Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In order to justify the unity in diversity which they advocate, Ketcherside and his comrades, whom he considers to be the only free thinkers in the brotherhood, have contended that a distinction exists between “gospel” and “doctrine.” Everyone must believe the same facts about the gospel but a unity in diversity can be scripturally maintained relative to doctrinal beliefs, according to Ketcherside. Here are a few quotations from his mighty pen to demonstrate that he actually holds the position attributed to him:

AFew other errors have worked the mischief that has resulted from confusing the faith with the letters of instruction, admonition and exhortation to the people of God who had embraced the one faith. It was that which made them the people of God. Because of this error there has grown up that curious postulate which makes a specific degree of knowledge of doctrinal deductions essential for acceptance into ‘the fellowship.’ All sorts of creeds, both written and un-written, have thus been devised, and are now expounded as if creed-making was the will of God for preachers and elders…. The gospel consists of seven facts about a person. Those facts are the life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, coronation and glorification of Jesus…. The gospel is not the collation of apostolic writings forming the new covenant scriptures. The gospel is the glad news about a person, while the apostolic letters are composed of commendations, exhortations, warnings and criticism, sent to those who have accepted that person as Lord” (Carl Ketcherside, Mission Messenger, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 130, 132).

“Preaching the gospel is for the world. Its design is to call men out, to enroll them in the school of Christ. The apostolic doctrine is for the saints” (Ibid., Vol. 36, No. S, p. 71).

“The gospel is to be announced, proclaimed or heralded to the world. It is to be preached in all the world and to every creature. It is the euaggelion, the evangel, designed for the lost, and its purpose is to announce that divine love became effective and the Word which was with God and was God became incarnate, and through Him we have become reconciled to the Father. This message is not for the saved. You cannot evangelize saved persons. The new covenant scriptures know nothing of preaching the gospel’ to the saints of God. Such an expression would have seemed ridiculous and unintelligible to the apostles…. 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. . . . It is easily demonstrated that not one apostolic letter is a part of the gospel of Christ. Every such letter was written to those who heard, believed and accepted the gospel…. 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.. Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 19-21).

A person does not have to be a genius to see the kinship between what Brother Ketcherside has written and what Edward Fudge has written. This quotation should demonstrate that kinship:

AAny error which denies this gospel’ condemns, because it denies that which saves. . . . There is another sort of apostolic teaching, designed fora different purpose. Most of the epistles come here. This teaching does not give life; it sustains it. It is not to tell men how to be saved but how to live after they are saved and urge them to stay saved…. (2) We should learn to make a Biblical distinction between teaching necessary for salvation in the first place and teaching designed to aid our growth in Christ. Otherwise we will be condemning each other for spiritual immaturity or unwillful ignorance – a thing never done by New Testament writers” (Edward Fudge; “Truth, Error, and The Grace of God,” Reprint of Articles, pp. 9, 4).

The gospel-doctrine distinction held in the unity-in-diversity position is not new; its application is new but the supposed distinction is not. Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett both taught that a distinction existed in gospel and doctrine when they took the anti-located preacher position. The gospel, they said, could not be preached to the church by an evangelist. Here are some quotations taken from their debates so that you can compare the quotations given above with the ones given here:

ANow, the idea of preaching the gospel to the church, is one that is not held forth in the New Testament scriptures… My friends, there is a great difference between preaching and teaching. Our brother has repeatedly spoken about preaching to the church. I want you to know that you cannot preach the gospel to the church and here is a good place for us to center this discussion. Let my good brother Wallace put his finger on that passage in the New Testament scriptures where it indicates that anyone ever preached a, gospel sermon to the church. . . .” (Carl Ketcherside, Wallace – Ketcherside Debate, pp. 21-22 from the Paragould debate). “Now note, in, all 122 times’ there is not one instance, unless these two that have been introduced are possible exceptions, there is not one instance where the gospel was ever preached to, a church!” (Leroy Garrett, Humble – Garrett Debate, p. 25).

The gospel-doctrine argument, if true, is a very handy argument. It will prove anything, apparently. It was used to prove that the church should divide over the located preacher issue and now it is used to prove that the church should have unity regardless of what issues are at stake. The argument sounds a little like this: To prove position “X” (any position), use the gospel-doctrine distinction. I make these harsh charges because no two positions are more diametrically opposed than Ketcherside’s former and latter positions, yet the same argument supposedly proves both positions. If for no other reason than that, I would be suspicious of the argument. But, now let us examine the argument.

If It Were True

If Brother Ketcherside’s distinction between gospel and doctrine were true, some objective criterion would be needed by which one could distinguish what is gospel and what is doctrine. No one has yet methodically distinguished the two. Is what Jesus said regarding marriage and divorce which is recorded in the gospels to be considered gospel or doctrine? Is what John said about the humanity of Jesus in the doctrinal section, the epistles, to be considered gospel or doctrine? No one has told us how to distinguish gospel and doctrine. Everyone who makes the gospel-doctrine distinction with whom I have talked or after whom I have read always uses a purely subjective basis of distinguishing the two. If I seem a little reluctant to accept the gospel-doctrine distinction, the reason might be that all of the pet doctrines of those with whom I talk always fall under “gospel” but all of what they call my “pet doctrines” always fall under “doctrine.” Those who are going to take the position that a distinction exists between gospel and doctrine should establish some objective means of distinguishing the two.

Secondly, if we admitted that a distinction between gospel and doctrine actually existed and that an objective criterion for distinguishing the two had been found, the conclusion that one should not divide over “doctrine” still would not necessarily follow. If we assume that “the gospel consists of seven facts about a person” (the life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, coronation and glorification of Jesus), as Brother Ketcherside maintains, then every commandment found in the New Testament relative to withdrawing fellowship must fall under the heading of “doctrine.” That would include matters such as the way one treated his brother (Mt. 18:15-17), immorality (1 Cor. 5; 1 Tim. 1:8-11), heresy (2 Jn. 9:11; Tit. 3:10-11), etc. To say that one can be disfellowshipped for errors relative to the gospel but not for errors relative to the doctrine would be tantamount to saying that a person could be disfellowshipped for denying the resurrection but could not be disfellowshipped for forsaking the assembly, refusing to partake of the Lord’s- Supper or refusing to give. (Ketcherside’s position that fellowship can be broken for moral turpitude contradicts his position that a distinction exists between gospel and doctrine and that unity cannot be broken over doctrinal matters.) Two of the seven churches of Asia were condemned for tolerating the very kind of doctrinal errors which Ketcherside says must be tolerated. Apparently, John did not believe in Ketcherside’s unity in diversity (see Rev. 2:14-15, 20-24).

Thirdly, since fellowship cannot be broken over matters of doctrine, anything which the New Testament labels as doctrine (didache) must be a matter over which the church cannot divide. Here are some things labeled doctrine in the Scriptures, false views concerning which must be tolerated if the gospel-doctrine distinction is true:

(a) False views about Jesus (2 Jn. 9-11). (For the sake of argument, I here am granting that “doctrine of Christ” means “doctrine about Christ.”) Notice that the discussion regarding the humanity of Jesus is called “doctrine.” Our unity-in-diversity brethren do not object to using this passage regarding the humanity of Jesus against those who deny the deity of Jesus. Since this falls under the category of “doctrine” and we should have unity-in-diversity regarding doctrinal matters, the logical conclusion is that we could fellowship Jews, modernists, and atheists-those who have diverse views about Jesus.

(b) False views concerning the resurrection of the dead (Mt. 22:33). The context of Mt. 22-33 indicates that Jesus was discussing the resurrection of the dead. Since the scriptural position regarding the resurrection is there called “doctrine,” could we have fellowship, a unity-in-diversity, with those who deny the resurrection of the dead.

(c) False views concerning what one must do to be saved (Rom. 6:17-18; Acts 13:12;17:19). That which Paul preached to unbelievers and which freed one from sin is called “doctrine.” Therefore, one must maintain that one can have a unity-in-diversity regarding what one must do to be saved. Can a person scripturally fellowship all denominations which teach unscriptural plans of salvation? (Perhaps this explains some of Ketcherside’s recent comments concerning Baptist baptism.)

(d) False views regarding any part of Jesus teaching. The word “doctrine” (didache) is used generically to describe the sum total of the teaching of Jesus and the inspired apostles (Acts 2:42; 5:28; Rom. 16:17; Tit. 1:9; Mk. 1:22, 27; Jn. 7:16-17; 18:19). Therefore, any false doctrine regarding any subject concerning which Jesus taught can and must be tolerated, if the distinction between gospel and doctrine is true and if one must practice a unity-in-diversity in doctrinal matters. Hence, we have arrived at universalism.

Fourthly, since the idea that we can have unity in diversity would fall under “doctrine” and not under “gospel,” why can we not have unity-in-diversity regarding the unity-in-diversity position? Ketcherside condemns magazines such as Truth Magazine for agitating “doctrinal” issues (issues such as the sponsoring church, church support of human institutions, etc.) but Mission Messenger is likewise agitating a “doctrinal” issue (unity) concerning which we can, according to his reasonings have a unity-in-diversity. If I believe that unity can be maintained by doctrinal conformity and he believes that we must have a unity-in-diversity in doctrinal matters, our disagreement is a doctrinal disagreement concerning which we can have a unityin-diversity. What justification can be found for magazines such as Mission Messenger, Restoration Review, Integrity, and Fellowship agitating this doctrinal issue? Our conclusion under this section must be that if Brother Ketcherside’s gospel-doctrine distinction were true, he, of all men, is most inconsistent because he is trying to agitate a doctrinal issue when he believes that we can have a unity-in-diversity on doctrinal issues; he is trying to get doctrinal conformity on the doctrine that says we can have a unity-in-diversity in doctrinal matters.

The Bible and Gospel and Doctrine

Let us now examine what the Bible says about the “gospel” and the “doctrine.” Didache, the Greek word which is translated “doctrine,” is defined as follows:

1. teaching; viz. that which is taught … one’s doctrine, i.e. what he teaches: . . . doctrine, teaching. concerning something…. 2. (the act of) teaching, instruction. . . . ” (Thayer, pp. 144-145).

“Among the Gks. this is used in the sense of >teaching,’ ‘instruction’ . . . with a strong tendency to restrict it to the fact, so that didaskein or didaskesthai can normally be used as an alternative…. In the LXX. . . . didache is thus syn. with the Rabbinic talmud, which signifies ‘teaching’ in the sense that it might denote according to context either >teaching’ of ‘being taught’. . . . The New Testament follows this usage fairly closely” (Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. 2, pp. 163-164).

Euangelion, the Greek word which is translated “gospel,” is defined as follows:

“1. a reward for good tidings … 2. good tidings…. In the N.T. spec: a. the glad tidings of the kingdom of God soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Jesus, the Messiah, the founder of this kingdom. . . . After the death of Christ the term to euangelion comprises also the preaching of (concerning) Jesus Christ as having suffered death on the cross to procure eternal salvation for men in the kingdom of God, but as restored to life and exalted to the right hand of God in heaven, then to return in majesty to consummate the kingdom of God; so that it maybe more briefly defined as the glad tidings of salvation through Christ; the proclamation of the grace of God manifested and pledged in Christ; the gospel” (Thayer, p. 257).

Kittle gave the derivation of the thought of euangelion from “besrah” (Heb.) to demonstrate that the primary connotation of the word is “the good news of victory.” When used in the New Testament, the fact that Jesus died for our sins makes the preaching of Jesus a message which is especially one which might be described as “the good news of victory” (Vol. 2, pp. 721-735).

From these definitions, let us draw some conclusions. (a) The basic idea connoted by didache is “to teach;” the basic thought connoted by euangelion is “the good news of victory.” (b) The content of the message cannot be learned from the words themselves. The didache could as easily be that of Balaam as that of Christ; the euangelion could as easily be that of victory over the Persians as victory over sin and death, (c) The content of the message is not necessarily different when both didache and euangelion are used; that which is taught can be the good news. Obviously, this is the case in the New Testament; that which is taught is the good news of Christ’s victory over sin and death.

If our conclusions are true, then the following should be, and are found in the New Testament:

(a) The gospel being preached to both saints (Rom. 1:7, 15-16) and aliens (Mk. 16:15-16), the assertions of Ketcherside notwithstanding.

(b) The doctrine being preached to both aliens (Rom. 6:17-18; Acts 5:28; 13:5,7,8,10,12; 17:19) and Christians (1 Cor. 4:17; Col. 3:17; 2 Tim. 4:2; Acts 2:42).

(c) Things which are called the gospel also referred to as doctrine. That which has freed us from sin is called both doctrine (Rom. 6-17-18) and gospel (1 Cor. 15-1-4; Rom. 1:16). That which leads to Christian maturity is called both doctrine (Mt. 28-20; Acts 2-42) and gospel (Gal. 2-14, Eph. 6-15; 1 Tim. 1-10-11).

(d) The “word of truth,” which is identified as the gospel (Col. 1-5; Eph. 1-13), should be applicable to both saints and sinners. In keeping with this, the “truth” is that which frees one from sin On. 8-32; Jas. 1-18) and anyone who does not obey it is lost (Rom. 2-8; cf. 2 Thess. 1:8); it also is that which produces sanctification (Jn. 17-17-19). Thus, one must not only obey the truth, he must also walk in it to keep from being lost (Jas. 5:19; Gal. 2-5,14; 3-1; 5:7).

Conclusion

No one of us would deny that there is a distinction between becoming a Christian and maturing as a Christian. However, what has not been proven, and which must be proven in order for the system refuted in this article to stand, is that the only ground for fellowship is the new birth. The person who says that must say (1) either that once a person has experienced the new birth, he is always in the fellowship of the saints (once saved, always saved) (2) or he must classify sins, as the Catholics did, into classes of “mortal sins” and “venial sins” (without spelling it out; this is what Ketcherside has done when he says fellowship can be broken for moral turpitude but not for heresy).

Undoubtedly, a person must not know every apostolic commandment in order to become a Christian. Therefore, there are some things which are taught before baptism and some things which are taught after baptism (Mt. 28:20). However, to maintain that (1) the former are exclusively called “gospel” and the latter are exclusively called “doctrine”and (2) one can break the fellowship of the saints only over differences pertaining to the “gospel” are false positions nowhere justifiable in the Scriptures.

And Remember!!

Let us never forget why Ketcherside and those who believe as he does are maintaining now that a distinction exists between gospel and doctrine: they are trying to find some scriptural justification for establishing fellowship with those who use mechanical instruments of music in the worship, practice unscriptural church organization in the form of the sponsoring church, support human institutions, and believe in premillennialism. Before a person swallows the bait, he had better look out for the hook or he will end up in the frying pan!

Truth Magazine, XVIII:50, p. 10-13
October 24, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Oklahoma: AAfter a brief discussion with a Missionary Baptist preacher of Billings, Oklahoma, he sent me Bogard’s book, a very amusing mess. But what about his rendition of Acts 2:38?”

EXPLANATION:

Our brother refers to the little booklet Campbellism Exposed by Ben M. Bogard. Mr. Bogard is not well known to Christians of this generation, but until his death in 1951 he was for sixty years perhaps the greatest, certainly the most distinguished, Baptist debater and defender. Bogard was a Missionary Baptist. He debated against the truth and against some of the most capable men of God; namely, Joe S. Warlick, G. C. Brewer, W. Curtis Porter, J. D. Tant, N. B. Hardeman, R. L. Whiteside, and others.

Note Bogard’s “rendition of Acts 2:38” which concerns our querist.

“Campbellites Pervert Acts 2:38”

“‘Be baptized for the remission of sins’ means be baptized on account of the remission of sins. A man laughs for joy; he has the joy first and then laughs for it. A man weeps for sorrow. He has the sorrow first and weeps for it afterwards. Even so we are baptized for the remission of our sins. We have the remission first and are baptized for it afterwards.

“There is one stock answer for this, and that is that repentance and baptism are for the same thing and that if we are baptized on account of remission, then we repent on account of remission. But a little peek beneath the English into the Greek and the difficulty vanishes. >Repent’ in Greek is second person plural, active voice. “Be baptized’ is third person, singular, passive voice. Now, there is a rule in all grammars that verbs must agree with their subjects in number and person. But >repent’ and ‘baptize’ are not of the same number and person, hence they cannot have the same subjects. So a correct rendering is: >repent all of you, and each one be baptized for the remission of your sins.'” (Ben M. Bogard, Campbellism Exposed, 37, 38).

REPLY

Bogard’s first paragraph illustrations concerning joy and sorrow are true. We do indeed laugh for (on account of, because of) joy. We weep for (on account of, because of) sorrow. However, these illustrations overlook the fact that the Greek language has a number of prepositions which translate into our word “for.” We use “for” to mean a variety of things. “For” can mean “because of” or “in order to” and with each different meaning we use but the one word “for.” This is not true in the Greek language. The preposition used for “on account of” or “because of” in Greek is dia. One goes to jail for (dia) murder. He goes to jail for (eis), in order to, punishment. Barabbas was in jail “for (dia) murder.” He was in prison “for (dia) sedition and murder” (Lk. 23-19, 25). The preposition used in Acts 2:38 is not dia, (for, on account of). It is eis (for, in order to). Bogard’s argument is based upon the same English preposition “for,” but his examples use two different terms; they are not synonymous, hence, his “Even so” does not follow.

Baptist Scholars On Acts 2:38

Bogard’s own brethren desert him on his contention in his second paragraph. Baptist scholars and commentators, Hackett and Willmarth, both deny and denounce his argument. ” ‘In order to the remission of sins we connect naturally with both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other” (Hackett). “For those who contend for the interpretation, ‘on account of remission,’ will hardly be willing to admit that Peter said >repent’ as well as ‘be baptized on account of remission of sins.’ This is too great an inversion of natural sequence. Yet, to escape it, we must violently dissever ‘repent’ and ‘be baptized’ and deny that eis expresses the relationship of repentance as well as of baptism to remission of sins but the natural construction connects the latter with both the preceding verbs” (Willmarth).

“Ye” is the subject of the verb “repent.” “One” is the subject of “be baptized.” Those represented by “ye” are the same as those included in “every one of you.” It is the same inquirers that are being answered as to what they must do. Peter told all of them to repent, and he told every one of them to be baptized. Why? For the remission of sins, of course. First, he addressed them as a collective, a group; then, he directed them as individuals. What is accomplished by diagraming the sentence? So what if the verbs have different subjects grammatically speaking? They are still the same persons being spoken to.

A mother might well say to her children, “Come ye, and be washed every one of you for the cleansing of your hands, and ye shall receive the gift of a good meal” (example by Foy E. Wallace, Jr.), or again, “Study ye, and be taught every one of you for the reception of a diploma, and ye shall enjoy the benefits of a good education.” The apostle Peter said, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

But such passages as Mark 16:16 and Acts 22:16 also serve to show what the meaning of Acts 2:38 is. “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.” Baptism is thus shown to be essential to salvation, the washing away of sins. In this connection we hear Peter say, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” Do these three passages contradict or do they complement one another?

As Jesus shed his blood “for (eis) the remission of sins” (Matt. 2628), see we are to repent and be baptized Afor the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:50, p. 9-10
October 24, 1974

By Donald P Ames

Controversy has been raging in Nigeria for some time regarding the “issues” we have been fighting here in America. Although conservative brethren formerly worked well in the Western part of that country, while the liberals dominated the Eastern part, the war there disrupted the whole country and created an air of unrest and independence among the natives there. Following the war, as the brethren there began to take a second look at these things, various efforts were engaged in by the liberals to maintain their grip on the churches, including the creation of a special board for the purpose of barring conservative preachers from entering the country at all for a 2-year preaching trip, as is usually (and was formerly) done there and elsewhere.

As this feeling of unrest grew, many of the native preachers began having second thoughts about the sponsoring church arrangements as well, and our liberal brethren were quick to move to head off trouble in that direction as well. Responding to the growing pressures for direct-support of preachers, on Mar. 11, 1974, J. W. Nicks not only sought the Green Lawn, Texas, brethren to secure additional funds to be used to support preachers, but also urged that support be sent direct to the native preachers rather than through the sponsoring church arrangement to calm down this restlessness. The Texas brethren responded on Mar. 23rd with $4,800.00 and also letters of appeal addressed to “All Nigerian Brethren” to consider the tremendous sacrifices made in their behalf. Note the following comments by Jim Massey in a letter of Mar. 16th:

AI think you also may know that we have had to borrow money, that Brother F. W. Mattox and I have personally borrowed $2400, and right now we don’t see where that’s coming from. The note came due, the loan had to be paid and we went back and we begged at the bank and said let’s borrow it again, so they let us borrow it again. “

Certainly it does not take a lot of reading to see that this statement is meant to draw on the strong sense of obligation felt by many Nigerians for American assistance. Again, let us note the comments made in a letter by Rees Bryant, Mar. 18th:

“Brother Nicks was the first American brother to move to Ibo-land. He helped to establish the Onicha Ngwa Bible Training College. He was its first principal. He trained many of you to preach, and he helped you to establish many of the congregations where you now preach. He has taught many of you `the way more perfectly.’. . . Surely, brother Nicks has not forgotten you.”

But, since the tide seemed to be favoring the direct support of native preachers rather than the sponsoring church arrangement, they quickly decided to go along with it–with a minor catch, of course! “I wouldn’t help you for a minute . . . and we will not have anything to do with supporting any Pharisee or forbidding brother in Nigeria, but if you believe direct support is a way, one of the good ways like other ways are good, then we are willing to help you.” (quoted from letter by Jim Massey). Naturally they felt the growing unrest, so they agreed the direct-support of preachers was “better” at the time. However, rather than surrender their sponsoring-church arrangement altogether, they now seek to weaken the opposition to it by tying a slight catch to any support that is sent. I wonder who has made these “issues” there a test of fellowship? I wonder why this catch, if all can agree that the direct support of preachers is scriptural? (For more details on their efforts to make these issues a test of fellowship, read the article “Immigration Crisis In Nigeria” by Leslie Diestelkamp, Truth Magazine, Mar. 8, 1973).

In a country where money is scarce, the liberals are now using it as a vicious tool, reminding the Nigerians, “You have survived sickness, suffering and starvation” (quoted from letter by Rees Bryant), and if you now accept “our opinion,” we will help you again, but only if you accept “our opinion.” J. W. Nicks went on to point out in a letter to Nigerian brethren that there would be no Nigerian unity in the work unless all conservative brethren repented and recanted (Mar. 23rd). To them, it is all a matter of opinion, but you must accept “their opinion” or there can be no fellowship. Yes, money can indeed be an effective-and vicious-method of coercion.

False And Absurd Charges By Mattox

But, let us note some of the false and utterly absurd charges made about the church here in America by these “loving, honest, Christian gentlemen.” If anything shows the futility of their cause, these certainly do.

(1) F. W. Mattox’s letter of Mar. 18th affirms: “Thirty years ago two American preachers tried to dominate the American Churches by teaching that it was wrong for two or more Congregations to cooperate by putting their money together to expand the Kingdom of God.” It would be very interesting to find out which two brethren Brother Mattox would select to blame this on-he has a mighty big field! Even more interesting is the statement by G. C. Brewer himself in the Gospel Advocate; Aug. 27th, 1953: “In sponsoring a missionary, the church simply underwrites his support. It is therefore, responsible to the missionary for the amount that it. takes for his maintenance, and it is responsible to any brethren, who may be willing to help support the missionary, for the missionary’s soundness, for his Christian character, and for his qualifications as a missionary. This whole idea was born because of a very sad condition that existed in the brotherhood forty or fifty years ago.” And he was defending the system!

(2) Again, “this anti teaching still hinders the work and causes division in America. Fortunately, only 3 to 5 per cent of the American Churches have followed their divisive teaching.” (My wife almost choked on her hot tea when I read that to her). This charge would be downright funny if it were not for the fact such an outright lie is told in a country where they have no means of verifying the truth and is intended to discourage faithful Christians by the shear weight of “numbers” (see Ex. 23:2). If Brother Mattox is sincere (and I can hardly see how with such an absurd statement), I would suggest he take another looks-a figure more like’ 3040 per cent would be more accurate. But, since when did numbers make a thing right or wrong? In the division over the Missionary Society, and the instrument, about 80 or 90 per cent of the church was carried off into digression. Did that make those liberals right?

(3) Further: “In Lubbock, Texas, we have 17 strong congregations of loyal brethren. They have 3 small groups who do not grow, and they do no mission work that we know of.” (It is good he added his latter clause). Of course this smear is to be then applied generally, and is absolutely false. I easily can cite circumstances that are just exactly in reverse. But note only 3-5 per cent affected by “anti” teaching, but 3 out of 20 churches in Lubbock equals 15 per cent there. Oops! Of course he might claim . that he was counting “noses” here, and again statistics can be easily reversed. But, so what?

(4) And then our “loving” brother urges that all who do not bow down to their institutional idol “should be disfellowshipped as factionalists.” Again, who split the log? No wonder they no longer have the courage to defend their false practices-it is now easier to call for a disfellowshipping instead.

And By Jim Massey

Calling all who stand for a “Thus saith the Lord” as merely “Pharisees”‘.and “troublemakers,” Jim Massey then accuses faithful brethren in Nigeria of “binding Diestelkamp’s law, Akime’s law and others’ law.” I wonder what he would have stood on 100 years ago in the division over the instrument and the Missionary’ Society? What do you suppose the digressives would have called him? Do you think they might even have accused him of “binding Lipscomb’s law”? And then; what do you think all that would have proven about the scripturalness of his position? A lot of words, name calling and accusations, and nothing else! A nice tactic when one lacks Bible authority for his practices!

(1) From his letter of Mar. 16th to Nigerian brethren: “They see a big distinction between evangelistic cooperation and that this must be kept separate from benevolent cooperation, that relief must be an entirely different pattern and different way of cooperating than support. You and I know that the Bible does not make this distinction.” Now, first of all, there is no “different way of cooperating” involved. The Bible pattern is that in each case the assistance came direct-to the preacher, and to the elders overseeing the congregation in need. He denies there is any pattern at all. Who says so? Jim Massey. Bible proof? Not offered! Jim Massey has spoken! But try to get them to defend that teaching and to find authority for their sponsoring-church arrangement, and they run like a scared jack-rabbit, denying the Bible gives a pattern or defense of their false teaching either. They are not interested in defending it at all, and I can not blame them.

(2) “Another silly distinction is that God’s commands to all Christians must be kept separate and distinct from His commands to the church. I believe what He commands every member of the church to do He commands the church to do because the church is every member. Isn’t it silly, isn’t it a Pharisaical distinction to say that you must keep separate what God commanded all Christians to do and not let the church do these because there are those commands for the church to do and those, commands for all Christians to do, when really the Bible teaches that the church is all Christians.” Sort of sounds like the answer from the Pharisees in Jn. 7:47-49, doesn’t it’! His proof! “I believe”! Jim Massey has spoken again! Certainly such passages as 1 Tim. 5:16, Acts 5:1-5, Matt. 18:15-17, etc., show the unscripturalness of such teaching. No wonder he offered no Bible proof.

(3) “Another silly distinction is that helping saints must be kept clearly distinct from helping non-Christians.” Proof? Try Jim Massey again! He said it was “silly” so that ought to settle it–per him! All he need do is show one Bible example of a church from its treasury helping the needy of the world in general, and he would have an argument from the Bible to go on. I predict the Christian Church will find authority for the instrument to be used in worship first–and I deny it is therefor either of them or we would have heard it long ago: But, Jim Massey has spoken, and all Nigerian brethren should give heed! Jim Massey says to ask for Bible authority is to be “Pharisaical,” and thus wrong. Move over denominationalism-he is well on his way (1 Pet. 3:15)!

Conclusion

These things need to be exposed, not just because of the false and absurd nature of them, but because it reveals the true “nature” of these “loving, Christian gentlemen” when they feel they will not have to face their own words. Also because many in foreign countries have no means of verifying how accurate their statements are, and they are obviously designed to discourage faithful brethren from standing for the truth by deliberate falsehoods regarding the truth here in America.

There are a number of faithful brethren standing for the truth in Nigeria, and we commend them for it. But, it always strikes me interesting to see how liberal brethren can wax so mighty overseas, and then grow so quiet here in America (just like the Pentecostals). I now wonder how well these brethren will like having to see their own words being revealed here as well’? Church supported colleges, orphanages, prisons, hospitals, homes for unwed mothers, Boy Scout troops, recreation, etc. can all be justified by their reasoning used in this article. Do any still believe there is no danger of apostasy?

Truth Magazine, XVIII:50, p. 8-9
October 24, 1974

By Ron Halbrook

January 7, 8, 9, 1974, we attended the annual Abilene Christian College preacher workshop. Every session was attended, extensive notes were taken. Not only did we discuss the speeches with other sound brethren who attended, we talked to some of the speakers personally and even got a question on the floor in one of the public forums. Just as the workshop closed, we ran into a young preacher whom we once greatly admired and still love; sad to say, he is one of the victims of current error on grace, faith, unity, and fellowship. When he asked for an evaluation of the sessions, we responded, “I am more convinced than ever in my life to resist liberalism and compromise in every form; what I have seen and heard here are the sad fruits of gradual drifting.” After several months of reflecting on what we saw and heard there, we are sharing some of those events along with our reflections on them.

When we arrived, J. D. Thomas was concluding the keynote speech, in which he highlighted the relation of love to unity. “We need more love. Too many say, ‘Yes, but …… He seemed to imply that love will allow unity and fellowship to continue amidst all the diversity which would be expressed on the program. But (yes, brethren, there are some valid “but=s@?), love is too often used as a nebulous generality. “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments” (1 Jn. 5:2). Love does not tolerate sin and false doctrine, but seeks to rescue brethren from such.

Not only liberalism in regard to the church’s mission and organization, but also Classical Liberalism; Christian Church doctrine, and mushy denominationalism were expressed from the platform. To recall a phrase from Moses E. Lard, if the kind of “love and unity” we hear so much about today is accepted, what used to be New Testament churches “will become gay worldly things, literal Noah’s arks, full of clean and unclean beasts” (Lard’s Quarterly, Vol. II, 1865, p. 262). Lard wanted no part of “effeminate sentimentalism” and was “accused of writing too severely on these matters.” But he recognized the innovations of his day for what they were: a great victory for unbelief through the stratagem of a series of small victories. “It is high time that manful and outspoken voices were lifted against them. They are the insidious leaven of Satan.” The next comment by Lard might well have been written as a prelude for the A.C.C. workshop. “He is a poor observer of men and things who does not see slowly growing up among us a class of men who can no longer be satisfied with the ancient gospel and the ancient order of things. These men must have changes; and silently they are preparing the mind of the brotherhood to receive changes” (ibid. pp. 258-262). Two of the six papers presented at the forum were exceptions to this pattern.

“Woman’s Place in Church Activity”

Norman Parks (Murfreesboro, Tennessee) delivered a main address on “Woman’s Place in Church Activity.” Parks coupled Gen. 1-27 with Gal. 3:27 in an effort to prove there are “no restrictions on activities in the communal relations (i.e., church activities, RH) on the basis of sex.” He avoids -the force of other passages by affirming that they represent synagogue practice or cultural concessions and that “the Bible is not a timeless blueprint” anyway. That the wife must obey the husband may be like the slave must obey his master-“it no longer applies in our society.” But since Parks claims Gen. 1:27 and Gal. 3:27 are normative (even to the exclusion of other passages), one wonders if he is not appealing to a blueprint and practicing the same “simplistic Biblicism” he charges others with. It must be nice to have it both ways: the Bible provides a “blueprint” for sexual equality, but the Bible is not really a “blueprint” at all! Preach it round; preach it flat.

Robert Marshall (Torrance, California) gave a “Comment” paper pointing out that whereas the gospel is offered to all mankind freely on the same terms, “the New Testament does not remove all subordinate roles.” Respect for such roles is presented “on theological grounds,” not just cultural. Both he and Cecil May, Jr. (Vicksburg, Mississippi) pointed out that the roles of each sex are “transformed in Christ, not removed or switched.” 1 Tim. 2:8-15 “forbids certain activities,” i.e. woman leadership over men in the church. In the “Discussion” period, May responded to a question by Doug Parsons (Overland Park, Kansas), “Man and woman are equal like Jew and Gentile.” God gave the gospel to all. Peter says, “Heirs together of the grace.” Parsons needled Parks for making Gal. 3 “determinative” to the exclusion of all else. Clifton Rogers (Dallas, Texas) forced Parks to defend explicitly woman apostles, prophets, evangelists, and teachers, all leading in mixed assemblies.

“Liberalism in the Church”

“Liberalism in the Church” was prepared by Glenn L. Wallace (Visalia, California), and read by “Buster” Dobbs (Houston, Texas) due to Wallace’s illness. This was the high point of the series. “Liberalism is in our ranks today,” including “bits and parts of the old liberalism and the Neo-orthodox positions. . . . ” Mission was repeatedly cited as a prime example. Many satellite issues were mentioned, but Wallace sees “our liberalism” chiefly in the rejection of the New Testament as a “blueprint.” Some want to “restructure the church . . . without a blueprint of Biblical patterns.” They will “open the gates on the fellowship question” and create “brotherhood without boundaries.” “Either we have a blueprint in the Bible or we have no blueprint, and those who take the position that we do not have a blueprint should not be permitted to use the Scriptures in support of anything that they say or do.” “. . . the Neo Pentecostal and the theological liberal are brothers under the skin. They reject a Biblical blueprint; they both seek God in their own human experiences. . . .” If this ‘formula for failure” be accepted, “we may as well burn down our building and join the church of our choice.'” Wallace complained that some churches “have adopted … the total social gospel outreach … classes for the mentally retarded, adult tutoring, youth recreational programs, Headstart programs … credit union for the poor. ..’legal counseling’. .. .””Our liberal brethren do not always fly their true colors. They are often guilty of theological double talk. Some men can deliver a speech and then spend twice the time in explaining what they did not mean, than it took to give the speech in the first place.” He ended, “It is later than we think.” Yes, and it was later than the Wallaces and Dobbs thought 20 years ago when they gave impetus to emotionalistic pleas, no-patternism, centralization, and social-gospel programs via twisting passages like Gal. 6:10!

In Raymond Kelcy’s (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma), “Comment,” reservation was expressed. “I do not see abandonment imminent. . . .” Some say, “Love unites, not doctrine,” but both are needed, he added. F.L. Lemley (Bonne Terre, Missouri) attacked the pattern concept, offered Rom. 14 as the solution, and said when we distinguish between “errors of intellect and rebellion of heart” we will realize “there is not a false teacher in this house.” “I have not seen a charismatic brother who is a false teacher…. Brethren, ‘we be brethren.’ ” Paul’s case shows sincerity does not cover for the sin of false doctrine, responded Dobbs.

Edward Fudge (Athens, Alabama) asked Dobbs, “What do we mean by a blueprint? Why haven’t we eliminated our own differences.'” Dobbs cited 1 Cor. 11:9; standing for truth may result in some factions; it can be avoided only if we “compromise conviction.” Fudge asked Kelcy isn’t it true that we must answer yes to the question, “Are those known as the church of Christ a denomination.'” since they are “larger than the local church but smaller than all the people of God.” Many Christians “haven’t heard of the Restoration Movement, but to answer yes shows signs of a dangerous concept,” said Kelcy. Noting Lemley’s denial that “our pioneers had all truth,” Fudge asked him, “What are our good points that keep you with us?” “Freedom to believe in Christ, study, and express myself,” answered Lemley. Returning to Dobbs, Fudge explained, “There is one body and all the saved are in it; this is `the church of Christ’ in the Bible. But a historical group has taken this name.” Doesn’t “we as a brotherhood” sound denominational.’ Dobbs agreed such, a phrase “might not be best. We should say the Bible teaches, not this is what the brotherhood believes.”

Joe Barnett (Lubbock, Texas) pressed’ Lemley to admit he believes the Bible gives some kind of a pattern- “Christ is an absolute pattern,” he admitted. In the forum, we personally asked Lemley if 1 Tim. 3:1-15 does not affirm the pattern concept; he then told the audience 1 Tim. 3 is not an absolute pattern even if there are qualified men in a church.

A member of the conservative Christian Church, Thomas Thurman (Cincinnati, Ohio), pled for ” `Organized’ Support for Missions,” under a regional board of elders. Each region could have its own board. The Bible “pattern … for church – missionary relationships” is found in Acts. Thurman thinks the prophets and teachers of Antioch “may” have represented several churches in Antioch-“the first mission board.” The “overseas evangelizing association” might solve some abuses in mission work. “In actual practice churches

of Christ do have representatives on various boards (camps, colleges, evangelizing associations, etc.)…. But for some reason, never made quite clear to me, when it comes to mission work a line is drawn. This position which allows for the operation of colleges under trustees who are representatives of the church while failing to allow missions similarly to function seems totally untenable to me. . .” Good luck, friend; some folks called “antis” have been trying to get that point over for many years without much success!

Earl West (Indianapolis, Indiana) “Commented” that the key to abuses in mission work is to teach properly local churches and their elders. Robert Fife (Milligan College, Tennessee) also of the conservative Christian Church, “Commented” that no method “is a binding pattern that would not work under persecution.” He, too, was mystified at those who want centralized “cooperation in benevolence, but not in missions. What principle makes the difference’?” Thurman got up and again underscored the inconsistency of claiming the church can work through college or camp trustees but not missionary trustees.

In his “Questions,” Ferrell Jenkins (Tampa, Florida) pointed out to West the similarity between his sponsoring church arrangement and Thurman’s evangelistic association of elders. West responded that the sponsoring church created “no extra-Biblical organization” but the association plan did. Thurman answered Hulen Jackson (Duncanville, Texas) on “why can’t the local church give the leadership without the committee you propose” by saying that plan is permissible, but the sponsoring church taking funds from many churches “is taxation without representation.” In an exchange between West and Fife, West said the college is only a “human institution” parallel to Christians running a “hardware store-it is not connected to the church just because the people are Christians.” But Thurman was up again asking if the churches could use and support A.C.C., why not also his association? This brought Jackson to his feet affirming college trustees “do not represent local churches,” the school is “an adjunct to the home, not the church,” and, “I will resign as a board member of A.C.C. if it ever changes that concept.”

Jenkins scored with the interesting point that Thurman’s association might oversee local preachers in the region since they are sometimes abusive! Also, after the program, Kent Ellis (Austin, Texas) reminded West that Thurman’s association plan had already been used for city and area wide “Campaigns for Christ.” With our own ears we heard West innocently and meekly deny knowledge of any such thing!

“Authority and Tenure of Elders”

“Authority and Tenure of Elders” was presented by Everett Ferguson (Abilene, Texas). One’s abilities and qualifications involve not only natural endowments, but also “developed abilities.” One who serves others well develops leadership qualities. An elder is able to oversee, manage and exercise authority because he has used his gifts to serve, thereby developing the power of true leadership. Thus Heb. 13-17 says “obey,” meaning to be persuaded by or to follow. Christians will “voluntarily subject themselves” to “the moral authority of service and example.” An elder is one “out in front in the care of spiritual needs.” Many passages were discussed, the major thrust being that elders have authority based on gifts, developed, abilities, and service, “not coercive authority or political authority.” Their tenure or “term is determined by continued qualifications.” Ferguson raised the question whether “stipulated terms” should be assigned to facilitate the ability of the church to review and “withdraw approval” if necessary.

Virgil Jackson (Eugene, Oregon) said since elders need to retire for various reasons, the “term concept is helpful.” Whereas a man should be “appointed for the term of his qualification,” an annual review, i.e. one year term, could be good. Cline R. Paden (Lubbock, Texas) felt Ferguson was saying “it is forbidden to forbid,” i.e. denying a basic ingredient of the elder’s authority: “punitive power.” Ferguson responded he did not mean “to exclude discipline,” adding later that several of the comments offered by others on discipline “complemented” his paper. In the question period, Leonard Gray (West Monroe, Louisiana) asked Ferguson, “Is the authority in leadership and character, or in. the office’?” He answered, “Both in a sense. There must be character and leadership first, then recognition of it for the office.” Ike Summerlin (Austin, Texas) felt elders get too involved with “physical work,” to which Ferguson agreed, adding, “We could use deacons more.” Paden pressed Ferguson to be more explicit on whether the elder’s authority is “just good example” or an authority in office which he did not have before appointed. Ferguson explained that he distinguished between the individual or “personal influence” and the collective responsibility or “decision making for the church;” the former exists before appointment, the latter only after.

“Responsible Christian Journalism”

The editor of Mission, Victor Hunter (Dallas, Texas) spoke on “Responsible Christian Journalism.” The Christian journalist “cannot begin by staking out boundaries beyond which he will not operate” based on any party, organization, or dogma. A good journal “is concerned with the meaning of Jesus Christ,” which includes “any topic under the sun, from church to child care, from student unrest to states rights, from religion to racial conflict, from politics to pornography, from gospel to government, from ghettos to gerus, etc.” “Faithfulness to the gospel” is not “maintenance of the status quo.” The church is best served by editors who “question church, policies, practices or doctrines,” not those who “foster, conserve and protect.” The latter functions are especially characteristic of papers serving human institutions (publishing houses, colleges, etc.). (Hunter later told me personally that some A.C.C. professors were forced off his staff by the college.) Every subject should be explored with “diversity of opinion.” Truth should be pursued since it always “is filtered through the spectacles of one’s own subjectivity.” A journal should “examine, analyze and report” and leave it to the church to “preach, teach, counsel, evangelize, edify, and minister. . . .”

Hollis Miller (Murray, Kentucky) “Commented” that God’s “completed revelation” should be presented in journals, not “skepticism.” “The New Testament writers are the first Christian journalists,” and they limited themselves by revealed “dogma.” “Journalism is just a preacher’s chalkboard,” added Eldred Stevens (Dallas, Texas). “Some openness is doctrinal instability,” he continued, citing 2 Jn. 9; Rom. 16:17; 2 Tim. 2:2. Stevens dubbed Mission “the voice of theological liberalism in the church today,” adding of Hunter, “He wants restructure, not restoration.” This is the path of J. S. Lamar and Isaac Errett, Stevens said; they judged the Gospel Advocate as narrow, hurtful, unwholesome, cold, legalistic. They began the Christian Standard to exemplify “Christian character instead of orthodoxy” and a major division finally occurred. “Another breach is on the horizon.” We might add that students of church history will recognize Hunter’s answer to a later question on whether he believed the Bible was inspired. “I don’t accept a theory of inspiration, but I accept inspiration.” So said Isaac Errett in his attempt to set aside verbal inspiration and infallibility, almost in those exact words! (The Missouri Christian Lectures of 1883 (Rosemead, Calif.: Old Paths Book Club, 1955 reprint), pp. 117-204). As McGarvey said, if Errett (and Hunter) are right, “. . . we know that some uncertainty attaches to their (Bible writers, RH) writings, and, what is worse, we know not how to locate this uncertainty in any certain place, but are compelled to let it spread like a mist over the whole Bible…. It takes away certainty even from the apostolic commission, for, if this theory be true, who can affirm with entire confidence that Jesus ever said, ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.’ ” (Ibid., pp. 184-185).

In the question period, Carroll B. Ellis (Nashville, Tennessee) expressed agreement with Miller and Stevens. Ellis asked Miller about the term “party champion” and his answer showed that what some call partyism is merely ‘”being Biblical,” as with Acts 2:38. Dudley Lynch (Dallas, Texas) asked Miller to clarify freedom; Miller said, “Freedom in Christ is exercised within the confines of revealed scripture…. To say the Bible is not sufficient is beyond the limits of Christian freedom.” A staff writer for Mission, Warren Lewis, tried to rescue Hunter by asking if he expected his staff to be devoted to Scripture, to which he answered yes. The problem here is ambiguity, as is seen from Warren’s later statement to Tom Roberts that the Holy Spirit told him “what the writings of Luke mean today, not what they meant in the first century.” Stevens did admit the Gospel Advocate lacks the open debate characteristic of earlier days.

“Brotherhood Politics”

Firm Foundation editor Reuel Lemmons (Austin, Texas) spoke on “Brotherhood Politics.” All should seek the power of good influence (salt, light), but “the unholy use of power is the danger.” Too many make personal views “tests of fellowship” and “center on rotten situations” which do not really exist; this is self-promotion. When men weigh what they should teach or do against what the reaction of the people will be, “that is brotherhood politics.” The church is suffering “a major crisis of confidence” because too much dirty linen is being hung out for all to see “without constructive help” being offered. “Let us throw the rascals out!”

In some of the most astounding “Comments” we ever heard, Stanley Shipp (St. Louis, Missouri) admitted to having been guilty of about everything Lemmons mentioned and more! Shipp was syrupy, sickly, and sorry. (I felt like a priest at a confessional!) Dan Anders (Houston, Texas) pointed out that Lemmons failed to indict the liberals, but used the “keepers of orthodoxy” for all his illustrations. Lemmons said he had often been charged with being on both sides of the fence. He said, “I never stamp the party line,” but, “If you want those on the right to hear you, you must talk on that side and if you want the left to hear you, you must talk on the other side.” Anders later pressed Lemmons as to why the liberals were not included in his indictment, so he finally said (as did Roy Ward of Oxford, Ohio, former Mission editor) that the “ultra-right” must be hit “because most pressure comes from there now.” When Leonard Mullens (Dallas, Texas) asked Lemmons if he agreed some liberals are trying to “restructure the church,” he said he feared “over-reaction” would do worse damage than liberalism. Anders and Mullins pressed Shipley to tell us what to do about immoral brethren and false teachers; he first said we must go to the individual, then conceded we might have to go’ to the local church, but said he was not convinced we ever “have the right” to go further in public exposure.

Concluding Remarks

J. D. Thomas assured us that “we all believe in God and are totally committed to Christ; we believe in the inspiration of the Bible. We believe the Bible is the place to get the answers.” In spite of the fact that we differ on how to get the answers out of the Bible, “we be brethren.” This theme was continued in the closing prayer, as the leader said he had learned the spirit of love and toleration for the first time at this workshop. There were two, overriding themes which surfaced again and again during the 3 days: (1) this “broadminded”spirit of love and toleration which is supposed to solve all the diversities and (2) a growing liberalism which is increasingly, unabashedly Liberalism. Leroy Garrett agrees liberalism was a strong theme, but thought the “reactionaries” were “in the ascendancy” (Restoration Review, Feb., 1974, p. 231f). Read the handwriting on the wall again, Brother Garrett. Generally, what we saw was the older men, with graying hair, desparately trying to put the brakes on liberalism, and a good number of younger men urgent to speed up the progress of liberalism. But the real hitch is the emphasis on “toleration,” “love,” “brotherhood,” and “we be brethren” which came from many others. This is the blanket that is supposed to be thrown over all the diversity, and the resistance to liberalism will be blunted by this device. This is the very atmosphere in which liberalism moves best. It will continue to grow, consolidate its gains, and finally exert its burgeoning strength in a real showdown. As Eldred Stevens said, “Another breach is on the horizon.”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:50, p. 3-7
October 24, 1974