Truth Magazine

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

It would be surprising if some sincere and concerned brethren were not critical of the judgment of the Truth Magazine editor in his addition of a younger writer such as myself to the staff. Youth, though a notable possessor of zeal and idealism, has certainly no reputation for spiritual maturity. More than once in the past few years, a writer and his material have been criticized seemingly not so much on the quality of his work, but upon his age. We are only too well aware of our own limitations, not only ability-wise, but age and experience-wise also. It is to be expected that a younger writer will make more mistakes than a seasoned “veteran;” but no quarter is asked (or should be given), when error is taught. “Age” cannot be used as some nebulous invisible shield behind which a younger man can hide when his words are called into question in the light of the Scriptures. Any Christian who makes the decision to offer his literary efforts publicly invites critical examination and thus should be prepared to accept, yea plead for, correction when in error. At the same time, the question of “age” should not be a criterion of whether truth has been taught; we have seen and heard the sentiment expressed, “What he says is true, but he’s just not old enough to say so.”

Other brethren may question this writer’s own judgment in the acceptance of a staff position on Truth Magazine. At a time when gospel papers of all persuasions have seemingly fallen into disfavor among some brethren, it may seem an unwise move to associate oneself so intimately with such a paper as Truth Magazine. Here the question of motive raises its hoary head. “Is he lining himself up with these brethren for the gain he’ll receive in notoriety?” “Is he trying to forge a name for himself in the mind of ‘the brethren’?” It cannot be denied that certain notoriety attaches itself to the regular writer of a publication and that in some sense there is a “gain” from such an arrangement. But such an association carries with it not only “advantages” but also some disadvantages. With regard to intention, no amount of testimony can convince another whose mind is bent upon believing the worst. There are some brethren who’ have made it their business to misunderstand and to misrepresent others; if it is at all possible to indict a motive or take a statement in the wrong way, these brethren will do so.

Hence, a Christian, young or old, must make a decision. He can back down, cease any kind of public teaching, and settle comfortably down into a “noncontroversial” role. On the other hand, he may resolve to do his work, “fulfill his ministry” in the best way he knows how, whether in print, in pulpit, or in private.

This writer is certainly not suggesting that the forum of Truth Magazine is the only way one’s teaching responsibilities may be “discharged”; it is, however, one way, and this writer has chosen that avenue.

It should go without saying that the acceptance of a staff position does not imply,- endorsement of every single thing that appears within the pages of Truth Magazine; no thinking person would ever demand such a conclusion. Likewise, it should not be inferred that any or all contributors to Truth Magazine agree with what we may say in its pages. That, too, would be an unreasonable approach. When conscience demands, this writer, as he hopes any other contributors will do, will respond to articles appearing that cry for serious examination.

It is this writer’s intention to use the pages of this publication to proclaim the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. We are not interested in pushing party platforms (or no-party party platforms), brotherhood “politics,” or creed making. We foster no desire to appear ultra-pious or pseudo-scholarly. We seek to be a Christian only, nothing more, nothing less, and nothing different. We are no more interested in. producing “Truth Magazine Christians,” than in perpetuating the denominationalism of so-called “Methodist, Baptist, or Presbyterian Christians.” Our aim is to uphold any virtues which Truth Magazine possesses and at the same time to improve and bolster where any deficiencies exist.

Thus, we earnestly solicit your prayers and your criticism when constructive. We look only to our Lord as our Guide and Judge. It is only His judgment of motives and ideals that will someday matter. To Him be the glory for ever and ever, Amen.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 3, p. 42
September 21, 1974

By Jeffery Kingry

“When I was young and bold and strong
Oh right was right, and wrong was wrong
My plume on high, my flag unfurled
I rode away to right the world.
“Come out, you dogs, and fight!” said I,
And wept there was but once to die.
“But I am old, and good and bad
Are woven in a crazy plaid.
I sit and say “The world is so;
And he is wise who lets it go.
A battle lost, a battle won —
The difference is small, my son.”
“Inertia rides and riddles me;
The which is called Philosophy.”
Dorothy Parker; 1936

Fourteen years., ago a great gospel preacher wrote ;a short article celled “Stand Back And Look.” In the face of increasing tides of worldliness and innovation that was sweeping the church, William Wallace sought to view out fruit in stemming that surge. He offered these words: “As we stand-back and take a look all we see is not discouraging. Militancy depends on some sort of a crusade. When a people feel embattled, they are more active when are lively and diligent. They fight well. So the forces of worldly influence within our ranks are faced with a mighty effort on behalf of the faith once for all delivered. We fight, we fight well, we fight successfully (Wallace, Gospel Guardian, Vol. 12 p. 120). In that same column Bill quoted from the pen of William Barrett, `A movement is alive and vital only when it is able to generate differences among its followers; when everybody agrees, we may be sure that it has declined into the stereotyped rigidity of death” (Wallace, “Beyond The Horizons”, Ibid).

One and a half decades later brother Wallace wrote, “To be in the light does not demand perfect illumination. One may sit in a lighted room where there are areas of dimness . . . There are areas of dimness in the life of one who “walks in the light”. . . A Christian may indeed cease to walk in the light and enter the domain of darkness. But sins in his life do not necessarily mean he has ceased to walk in the light. Walking in the light is not a matter of absolute moral and doctrinal perfection” (Wallace, Gospel Guardian, “What is Walking In The Light?”, Vol. 25, p. 740).

Truth And Conviction – Luke 11:33-36

Jesus spoke clearly to those men of “conviction” (11:27-29) concerning light and its relationship to men. “No man when he hath lighted a candle putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light. The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thy eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thy eye is evil thy body also is full of darkness. Take heed therefore, that the light which is in thee be not darkness. If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no dark part, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light” (Luke 11:33-36).

Truth is. Truth comes from God and does not depend on men or miracles to be truth (11:29-32). The eloquence of men, or mighty signs may make the emotions better adapted to receive the truth-but these do not affect one way or another that which is as eternal and unyielding as its Source. Jesus said that truth is open and visible for all men. Truth is like a light placed upon a candlestick, visible for all who “come in to the light.” That which obscures, darkens, confuses, colors, or diminishes the light is not truth, but something else. Whatever reveals is light. Dimness is not revelation, it is obscureness.

Jesus said that there are certain qualities necessary in man before truth can be perceived and accepted for what it is. “The light of the body is the eye” (11:34). Jesus compares man’s physical eye with his moral eye. The physical eye must remain healthy if it is to perceive with any accuracy the object it considers: Whatever affects the eye will affect the impression of the object seen. Truth does not depend upon the eye, for it just is, but the moral “eye” which “sees” it may be near sighted, may suffer myopia, cataracts, or color blindness.

Truth may be presented to the moral eye of man and not be seen as truth because the eye is not whole. The moral part of man that perceives right and wrong is the intellect. His emotions are not satisfactory as receptive organs of truth. Only the intellect of man is capable of being the “light of the soul.”

It is for this reason that Jesus said that this part of man must be “single” (11:34). Man’s mind must be completely intent on knowing God’s will. If one “cannot” perceive truth, the fault lies not with the truth, but the eye which is unhealthy. The object seen must not change; the eye must become healthy. We accept by faith that those who embrace error do so because they are blind in their spiritual “eye,” no matter how sincere they may be in their protestations to the contrary (Tit. 1:16). The mind that is weak through the appetites of the flesh, or ignorant through the terrible mote of pride, prejudice, or sloth, is an “eye” closed to the light of God. Once the moral “eye” of man loses its focus upon God’s light, whatever the, cause, “when thy eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.”

Responsibility To Know Truth

“Take heed, therefore, that the light which is in thee be not darkness” (11:35). One may have some light and still be in darkness, but one cannot have darkness and be in the light. Jesus is declaring that we have a responsibility to be “full of light”-not dimmed or colored by an unstable heart. It is a responsibility that each holds: “Take heed . . . .” We are responsible for what we believe, what we teach, what we practice. We must “walk by faith” (2 Cor. 5:7) and “whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” God desires no blind, stumbling, confused saints. He has .given us light to see by. “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word o.# God” (Rom. 10:17).

Full Enlightenment

Hosea called Ephraim “a cake not turned” (Hos. 7:8), a people burned hard on one side and doughy soft on the other. That which is most tragic in any life is “partial illumination.” Jesus said “If you have light throughout your whole body with no trace of darkness, it shall be wholly illuminated as when a lamp brightens you with its rays” (11:36, NEB). Our collective undoing is the “half-baked” Christian: not fully dedicated, imperfectly sanctified in character, not fully aware of God’s will. We are plagued with saints who are as narrow as their own selfish desires, having never glimpsed the true horizons of the spirit, “the breadth, and length, and depth, and height . . . filled with all the fulness of God” (Eph. 3:17-19).

The Tragedy Of Blindness

Nothing is sadder or more provoking than a mighty man in physical strength reduced to blindness and impotence. Samson, in his humiliation, blinded., stripped of his mighty strength cried out to Jehovah in the presence of his enemies, “O Lord God, remember me I pray thee, and strengthen me, 1 pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes” (Judges 16:28).

But how much more wretched, how sadly hopeless is the man who puts out his ownspiritual eyes-to whom can he go to regain the “light of the soul?”

Truth Magazine XVIII: 3, pp. 40-41
September 21, 1974

By Mike Willis

One of the main tenets of the “unity-in-diversity” fellowship movement is that one must carefully distinguish between the gospel (euangelion) and doctrine (didache). To this group, the “gospel” is that which is necessary for salvation; “doctrine” is that which leads to spiritual maturity. Christians must have conformity with reference to the gospel but are admonished to exercise tolerance in areas respecting the doctrine. Here are some quotations from the pen of Carl Ketcherside which express the position mentioned above:

“Again, it will be noticed that I have had no recourse to what the apostolic epistles have to say about baptism. My reasons for not referring to them are quite simple. These epistles are not a part of the gospel at all . . . . The gospel was proclaimed as fully and completely on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus as it has ever been, and nothing written later was ever added to it” (Mission Messenger, Vol. 34, No. 12, p. 181).

“It is easily demonstrated that not one apostolic letter is a part of the gospel of Christ. . .” (Ibid., Vol. 35, No. 2, p. 20).

“The gospel is the seed, the sperm, by which we are begotten. The doctrine is the bread upon which the children feed and by which they grow” (Ibid., p. 19).

`As long as preachers mistakenly assume that the gospel embraces the entire new covenant scriptures, they will brand as unbelievers those who truly believe in Jesus but may be mistaken about some point of interpretation in one of the epistles” (Ibid., p. 21).

Following this reasoning, Ketcherside accepts every baptized believer as his brother regardless of his position on instrumental music, orphan homes, sponsoring churches, premillennialism, present day manifestations of miraculous spiritual gifts, etc. These, he maintains, are differences in “doctrine” which must be tolerated.

2 Jn. 9-11 becomes a thorn in the flesh of Ketcherside since he believes that doctrinal (didache) differences are to be tolerated. His explanation of the “doctrine (didache) of Christ” in that passage is as follows:

“We can determine what ‘the doctrine of Christ’ is in this sense by the effect of going beyond’ or abiding in it.’ One who advances has not God; one who abides in it’ has both the Father and Son. The doctrine of Christ in this case, does not consist of the things Jesus taught, but of the thing taught about Jesus” (Mission Messenger, Vol. 27, No. 6, p. 1).

If Ketcherside’s position (i.e. that doctrinal differences must be tolerated) is consistent, then he should be able to tolerate differences in doctrines about Christ since the “doctrine of Christ” is didache and not euangelion. Yet, when he wrote about the gnostic heresy referred to in 2 Jn. 9, he said, “This was the foundation. One who was on that foundation might be mistaken about many things and all of them were, but they dare not be mistaken about the foundation” (Ibid.).

Although I would agree with Ketcherside’s comments about the heresy under discussion, these comments are unfortunate for Ketcherside’s position because here is a case where he is willing to divide the body of Christ over doctrine (didache). Ketcherside’s dilemma is this: (1) He must tolerate different views about Jesus (such as the modernist’s position, for example), even though John condemned toleration of them, in order to be consistent in his distinction between gospel and doctrine. (2) Or, he must admit that his distinction between gospel and doctrine is illegitimate, an admission which would cause his “unity-in-diversity” fellowship position to collapse. However, Ketcherside will probably pursue neither of these alternatives. Instead, he most probably will ignore his inconsistency and pursue the course which he has chosen to follow. To ignore the objections one has raised against his position might be unwise, as indeed it is, but that is the course Ketcherside has chosen to follow.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 2, pp. 29-30
November 14, 1974