Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

On the preceding page, there is an article written by Brother Tom Oglesby of Bedford, Ohio in which he responds to an article which I wrote. Before reading this article, read Brother Oglesby’s article, and then if you still have it available, read again what I said in my April 11 editorial.

Frankly, it was against my better judgment to print Brother Oglesby’s reply, and I wrote to him about the matter. Tom Oglesby, from all I have ever known or heard about him, is a faithful and fearless preacher of the gospel. I was afraid that some would think that his article would indicate some sympathy for the error which we have been exposing recently on what has been labeled the “grace fellowship heresy.” But Brother Oglesby wanted his reply printed anyway, and thus his wish in the matter has been honored. In the letter which Brother Oglesby wrote requesting that his article be printed, he said: “As of now, the only reluctance in having the article printed would be that Bill Wallace would pick it up, print it in the Guardian, and, in the eyes of some brethren, I would become his defender, or worse yet, Ed Fudge’s defender. I am not and do not intend to become such! That, I suppose, is an occupational hazard in writing for publication.” This, Brother Oglesby, precisely was the reason why I would rather not have published your reply, but at your insistence now have done so.

Brother Oglesby needs no recommendation from me. Though he is yet one whom some brethren would call one of our “young preachers,” everywhere that I have known of his work, he did a mature man’s job at it. I do not, nor did I in my April 11 article, doubt for one moment Brother Oglesby’s soundness in the faith.

He states he is not sure which of my “descriptive verbiage” was applicable to him, and which was not. Well, if he would have considered the three issues I discussed in the article, that would have been some help to him as to which terms might have been applicable to him. I do not know Brother Oglesby’s age exactly, but I would judge him to be about 30 years old; so he is no novice. However, the major portions of the early battles over premillennialism and institutionalism had been fought either before he was born, or while he was yet but a very small child. So Brother Tom, you can eliminate all the “descriptive verbiage” that I used in describing the fence-straddlers during the early days of the premillennial and institutional fights. That cuts out quite a few of my descriptive terms as being applicable to you, doesn’t it?

The truth of the matter is, Brother Oglesby, not a single one of my opprobrious adjectives which you quote were intended for you! Now that should soothe your feelings somewhat. You might now even withdraw your “bordered on pomposity” charge against me! That “pomposity” charge, which incidently, I have seen in only one other source, made me feet a little “like the fellow who was called a ‘loquacious homo sapien,’ ” and who therefore was “not sure if I have been insulted or not!” Let me just say, Brother Tom, that I am not insulted by your “bordered on pomposity” charge. After editing a paper for a few years, I am a little harder to insult than I used to be. I get called all kinds of things. Just last week I got two letters addressed to “Cecil Willis, D. A. ” There were seven pages, single-spaced, so I turned to the end to see who was addressing me. As usual for such letters, the writer did not sign the letters. I assumed that he was depicting me in the role of the “District Attorney,” since I had been writing some articles critical of some teaching being done, until a friend of mine came in, and I handed the letters to him. He took the time to read them. Rather than meaning I was the “District Attorney,” my kind respondent informed me near the end of one of his letters that the “D. A.” stood for “Devil’s Advocate. ” Now I never would have known what I was being called, if someone else had not taken the time to read those anonymous letters. I do not waste much time reading unsigned letters. So, your Apomposity” charge did not upset me, though I think the charge is completely groundless.

Brother Oglesby thinks my article was uncalled for. That is his prerogative. I just happen to think his little jibe in his bulletin, which I quoted in my April 11 editorial, was likewise uncalled for. Futhermore, he charges that I have made a “blanket condemnation” of men who did not jump into this or previous controversies before they had studied the issues. Quite the contrary, Brother Oglesby. I said, “If these brethren see no doctrinal error involved, then their silence is understandable.” Brother Oglesby refers to brethren who have “burned the midnight oil for many months” before deciding wherein is the truth. I have never reproached such a brother. In fact, there is one faithful preacher who previously was aligned with the institutional element that I frequently have used as an illustration of a man diligently searching for the truth. This man at that time earned his living as a welder. But I have often said, “I believe if you were to visit Brother-‘s house at midnight for five consecutive nights, I feel confident that you would find him sitting at the kitchen table studying the Bible and materials related to the controverted issues at least three of those five nights.” I have only the highest respect for such men, Brother Tom, and I do not condemn them by either specific or “blanket condemnation.” I commend them, one and all, highly!

But the brethren whom I did have in mind do not fit into this category. They are the brethren who either refuse to study the issues for fear of what they might learn, or who fear to speak out publicly what they believe in their heart. My “descriptive verbiage ” was aimed only at such men. And interestingly, I have not received a single letter of criticism of that article from any man who was old enough to know that such situations did in fact exist.

The charge had been made that we were fostering a controversy to gain subscriptions from the Gospel Guardian (I am now even a paying subscriber to that paper), or to increase our bookstore business. Spelled any way you want to spell it, Brother Oglesby, I deny that charge in my most “descriptive terminology,” and deeply resent it being made.

Brother Oglesby has said that he would be willing to write on both grace and fellowship in Truth Magazine. It has never entered my mind that he would write anything except the truth on either subject. In my letter to him, I invited him to write on both subjects for publication in Truth Magazine. But whether he elects to accept my invitation or not, does not in any way affect what I believe about his convictions and his actions. I believe he both believes and teaches the truth on both grace and fellowship.

I told Brother Oglesby in my letter that “I was talking about a few, but well-known and experienced preachers, who straddled the fence until the battle-lines had been well drawn, and in some instances, until the smoke of battle had cleared away.” If Brother Oglesby does not know of any such brethren, then he is a little-naive. On the other hand, if he does know of some such brethren among us now (or in the premillennial and institutional controversies), what does he expect me to give them? A garland of roses and recommend they be given by a grateful brotherhood a “medal of honor”? Or would he likewise use some of my “descriptive verbiage” on such fence-straddling brethren?

It seems that no matter how many times I say it, some brethren are determined not to believe it. Truth Magazine, and those of us who are connected with it or write for it, is not seeking to form a Truth Magazine-party in the Lord’s church. We are only seeking to do what every faithful gospel preacher should be doing, and that is to teach the truth, and to expose error and errorists. And I wish brethren would quit trying to indict our motives, and cease to make their charge that we are trying to line up everybody with Truth Magazine.

I am glad for Brother Oglesby to be heard, and once again, I want to state that I did not apply a single one of what he termed my “descriptive verbiage” to Brother Tom Oglesby. He always, so far as is known to me, has been in the thick of battle and has fought some heroic battles for a man of his age.

But there are some brethren among us who know right now what the truth is on this grace-fellowship heresy (they already have burned the midnight oil), but who have remained and, in some instances, still remain as silent as a tomb regarding these matters, while these errors are permitted to have free-course among God’s people, and while this false doctrine wreaks its course of havoc across the country. I wish it were true that error unopposed would silently disappear. But the teaching of Scripture, as well as what little I have learned by experience, indicates that such does not happen. This grace-fellowship heresy is here to stay. These loose brethren have the right tune for the time. They are preaching exactly what many brethren would like to hear, and it is inevitable that they will gain a popular following. Silent appeasement is not going to stop this infiltration of error. Every single servant of God ought to be in the thick of this fray, until this error and its influence have been stamped out from among us. Forget about Truth Magazine, Torch, Gospel Guardian, Searching the Scriptures, Preceptor, and any other paper published by brethren, but do not forget to teach the truth and to oppose error on every front.

It happens to be my opinion that Tom Oglesby will do his share of the teaching of the truth, but it also just happens to be my opinion that some brethren who already know the truth on this insidious error which is permeating the Body of Christ are being criminally negligent in their silence, regardless of their reason for keeping silent. None of us desires to see churches rent asunder, but more than that, none of us desires to see error permitted to run rampant through the church, and some of us are determined to use every righteous means at our disposal to stop it. And I do not intend to sound like a discouraged-Elijah when I make that statement. God still has His seven thousand who will not bow their knees to the grace-fellowship Baal. But watchmen upon the towers and walls of spiritual Israel had better not close their eyes to existing or approaching error. If they should fail to do their duty, their divine Master will require it of them.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:35, p. 3-6
July 11, 1974

By Tom Oglesby

In a recent issue (April 11, 1974 of Truth Magazine), Cecil Willis quoted and severely criticized a short article which he credits to “an Ohio brother.” Since I am the author of the article, I think it appropriate that some response by made from my hand.

When a fellow has been “written up,” his first impulse might be emotionally to treat the matter as a personal insult. That is especially so if he feels he has been treated unfairly and if the criticizing journal and writer are ones for which he has great respect. I will have to admit that when I first read Brother Willis’ editorial, I was somewhat personally indignant. But that feeling has passed and now I want to make some thoughtful and reasoned comments about this editorial as a whole.

Brother Willis has always been a good writer, but he truly waxed eloquent in his descriptive verbiage of those who are apparently delinquent in their responsibilities as viewed by him. Note some of the descriptive terminology: “. . latecomers. . cowards . . . do not want to committed. . . waving the white flag … crying crocodile tears … down-right yellow … waited until everyone lined up before … (deciding) … which side I am going to be on … gain an ignoble record … ride the fence bury your head in the sand Brother Willis is usually very clear in his writing, but in this instance, I am not quite sure which of these adjectives and terms apply to me and which apply only to other brethren who have been deficient gospel defenders in past controversies. Like the fellow who was called a “loquacious homo sapien,” I am not sure if I have been insulted or not!

Let me give you some of the background for the article which I wrote. (It probably would be good if you would turn back to the April I I issue and re-read it). Several, months ago I began corresponding with a fellow about a possible debate on instrumental music. When no agreement about an oral debate appeared feasible, I suggested a written debate with the Gospel Guardian carrying the debate for the benefit of non-instrumental brethren and another journal carrying it for those who use the instrument. This correspondence began before the first exchanges were being made between Truth Magazine and Gospel Guardian. After the exchanges began, the fellow with whom I had been corresponding questioned whether or not I would be comfortable writing in the Gospel Guardian and about the same time the incident occurred to which reference was made in my short article. It was in this context that I wrote the article quoted by Brother Willis.

Since Brother Willis did not “review” my article but simply used it as a starter for his own, I wonder what part of it he considered to be in error. Cecil, you inferred that something was wrong with the article, but you really did not tell us what it was. Exactly what statement did you disagree with? When a man is called on the carpet, he appreciates knowing what he has done wrong!

Brother Willis writes: “. . someone might get the impression that some of us connected With Truth Magazine have asked this brother to line up with Truth Magazine.” I realize that. 1 can sometimes be dense and that I am not the brightest among the preaching brethren, but I just can not see where a fellow would get such an impression regarding Truth Magazine anymore than he would regarding Gospel Guardian. Cecil, did you get the impression that the Guardian has tried to line me up on their side? Aw shucks, Cecil, aren’t you getting a little sensitive? The only impression I tried to give is that when a fellow lines up on the side of the Lord, preaches truth and condemns error, he is fulfilling his responsibility to God!

Actually, there are a few things in Brother Willis’s article that bother me a lot more than his misuse of my article. I am afraid the blanket condemnation of men who did not immediately jump into past controversies did a great disservice to a number of brethren whose honesty and sincerity would not allow them to jump into a controversy just because this preacher or that preacher was already waging the battle. Many of these men burned the midnight oil for many months so that they could determine by their own study the truth on those matters. To reproach them as cowards and to question their spiritual courage is irresponsible and unfair. No doubt there were some who held back in spite of convictions until the battle had ebbed, but I am not about to accept that as being typical of most conservative preachers.

Cecil, your article gendered several questions in my mind that I would like you to give your attention to. First of all, do you question my position on grace and fellowship? If you do, I will be glad to straighten that out with a series of articles on either or both subjects. But you do not really need that. All you have to do is check with the brethren with whom I work. I believe they know where I stand just as anyone who has heard me speak on the subjects would know. In the past year, I have before witnesses marked and branded as a troublemaker the only person recently associated with the Bedford church who has been tainted with Ketchersideism. The Bedford church in unison has with my approval and encouragement publicly marked this man. Is this the way a man straddles the fence?

Secondly, do you mean by the tenor of your article that any man who has not jumped into print one way or another on the status of Edward Fudge or the Gospel Guardian has gone soft? Have we suddenly become spiritual patsies because our names have not yet appeared in print consigning these men to the conservative scrapheap? Have we all heard both sides to the extent that we can say we have given both a fair hearing? I may be slower than most, Cecil, but please give me time to study these matters (i. e. the soundness of the men involved; not the issues of grace and fellowship themselves) without being too anxious to question my motives. God knows that I am not stalling or straddling the fence but I simply will not be forced into a position on a man’s soundness without fully satisfying myself that I have reached the truth. I am sure some of you quicker thinking brethren are frustrated at the snail’s pace at which some of us reason, but we must come to our own judgment on the matter!

I am confident that I have lined up with the truth on the matter of fellowship and grace. I just imagine that I am also lined up with Cecil Willis when it comes to those two subjects and a great many others. But the time just has not come when another man is going to make my decisions for me, nor determine the amount of time or information I am going to need to make a decision. Should that day come, I think I would just move over with the liberals or the sectarians where the financial plums are bigger and convictions are not a drag on one’s behavior.

Cecil, may I speak frankly to you as friend to friend and brother to brother? I know the personal risk I run in being so critical of you because many brethren, myself included, greatly respect your work and efforts for the truth. But your article of April 11 bordered on pomposity and gave the appearance of one who sounded the charge, and then became indignant because all did not follow immediately. As stated in my previous article, I will “. . go on doing my local work as best I can, attacking error and false doctrine wherever I see it and hope that most of my brethren will do the same.”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:35, p. 2-3
July 11, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

Modern views of the conscience of man and the Scriptures of God are weighted in favor of conscience. The discerner and interpreter of truth is the conscience. The verdict of conscience is supreme, and if it seems to be out of harmony with the understanding of Scripture, then Scripture must be re-evaluated so as to coincide with conscience. This reverence for private conscience is another form of idolatry. If personal judgments supercede the word of God as supreme authority, the underlying roots of infidelity and moral anarchy will be enthroned under the guise of an inner, spiritual and reasonable faith. In this, each man is God and each, mind is the Bible. Under this system, the word of the Lord is a force at the mercy of the choice and caprice of the individual. Thus the spirit of conscience usurps and assumes the throne of authority. As judge he reigns and rules the congress of his own inner kingdom. He, invested with full power, decides the merits of the past and legislates and dictates the course of the future. The only court of appeal is himself.

It may be thought that the above reflects solely the idea of unbelievers, but it does not. Misunderstanding of grace and liberty in Christ causes one to unwittingly reject the authority of the Bible. Subverters and perverters of the work, worship and organization of the churches of Christ are allowed unscriptural liberties with the function of local congregations on the basis of their conscientious love and zeal. A mere conscientious love and zeal is not, however, an acceptable substitute for scriptural, conscientious love and zeal-let that not be forgotten.

Conscientious Sin

If human conscience is the hand that molds and forms the clay of divine Scripture, there could never be sincere sins of ignorance. In John 16:1-3, the Lord warned, “The time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” Were those guilty before God who murdered the Master’s men thinking they did God service? Was one Saul of Tarsus innocent when he truly “thought with (himself) that (he) ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth?” (Acts 26:9) All whose con-, science said make “havoc of the church” were innocent if the conscience be the Supreme Court, but later Saul said of this conscientious behavior, I am “chief of sinners.” A distorted conscience. in light of the Scripture, can never alter the nature of sin or make it lawful. Conscience may call evil good, and good evil, and put darkness for light and light for darkness and put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter, but it cannot change the truth with respect to what is good, light, and sweet.

Authoritative Doctrine

The outstanding fact of the sermon on the mount was not its wooing call to conscience, nor its appeal to hearts steeped in righteous judgments, as well it might have been, but the significant feature was astonishment “at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority” (Matt. 7:28, 29). Let that seep and sink in the next time you are tempted to sentimentalize sin or excuse ‘error. “He that loveth me not, keepeth not my sayings” (Jn. 14:24). “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love” (Jn. 15: 10). “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (I Jn. 2:4).

Therefore, those who, in the name of love, liberty, conscience or unity, attempt to set aside the pattern of the Scriptures in any area of the life of a Christian or the labor of the church are guilty of iniquity or lawlessness. Their sincerity does not justify them. Their clear conscience does not soften or lessen the havoc of the church.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:34, p. 13-14
June 27, 1974

By James Sanders

The church at Ephesus had an illustrious history. The Lord Himself praised her labors, her toils and her patience. Ephesus had tried those who claimed to be apostles and had proved them liars. But something was amiss; Ephesus no longer had the flush of enthusiasm she had once enjoyed. The church at Ephesus had left her first love (Rev. 2:4). The preaching continued as it always had-the doctrine was sound and the application of the Text sure. But something had gone wrong. The church was working-even the Lord spoke of her labors and toils. Attendance, perhaps, was good-but something was missing. That something was the kindness of her youth, the love of her espousals (Jer. 2:2). Ephesus had left her first love.

But the Lord would allure her and speak comfortably unto her (Hos. 2:14). He would lead Ephesus along the way back home:

“Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent and do the first works; or else I will come quickly unto thee, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent” (Rev. 2:5).

First, He says Remember. Memory is the treasure house of the mind. It is here that precious monuments and joys are kept and preserved. Memory is the first step back home. The prodigal son remembered and so returned to his father (Luke 15:17). The first step of the way back home is to realize that something has gone wrong. As long as there is a memory which can wet the eyes with tears, there is hope for the wayward and the prodigal.

Second, He says Repent. Repentance is the most difficult step of all. Repentance is the humbling of the heart; it is the admission that the fault is ours and ours alone. The prodigal’s response was, “I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned.” Repentance demands that we face ourselves, our failures and our falls. There are many who take the first step of remembrance but never trod the path of true repentance.

Third, He says Do. The step of repentance is not meant to drive a man to despair. Rather he is to bring forth fruits meet for or worthy of repentance (Mt. 3:8). Repentance that does not compel a man to change his life is useless. Doing is the last step on the return journey.

Application

Christian reader, when was the last time you prayed earnestly? Can you remember what it was once like to sing psalms which would pluck the very strings of the heart? Would you not like to go back home again? When was the last time you really got something out of worship-when was the last time you put something in it? “All of God’s children get weary when they roam-don’t it make you want to go home@ – now?

Truth Magazine, XVIII:34, p. 12
June 24, 1974