sincere discussion as wrong or useless. Paul and Barnabus had “no small” disputation with erring brethren at Antioch. They travelled to Jerusalem, where the matter was vigorously debated with “much disputing;” Peter put his hand to this good work with Paul (Acts 15). The text uses the word “disputing” and Greek dictionaries tise the word “debate” in defining that action.

The Bible warns against the abuse of preaching and debating. (1) Philippians 1:15-17 shows that wrong motives and attitudes must be avoided. Love of truth, souls, and Christ must prevail. (2) Wrong propositions should be avoided (1 Tim. 1:4). “Fables and endless genealogies” are not proper subjects for preaching or debating. Matters that do not affect Bible doctrine should not be debated. But when men get “too good”to debate, they have gotten “better” than the Lord and His Apostles, which is just a little too good, period!

Since both speakers in a debate often “quote the same passages from which they deduce different conclusions,” Ketcherside concludes, “Quoting scripture in a debate generally proves little because the representatives of both factions quote scripture” (p. 186). While this is true, it did not keep the Lord or his Apostles from debating. FURTHERMORE, we insight remind Ketcherside that this even happens at a “dialogue,” which he advocates in place of debating! When Jesus faced Satan, “both sides” quoted Scripture and reached different conclusions (Matt. 4:lff). Ketcherside complains that debates “are tools of division not of unity” (p. 186). Actually, they are simply tools of investigation and study, just as Ketcherside envisions his “dialogues.” But he adamantly insists debates must go by the wayside, and, “We must discover and adopt a dynamic which makes it possible for us to receive one another, in spite of our differences” (p. 186). Or as he puts it in Mission Magazine, “When we can sit down around the council table, not as warriors from separate tribes, but as brethren in a common cause, many of our problems will be solved” (Jan. 1976, p. 5).

This table of dialogue is well described by Liberal Disciple W. B. Blakemore, “In dialogue there are two sides which at, the outset seem to be opposed; the expectation is that each of these is a variation upon the same truth, and that in dialogue there will emerge a new statement with which both parties to the dialogue will be able to identify.” In other words, dialogue presupposes the possibility of compromise. Like Ketcherside, Blakemore exults, “Fortunately in our day the debate with the Reformers, typified in Mr. Campbell’s encounter with Mr. Rice has been superseded by dialogue with the Reformers” (The Discovery of the Church, pp. 7, 34). Remember, too, that Ketcherside and Garrett, like Dodd and Blakemore, are willing to sit at this table of dialogue in the fellowship of compromise with all groups “within the Restoration tradition,” denominationalists, abd even Roman Catholics.

Subjectivity With A Vengeance

Another earmark of ecumenical liberalism is doctrinal subjectivity with a vengeance. “I still hold most of the views I have always held. I think they are valid. Certainly they are for me. I did not change my position on things but merely altered my views as to who constituted my brethren” (p. 182). This is the “do-your-own-thing” subjectivity applied to what he calls “doctrine.” What is right “for me” may not be right for you! While the questions the honesty or sanity of “legalists,” he himself is “in the calmest water in which I have ever sailed in my life” (p. 182). In the system of subjectivism, one can assert what is “valid . . . for me,” recognize differing views as right for other people, and therefore be strongly opposed to virtually nothing. Every man is right “for himself.” When a man has to make no more defense of his position than the plea “it is right for me, ” the sailing is indeed smooth. Jesus said that on Judgment Day, those who have obeyed “the will of my Father” will be accepted of Him. The plea of “we did what was right for us, ” “we did our own thing,” or “we did what we thought was best” will not avail in that Day. “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:21-23). Iniquity is whatever violates God’s law, and “the “ill of the Father” is not what every man considers right for himself!

It is another earmark of Liberalism-though Liberals are not the only ones guilty-to attribute the spirit of subjectivity to ”love. ” “the action of God, ” “the Holy Spirit” at work. Liberalism does away with the confidence of knowing God is pleased when we obey just what the Bible says. Confidence and calm must be restored by identifying that nebulous gush of emotion upon which the new unity is based as “love”-the gift of God. After all, who can doubt what the Father and His

Spirit do. Never mind that there is no objective standard, – just leap and love. Doctrinal unity upon the word of Christ cannot Unite, for “love is the only dynamic which can draw us together” (p. 186). In “the brotherhood of the indwelling Spirit,” we simply submit to “the indwelling Spirit” and “through the Spirit” we can overcome “dissension and the party spirit” (pp. 186, 189). This is the language of Liberalism as reconstructed and modified by neo-orthodoxy and neo-pentecostalism. In the objective sense, it means no more than the National Council of Churches’ or the World Council of Churches’ nebulous “confession”: “Jesus is Lord.” That can mean whatever a man wants it to mean, and whatever it means to him is right for him. It is all subjectivity with a vengeance.

Liberal jargon is characteristically double-talk, and Ketcherside has learned the art well. “God loves through us! We do not have to work and fret in an attempt to develop love for our brethren. It is not a human achievement but a divine gift. . . . If I am open to the Spirit, the love is poured out into my heart.” This love can best be manifested when we “refuse to take sides and treat all of the dissidents with the same kind of loving concern” (p. 188). This makes as much sense as the old Reformation concept of just opening up your heart and letting God pour in “faith.” “Faith cometh by hearing . . . the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). The hearing, and therefore the faith, do require action on man’s part. We must be careful what and how we hear; God does not do that for us. Likewise, to grow in love, we must feed upon the word of God and submit to its every command (2 Pet. 1:5-11). We must “give diligence,” and God will not do that for us. “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (1 Jn. 5:2-3).

Ketcherside and his “brotherhood of the indwelling Spirit” do not have the Biblical concept of love! They have the sentimental, subjective concept of love characteristic of Liberalism, Neo-orthodoxy, and Neo-pentecostalism. This talk of man having nothing to do but be “open to the Spirit” so that God can pour the “love” in, is the characteristic double-talk of such movements. On that basis, we could just as well plead for universalism and Humanism-just open your heart and God will pour the love in. Then if someone disagrees and appeals to some objective standard of love, they are legalists whose sanity, honesty, or both are suspect!

Conclusion: Examine Issues, Speak As The Oracles of God

Ketcherside’s devolution is a sad story. At least it is proper that in the closing issue of Mission Messenger he should confess his debt and pay special tribute to such Liberals as C. H. Dodd. FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE MAN KETCHERSIDE are the faith-eroding concepts which he continues to mediate to this generation. With malice toward none, let us continue to examine the issues which he continues to raise: brotherhood, grace and fellowship; faith and opinion; gospel and doctrine; the conditions of forgiveness; debate and dialogue; love and the Holy Spirit. Seeking nothing more or less than to please God and save souls. let us “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11).

Truth Magazine XX: 40, pp. 630-634
October 4, 1976

Conversion: The Design of Baptism as Taught by Mark 16:16

By Cecil Willis

Our entire study of our last article was concerned with just one passage that teaches why men are to be baptized. We centered our thoughts around the command of the apostle Peter, when he ordered the inquiring Jews on the day of Pentecost to “repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). We reflected, quite at length, concerning the meaning of the expression “for the remission of sins.” It was seen that Christ used the same words, “for the remission of sins” in Matt. 26:28 when the disciples were told the purpose of His death. Whatever Christ meant when He said His blood was shed “for the remission of sins,” Peter also meant when he told man to be baptized “for the remission of sins.” Certainly Christ did not die because man’s sins had been forgiven, but he died in order that man’s sins might be forgiven. For this same reason, Peter says, we are to be baptized.

Furthermore, we pointed out that repentance and baptism were for the same purpose, and inasmuch as all admit that repentance is in order to remission, and not because of remission, then logically they must also admit that baptism is in order to receive the remission of sins, and not because of the remission of sins.

There are many passages in the New Testament which deal with the purpose of baptism, and we want to try to study one of the several passages on the subject. We want to investigate the Bible to see if it teaches, as do many preachers and churches, that baptism is a matter of indifference, and that it has absolutely nothing to do with one’s salvation.

After Jesus Christ had been crucified, and raised from the dead, and as He was preparing to ascend to the Father, He called the apostles about Him, and gave them some final instructions. He told them to spend their lives preaching, but He also told them what to preach. “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:15,16).

If one will think for a moment about this passage, he will see that one must do two things to be saved. He must believe and be baptized. This is the Bible’s doctrine. Try to visualize a blackboard, and one side of it, put the doctrine of the Bible from this passage. It would read like this: Belief plus baptism, equals salvation. On the other side of this mental blackboard, put what the majority of the denominationalists teach. On this side would be this equation: Belief minus baptism equals salvation. They teach that whether one is baptized or not, lie is still saved. Do plus and minus equal the same thing? Do they mean the same thing? The Lord said belief plus baptism equals salvation, and man says that belief minus baptism equals the same thing. Can this possibly be? Suppose one were to write the equation “2 + 2 = 4,” and then beneath it, another person were to write another equation, and said, “2 – 2 = 4.” When you questioned him concerning his equation, he might argue that plus and minus equal the same thing. The truth is, that 2 – 2 = the same thing that belief minus baptism equals-NOTHING! In this passage, it is seen that the Lord connects two things-belief and baptism with salvation, and the man does not live who can separate them and still get the same answer that was gotten when they were united.

Perhaps you are saying, “I have heard all of that argued before,” and therefore you are about to discard what I am saying as untrue. Friends, I hope that you have heard before, so that you cannot go to judgment and say that I did not know, but let me give one bit of exhortation, very humbly. Even though you have beard it before, answer it with scripture before you discard it, and if you do answer it with scripture, write me and. tell rue the answer in order that I might be saved, for if I preach error, I will be lost. No friend, this passage has not been, nor will it be answered, and until it is, by the help of God, I shall continue to use it, for it is the very language of the Lord.

Many denominationalists have confronted this passage and have utterly failed to harmonize it with their theory, and so they have adopted another means of dealing with it. They have done this passage just like Martin Luther did the book of James which teaches that one is not saved by faith alone. Martin Luther declared that the book of James was a “right strawy epistle,” ‘These denominational preachers have now come to contend that the part of the book of Mark from which this passage we have quoted is taken, is not inspired, but that it is an interpolation. They say that Mk. 16:9-20 is not a part of the original New Testament, but that it has been added later. They fail to notice that this passage is the only one of the gospel accounts of the great commission which mentions the doctrine of faith, but they failed to see this, for they were in such a mad rush to find some answer to the teaching of the Lord concerning the essentiality of baptism.

It is true that this part of the text is missing from two of the manuscripts. It is absent in the Vatican and the Sinaitic manuscripts. The men fail to notice though, that in these same manuscripts there are also other passages missing which they have traditionally accepted as genuine. The only reason why this scheme was ever devised was to get away from the teaching of the Lord on Baptism. These two manuscripts were not written by the Lord, nor by his apostles, but these manuscripts are very ancient copies of the Bible, dating about the Fourth Century.

It should be remembered that the many scholars who have had a part in the translating of the Bible from these ancient manuscripts, have deemed it vise to include these passages in the light of the evidence. In one translation in which mention is made that the passage had been questioned, it is placed in a footnote.

It should be remembered that we have several thousands of manuscripts from which the Greek text of the New Testament is derived, and in all but two of these manuscripts this passage is included. All of the ancient versions contain it.

In the Second Century, two hundred vears before the writing of the manuscripts from which the passage is omitted, Irenaeus quoted from the book of Mark, and quoted this particular passage, which indicates that two hundred years before the appearance of the manuscripts which are the basis of the objection, Irenaeus attributed it to Mark.

These denominationalists admit that if the inspiration of Mk. 16:9-20 is established, away goes their argument on the inessentiality of baptism, by the extremes to which they will go to prove their point. Even though the inspiration of this passage has been questioned by many preachers who teach that it is not necessary to be baptized, yet the truly great scholars have not questioned its inspiration. The reason that the passage has been omitted from the last part of the gospel according to Mark is because some have thought that perhaps Mark was not the author of the passage. The discussion has been over whether Mark wrote the passage, or whether some other inspired man wrote it, and had not been over whether it was inspired or not. The statement certainly would be of no less value if another apostle were its author. But some preachers have confused a discussion concerning authorship with genuineness, or inspiration, and have therefore missed the entire point.

I frankly confess to you that I would be very careful about believing a doctrine whose truthfulness rested upon proving that a certain passage in the Bible was not inspired.

Notice the sixteenth verse again: Christ said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” In this passage, the Lord told us that a certain man or a certain group of individuals may be saved. If one were to diagram the sentence, he would find the independent clause, or the principle sentence to be “He shall be saved.” But certainly the Lord does not mean that just any “he” shall be saved, for if that were true, then there could not be any lost, and it would become a matter of indifference as to whether one obeyed the gospel, believed in God, had faith in Christ or not. This would mean universalism (or, the salvation of everyone) if the passage be left to say simply “He shall be saved.” But the Lord qualified the principle sentence, “He shall be saved,” by telling us which “he” shall be saved. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Christ said that there are two conditions that one must meet before he can be saved. Christ said that the individual who believes and is baptized shall be saved.

What men have done is to make one of these conditions binding on all men, and make the other optional. They have changed the meaning of what the Lord said. Thev make it imperitive for one to be a believer, but then contend that baptism is not necessary. Christ said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” and who is the man that has the authority to change what he said, and say “He that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved.”

Two things are required in order to be saved. It is sald that one must believe the gospel and must obey it, or that He must believe and be baptized. By the same authority that man can remove one of these conditions, another inan could remove the other. By the same token that removes baptism from the realm of the essential, someone else may say that faith is also unnecessary. As for me, I am going to leave them exactly like the Lord did, and say that before a man has any promise of salvation, he must believe arid be baptized.

Men who have not been satisfied with the conditions of salvation as stipulated by the Lord have always tried to “explain away” what He said, and therefore they have niade arguinents on this passage seeking to show that the Lord did not really mean what He said, and that baptism is not actually necessary to one’s salvation. Justice and fairness demand that we study their argument to see if they prove what they say they do. The most frequently used argument seeking to show that baptism is not necessary is this. They quote the passage, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but He that disbelieveth shall be condemned,” aiid say that the Lord did not say “but he that disbelieveth and is not baptized shall be condemned.” That is verv true. The Lord did not sav that. But because the Lord did not specify that one had to fail to believe and also fail to be baptized, mav one log.ically argue that this implies that baptism is inessential to one’s salvation?

Bible teaching is that before one may scripturally be baptized, He must be a believer. One would not receive the remission of his sin, if He were an unbeliever, and someone were to put him beneath the water. Faith is a very essential element. Neither would one receive the remission of his sins if he should be baptized, even though H was a believer, but had not repented. We studied in a previous lesson that one also had to repent in order to be saved. While one has to do both the things commanded in order to receive the promise, he may fail to do only one of them, and consequently fail to receive the promise, Jesus said: “He that believeth on him is not judged: He that believeth not hath been judged already, because he liath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God” (Jn. 3:18).

Let me try to illustrate the Lord’s teaching. The Lord commanded two things, or made two conditions that must be fulfilled if one is to receive the promise of salvation. He said “he that believeth (Command No. 1) and is baptized (Command No. 2) shall be saved (The Promise), but He that disbelievuth shall be condemned.” Suppose I were to tell you this. He that cuts a cord of wood (Command No. 1) and stacks it (Command No. 2) shall receive $10 (The Promise), but he that cuts not the wood shall receive nothing.” Cutting the wood and stacking it would be parallel in sentence structure to the Lord’s command to believe and be baptized. The $10 offered for cutting the wood, and the salvation from sins would also be parallel in the sentences for they are both the promises or the rewards promised. Suppose you were to do only one thing that I told you that you must do in order to receive the $10, would you expect to receive the money? Certainly not! Suppose you were to go out and cut the cord of wood, but did not stack it, and came in expecting to receive the $10, just as the people who believe aud do not obey the gospel by being baptized, would I owe you the $10 for doing only one thing that I commanded? Surely not! Suppose you said, “But sir, -You did not say that he that cutteth not the wood, and does not stack it, shall receive nothing, and therefore I think you still owe me the money,” would that change my obligation any? I would not have to say that the man who does not cut the wood, and who does not stack it will receive nothing, for one could not stack the wood until it had been cut, and therefore it would be foolish to make such a statement. Neither can one scripturally be baptized before He believes the gospel.

I believe that one can understand the gospel. I believe that you can understand the statements of the Lord concerning the plan of salvation. In fact, you must secure the help of some false teacher to misunderstand a commandment of the Lord so plain as the one we have discussed. Therefore I confidently proclaim that baptism is necessary to salvation, and simply cite this passage to prove it: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but He that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:16).

Truth Magazine XX: 40, pp. 627-629
October 7, 1976

What does Hosea 6:6 Mean?

By Larry Ray Hafley

“For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings” (Hos. 6:6). Upon two occasions, Jesus referred to our text. In each case he taught that a proper understanding of Hosea 6:6 was essential to a devout attitude and godly living. Before we note the use made by the Lord, let us look at the passage in its setting.

Hosea prophesied in Israel during the reign of Jereboam II (Hos. 1:1). The nation was exceedingly wicked (Hos. 4). “The picture painted in the Book of Hosea is truly that of a nation in decay” (Hailey, Homer, The Minor Prophets, p. 129). In Hosea 6, God rebukes their shallow attempt at piety. Their godliness was an empty form, a hollow shell. “For your goodness is as a. morning cloud, and as the early dew it goeth away” (Hos. 6:4). Clouds and dew soon disappear and evaporate. So had Israel’s goodness. In place of lasting, inner character, they subs1ituted perishing, outward burnt offerings. In effect, God said, “I wish mercy kindness, humanity, compassion rather than external elements such as burnt offerings.” The mercy desired describes man’s relationship to his fellow man. The knowledge demanded is man’s relationship unto God.

Matthew 9:13; 12:7

(1) Matt. 9:13: The Pharisees cast reflection on Jesus’ character bv asking His disciples, “Why eateth your Master wit~ publicans and sinners?” Translation: If Jesus eats ~vitli sinners, He must be a sinner, i.e., “Birds of a feather flock together,” Jesus responded to the unjust iusinuation and accus9tion with a three pronged argument. First, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.” In other words, a doctor goes among the sick, not because he is sick but in order ot treat them. Second, “But go ye and learn what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and riot sacrifice.” If the Pharisees had known what Hosea. 6:6 taught, they WOUld not, have made the charge. Jesus was extending goodness or mercy toward those who were bereft of it. This the Pharisees should have been doing. They, like the people in Hosea’s day, depended upon their formal rinials, their external show, to manifest their piety (Cf. Matt. 6). Instead of kind1v intreating, they censoriously berated the publicans and sinners. However, they fasted, gave tithes and offered sacrifices which they imagined were acceptable replacements for genuine mercy, love and faith, Third, “For I ani not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” This is related to ,he first appeal and declares Jesus’ divine mission.

(2) Matt. 12: 7: The disciples were unjustly accused by the Pharisees. Of course, the point was not to condemn the disciples. The charge was designed to hurl aspersion against Jesus. In reply, Jesus said, “But if ve had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.” “The argument is, that mercy toward these hungering disciples was more acceptable to God than sacrifices at the altar; and that, if the Pharisees had known the meaning of the passage, they would not have condemned the ‘guiltless'” (McGarvey). Again, the emphasis is upon goodness and kindness. Nothing says, “Ignore the sacrifices and burnt offerings and smile sweetly and pat everyone on the back.” No, that is sentimentalism. The sacrifices, Jesus teaches, are worthless without a contrite heart and a broken spirit, one devoted and dedicated, one moved and motiviated to do the will of God because of a love for God and man (Psa. 51:17; Mk. 12:33).

Application Today

Is there a lesson for us today? Is our goodness a vanishing cloud and an evaporating dew? Is what we do mere adherence to what is expected of us? Do we do what we do because of a sincere desire to accomplish the will of God as expressed in His word? Consider your own life, your own worship and service in Christ. Is laying “by in store” a mindless giving of a few leftover dollars? Is the Lord’s supper a mere pinch of bread and sip of juice? Is Bible study simply a matter of “going over the Sunday school lesson?” Think of other items.

It remains true that God desires mercy rather than sacrifice and the knowledge of Him more than burnt offerings. Mercy or goodness is a product of knowledge. Knowledge is regard and reverence for the revealed will of God. It is the yearning to please God by obeying His word rather than to rely upon “going through the motions” in performing external ordinances. The knowledge of God is not mere awareness of His existence. Israel knew that. Those who perfunctorily offered sacrifices knew that God lived and that He was to direct them. The very fact that they set forth sacrifices reveals that. So. when Hosea says that Jehovah requires the knowledge of Him, we may know that it is something more than mental assent to God’s being. To know the Lord is to be related to Him through unfeigned faith and obedience (1 Jn. 2:3-5).

Therefore, the words of the Lord ring and echo through the centuries, “But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice.” Have you learned what it means in the framework of your life in the Son?

Truth Magazine XX: 40, p. 626
October 7, 1976