Truth Magazine

By Luther Blackmon

“And the peace of God which passeth all understanding shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” (Phil. 4:7)

I like to lie in bed on stormy nights and listen to the rain beat on the roof and the wind moan through the trees outside. I think the reason I like this is because it gives me a feeling of security, or safety, to be protected from the elements. But this same storm that gives me a feeling of satisfaction and well-being may mean the death of another man somewhere. In like manner, the same tensions, heartaches, hardships, vicissitudes and uncertainties of life that are driving millions to seek escape in alcohol, dope, and the marts of sinful pleasure, are bringing others closer to God. When the pressures of living in this modern world are too much for the flesh alone, the faithful Christian finds a refuge in the promises of God. “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest; take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart and ye shall find rest unto your souls, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” “But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things, (material) shall be added unto you.” (Matt. 11:28-30; 6:33).

Many millions of dollars are being spent every year to maintain some semblance of peace in this turbulent world. In my humble opinion, the time is not far distant when the world will be thrown into a holocaust that will destroy civilization (?) as we know it. My reasons for this opinion are two: (1) From the strictly human side, it seems to me that two ideologies as antagonistic as those represented by the United States and Soviet Russia cannot long survive together in a peaceful world. Somebody is bound to get trigger-happy one of these days and set the fuse. It just isn’t human to have a new gun and not want to shoot it, and both sides in this affair are armed with every means of destruction that human wisdom can invent, (2) Looking through the eyes of the Old Testament prophets as they pronounced the everlasting doom of such ancient nations as Egypt, Syria, Assyria, Babylon and the Northern Kingdom of Israel because of their sins, it seems unlikely that He will continue to put up with this vaunted display of human wisdom and idolatrous worship of man’s achievements, to say nothing of the blasphemous disregard for decency and righteousness that is causing the nations to rot inside.

But whether he lives in quiet surroundings or in circumstances that strike fear to the hearts of brave men, the faithful child of God will have an inward peace that the world, and the half-hearted Christian can neither have nor understand. He is not terrified by the thought that the Russians might drop a bomb and destroy the city where he lives. If his doctor should tell him today that he has but a few months to live, after the shock of the news had passed, he would face it as calmly as one “who wraps the drapery of his couch about him and lies down to pleasant dreams.” He likes to live, but he is prepared to die. And whether in life or in death, he will glorify God. Whether in sickness or in health, in poverty or in wealth, whether his time be months or many years, he will be grateful and will use it as a sacred trust. In this man’s heart will abide the “peace of God that passeth understanding.”

But this kind of peace does not come to the Christian who is so busy in the pursuit of “things” that his heart has become a spiritual refrigerator, and the church is only a “place” where he comes for one hour each week to be “served” the Lord’s supper. I wish some of the members of the church could be made to realize what a mistake they made when they traded the “Peace of God” for a piece of the world that they can’t keep for very long, and that will be burned up when the day of the Lord comes. (Written Feb. 12, 1961)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:31, p. 11-12
June 6, 1974

By Harry E. Ozment

(EDITOR’S NOTE: See the May 9th and May 16th issues for the first two articles in this five article series on Calvinism.

Historical Background

A fundamental part of Calvinism is the doctrine of “Total Hereditary Depravity.” The doctrine actually had its beginning with Roman Catholicism and was the doctrinal springboard for infant sprinkling. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, p. 339, states: “. . . it is Catholic teaching that, as the result of his (Adam’s) sin, all men, except Jesus Christ and his blessed mother, are born . . . subject to death and concupisence, and deprived of grace.” Hereditary depravity is so essential to Calvinism, however, that it is now considered an integral part of Calvinistic theory. In fact, several prominent Protestant denominations teach “total hereditary depravity” in their creeds and manuals.

Definition

This doctrine, sometimes called “Original Sin,” simply teaches that the guilt of the original sin of Adam and Eve is inherited by each person at birth, so that with sin within the child’s heart, it is considered totally depraved or completely corrupted. The Presbyterian Confession of Faith explains the theory: “By this sin (eating the forbidden fruit) they (Adam and Eve) fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of thee soul and body. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.” (Chapter 6) This doctrine, therefore, presents three ideas that require examination:

(1) Sin is inherited.

(2) A child is in sin at birth.

(3) A child is totally depraved at birth.

Errors of the Doctrine

I believe that no man can actually look into the face of a newborn infant and honestly believe and declare that the child’s soul is stained completely black with sin. Certainly, the parents would not do such. The very thought of it is repulsive. This is why many churches that practice infant sprinkling now claim to do so in order to “dedicate the child to God.” Although even this is without Bible authority, this nevertheless indicates their efforts to disassociate themselves from such a distasteful doctrine as Hereditary Depravity. However, such a doctrine is not only distasteful-it is, more important, unscriptural because it:

1. Contradicts a plain Bible passage. God said through Ezekiel: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.” (Ezek. 18:20) Calvinism forthrightly and squarely contradicts this scripture. Theory has it that the son shall (and does) bear the iniquity of the father, while scripture has it that “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.” The issue resolves itself into whom are we going to believe God or Calvin! Some Calvinists, however, delight in confusing the issue by referring to Exo. 20:5: “For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.” Do these passages contradict each other? Of course not. The truth lies in the fact that Ezek. 18:20 is speaking of the imputation of guilt of sin, while Exo. 20:5 is speaking of the imputation of consequences of sin. The child might, and often does, inherit the consequences. of his father’s sin. For example, a child of a convicted killer might suffer at the hand of society because of his “bad name.” The child, however, would not inherit the guilt of his father’s sin (thus having to die in the electric chair)-simply because the child did not commit the murder.

2. Denies the Bible definition of sin. Although Calvinists do not admit it, they in effect deny John’s definition of sin: “For sin is the transgression of the law.” (1 Jn. 3:4) Transgression involves individual action-one must go beyond or fall short of the law in order to “transgress.” A newborn infant does neither-therefore, he does not “transgress.” Hence, according to John’s doctrine of sin, an infant cannot sin because he does not transgress. Calvinists would add to John’s definition of sin and have us believe, “Sin is the inheritance of the transgression of the law.” They need to read Rev. 22:18-19 and Gal. 1:6-9.

3. Destroys the Biblical description of children. Jesus said, “Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 18:3) I believe Jesus is here teaching the importance of conversion. He did not mean to teach that children are members of the church. Rather, he taught that unless we, as accountable,persons before God, change our hearts and lives to the innocence and humility of a child, we cannot be added to the church. The Old Testament psalmist describes children as “innocents” (Psa. 106:38), as does Jeremiah in Jer. 2:34; 19:4. Calvinistic scholars deny these inspired words. According to their doctrine, there is nothing about a child that a person trying to enter the kingdom should imitate, for a child is totally depraved. Would you believe this doctrine, or the doctrine of Christ?

4. Renders redemption and reconciliation impossible. Thayer defines “redeem” as “payment of a price to recover from the power of another.” Thayer defines “reconcile” as “restoration to favor . . . the blessing of the recovered favor of God.” Both terms involve the same idea-recovery. When an item is said to be “recovered,” it is necessarily inferred that the item had formerly been in the recoverer’s possession. When a child is born into this world, he is in a pleasing relationship with God (safe). When the child grows into accountability, however, he transgresses the law and sins (Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 3:10, 23; I Jn. 1:8, 10). When the blood of Christ is applied to his soul through baptism, this individual is then “recovered” into a pleasing relationship with God (saved). This process is called “redemption” or “reconciliation.” Redemption (or reconciliation) therefore necessarily implies that the redeemed was formerly in a pleasing relationship with his Redeemer. Calvinism denies this, and in so doing, they deny the possibility of redemption and reconciliation. Paul, though, delivers a death blow to this idea, for in Colossians 1, he shows that redemption and reconciliation both are possible: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:… and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled . . . .” (vv. 14. 20-21). If the words of Paul are true, Calvinism is impossible.

5. Rejects possibility of degeneration. “Degenerate” simply means to pass from a higher to a lower type or condition. The Bible. teaches that such is true of some men. For example, Paul said, “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse.” (2 Tim. 3:13). If Calvinism is true, how can this be possible? If men are totally depraved at birth, how can they become any worse? Either Paul was a liar, or Calvinism is a false religion.

6. Makes God the source of depravity. The inspired writer said in Heb. 12:9, “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live.” Just as our flesh contains traits of our earthly fathers, so our spirits contain traits of our heavenly Father (e.g., immortality). Therefore, if a person inherits a depraved spirit at birth, he inherits it from God! This would make God the source of all iniquity! How blasphemous! Jesus said, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (Jas. 1:17)

7. Assigns sin to nature of Christ. The New Testament reveals that Christ took upon himself the likeness of man. Paul said, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” (Phil. 2:5-7; cf. Heb. 2:16-18) If the “likeness of man” at birth consists partly of sin, was Christ a sinner when born of the virgin Mary? If so, Peter was wrong in 1 Pet. 2:21-22: “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did not sin, The Roman Catholic Church, which teaches “Original Sin,” anticipated this difficulty with their doctrind”; and so, in 1854 they formulated the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. This doctrine simply states that Mary was born without “original sin” and therefore did not pass any depravity on to Jesus. However, this idea has no scriptural foundation whatever-it is merely an arbitrary law designed by the Roman Catholics to rescue them from a position “between a rock and a hard place.”

Sin and corruption are certainly a part of every responsible individual (1 Jn. 1:8, 10). This, however, is certainly not inherited C it is committed by each respective person as a result of his own choice. Jesus said, AVerily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin@ (John 8:34). And Jude wrote, ABut these speak evil of those things which they know not; but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves@ (Jude 10).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:31, p. 9-11
June 6, 1974

By James W Adams

“What is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and never is? That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and never really is” (Dialogues of Plato, Timaeus).

The question raised in the preceding quotation and the answer given were in connection with speculative philosophizing concerning the origin of the world, but they so aptly describe conditions which now prevail among some “conservative” brethren that it seemed fitting to continue my article, “Afraid of a Good Man?” under this title. In some very prominent circles among “us,” ambiguity and equivocation which require endless explanations which do not explain and defenses which do not defend seem to be so much the order of the day that the scriptural posture of those involved seems to be that of “always becoming and never really is.”

The Bible Is Not a Theological Workbook

Someone has described theology as “the skimmed milk of the Word.” Others have with more truth than poetry described “theological seminaries” as “truth cemeteries.” God’s truth is addressed to the generality of mankind as a standard of faith and a rule of duty, hence projects itself as the basis of responsibility to God in life and accountability to God at the judgement on the part of man-the determining factor in man’s eternal destiny. It was not addressed to scholastics as a theological workbook to guide their learned minds in the erection of a speculative system of religious dogmatics, but to the average man as a bulwark of faith and a guide to conduct. Therefore, the Word of God, in its essential elements, cannot be ambiguous, equivocal, enigmatic, or variable. In a word, it cannot “be always becoming and never is.” To affirm less than this would indict, hence insult, the omniscience and omnipotence of Deity. Hence, it must be true that matters which agitate and divide professed Christians originate in human opinion and sensation rather than in reason and knowledge firmly rooted in and emanating from Divine Revelation.

The foregoing being true, it would seem that professed “conservatives” who subscribe to the “verbal inspiration and infallible authority” of the Sacred Scriptures should have little trouble being of one mind and one practice in the Lord, particularly with reference to all matters that are essential to becoming true servants of God and so living in that service as to spend eternity with God in heaven. Yet, it is not so, otherwise, why should the current controversy between Truth Magazine and the Gospel Guardian be going on?

“Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged”

Let it be noted that I am attempting desperately to cling to my original, clearly expressed assumption that all parties involved in the exchanges between these two journals are fundamentally sincere and are actuated by pure motives. Yet, I must regretfully acknowledge that my credulity in this regard has been taxed at times to its limits. Still, I have not joined, nor do I propose to join, the Gospel Guardian’s infallible interpreters of their brethren’s motives. I shall leave this to the “good men” of that fraternity.

A Passing Look at the Gospel Guardian’s Practical “Ethics”

As a preface to these remarks, I wish to state that, unless some unusual developments make it absolutely necessary to do otherwise, this will be my last reference to the Gospel Guardian and her editor. I wish to return to my review of W. Carl Ketcherside, his teaching, and his activities. In these final statements, I shall attempt to be as restrained as circumstances will permit. I shall do this for two reasons: (1) because I am yet somewhat confused as to what the stance of Brother William Wallace and the Gospel Guardian portends, hence must wait and see; and (2) because I have no desire to agitate unnecessarily a situation which could have inherent in it the potentiality of becoming a starting point for factious alignment on the part of conservative brethren generally, and this would be, not simply unfortunate, but sinful. In the last two articles which Brother Wallace wrote on these matters, he made it impossible for me to ignore what he had to say, even though my reply is tardy by reason of things over which I had no control.

It bothers me to have to observe that Brother Wallace has a bad habit of (wittingly or unwittingly) being careless with facts. He represents as fact that which is no more than his personal fancy. Also, he has a habit of insinuating without affirming. This is what is called “innuendo,” and it certainly classifies in the category of things which Brother Wallace in a recent editorial in the Gospel Guardian called, in Paul’s language, “carnal weapons” (2 Cor. 10:4).

Some weeks past, Brother Wallace and some of his colleagues formally bowed out of the controversy with. Truth Magazine and her scribes to devote themselves to their “family magazine.” Yet, since that time, the paper has literally reeked with articles which are unquestionably directed toward the controversy and which insinuate unethical conduct and extreme positions on Scriptural matters on the part of parties whom they oppose. The authors of these articles insinuate what they would not dare identify with specific persons and openly affirm as facts.

Since last January and the appearance of a publication called “Faith Magazine, ” numerous indignant brethren from all over the United States have approached me concerning it and its possible authors. I have told each inquirer the same thing; namely, that if its authors knew how little I cared about its scurrilous representations of me in satirical form, they would be greatly disappointed. They neither disturbed nor angered me. Many times, the greatest compliment to an individual and the position he occupies is the character of those who oppose them. One fault I did find with `Faith Magazine” was the spelling of its authors. Do they not know that filth is always spelled with an “i” and never with an “a”? Oh, yes, they also mailed everyone they could think of a free copy but did not send me one. How thoroughly inconsiderate of them this was!

I make these observations concerning “Faith Magazine@ to note that certain persons prominently associated with the Gospel Guardian seemed (during the Florida College Lectures) to be getting a great deal of enjoyment from its having been published. Those who derived pleasure from it and rejoiced in its having been published (even though their’ reactions were “mixed”) might as well have been its authors. The only reason such individuals were not would be either because they did not have brains enough (it was cleverly done), they were too penurious to spend the money which it obviously cost, or they did not possess the questionable courage that it took. It certainly was not because they had too much character to do it.

Furthermore, innuendo, which is the Gospel Guardian’s forte these days, is at least a double-cousin to anonymous satire, particularly when both are false and slanderous. “Faith Magazine” editors and publishers, cowardly reprobates and arrant falsifiers that they unquestionably are, demonstrated, in their publication, dedication to ethical (?) standards worse only in degree, not in kind, to those evinced by the Gospel Guardian in its present course. I told Brother Wallace during the Florida College Lectures that I would be willing to publish a statement saying I did not believe Gospel Guardian writers had anything to do with the publication of Faith Magazine. I made this offer because all who asked me about the matter (more than a hundred persons) also asked, “Do you suppose writers for the Gospel Guardian are behind this publication?” However, subsequent developments have made me wonder if my offer was premature. The Gospel Guardian’s writers were those with whom we were in direct controversy, hence naturally suspect, yet I have seen no public disavowal from a single one of them nor any criticism of Faith Magazine’s ethical journalistic standards.

Brother William Wallace bowed out of the controversy with Truth Magazine with two of the most vicious articles which have thus far appeared. Hi; references to Brother Roy E. Cogdill (without calling his name) in connection with the transfer of Cogdill’s books from the Gospel Guardian to Truth Magazine, his references to Brother Cecil Willis, and his references to me and my past relationship to the Gospel Guardian and its former editor and publisher were rooted in the grossest misrepresentation of facts, and this is not the first time I have caught Brother William in this type of thing. In his representation of these matters, Brother Wallace seems to be seeking to embroil the former editor and publisher of the Gospel Guardian in this controversy. Why? Does he do this with the consent of the brother in question, or does he do it without his consent? Is Wallace disappointed that no assistance has been forthcoming from this source, hence seeks by this means to obtain it? I make no such charge, but do ask.

The former owner and editor of the Gospel Guardian knows the truth about these matters. Brother Wallace knows only a very small part of it. If the brother in question feels justified in allowing Wallace’s misrepresentations to go uncorrected, so be it; it is his decision and he must answer only to God and his own conscience. I categorically deny the fundamental truth of Wallace’s allegations, and I regard his effort to use his misrepresentations as evidence of political maneuvering for some sort of brotherhood control and business monopoly to be beneath contempt. More than this I shall not say unless Wallace or some other undertakes to. establish the truth of Wallace’s allegations. Should this occur, I shall have much to say, and I am prepared to deal at whatever length is necessary with all matters involved with complete documentation, and, very probably, with far reaching consequences.

Not since New Christian Leader days (page Foy E. Wallace Jr. – William’s father – of thirty-five years ago) have I read in a journal published by the brethren as much about “love, being loveable, tolerance, journalistic ethics” and such like as I have in comparatively recent issues of the Gospel Guardian, with the possible exception of Mission Messenger (W. Carl Ketcherside, editor) or Restoration Review (Leroy Garrett, editor). One of Gospel Guardian’s co-editors (Gordon Wilson) recently treated its readers to a dissertation on “Journalistic Ethics.” While professing to know little or nothing about the subject, he proposed a code of journalistic ethics of his own contriving and shortly thereafter gave us the benefit of his exegetical genius by a miserable attempt to establish that Matthew 5:21-26 may be applied to doctrinal differences among brethren. He is not the first, nor will he likely be the last sympathizer with teachers of error, to make such an abortive effort. I trust Brother Wilson will not be unduly offended if I reject the ipse dixit on these matters and inform him that if I have any choice in the matter (and I think I do), he would not be the man I would choose to instruct me in ethics either in the field of journalism or in any other area of conduct.

One would think that the writers for the Gospel Guardian have just discovered “love, being loveable, practicing journalistic ethics, tolerance, respect, and desire for fellowship and unity.” However, their practice belies the fact that they have, in reality, made the discovery. Humble men do not have to advertise their humility; it is a self-evident virtue. By the same token, journalists do not have to advertise their devotion to “ethical journalism”, “the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.” It is axiomatic that demonstrable propositions are not debatable; demonstration does not admit of argumentation. So much for Gospel Guardian journalistic ethics, let us address ourselves to other matters.

The Gospel Guardian and Churches

Brother William Wallace has in recent months been involved in a campaign to defend and drum up support for the Gospel Guardian. It has been one of those political “take it to the people out at the grass roots” sort of thing. His campaign has involved a series of personal appearances at Wallace’s request in church buildings (wherever such was permitted). To further establish the “political” thrust of Wallace’s effort, let it be noted that he requested the use of the Pruett and Lobit Street congregation’s building (Baytown, Texas) for this purpose. This is quite significant since I was only recently the located evangelist of that church, Keith Sharp who has been engaged for some time it a controversy with Edward Fudge over his teaching, is it: present located evangelist, and Ron Halbrook’s father-in-lave is one of the elders. One would have to be blind, deaf, and dumb, besides border on being moronic, not to see the political significance of Wallace’s request of this church Did someone say something about a ‘Political Mr. Willis?

In addition to the obviously political character of Wallace’s campaign is the fact that he seeks church buildings in which to make his appearances. The proper forum for a vindication of the Gospel Guardian is the paper itself, and I do not mean by this sickly protestations of devotion to “ethical journalism” and being “loveable.” I mean, rather, the scriptural and practical soundness of the positions it espouses and the persons whom it defends and promotes. Practically every young man who has been a leader in promoting Ketchersideism among conservatives has appeared as a writer in the Gospel Guardian since the beginning of this controversy with no word of explanation. It is extremely significant that, only a short time ago, Brother Wallace was having journalistic spasms, based on misinformation, about a supposed developing combine between Truth Magazine and Florida College and designed to destroy the Red Bluff congregation of Pasadena, Texas. Now Wallace unashamedly seeks to use churches as a forum for a defense of his human institution-the Gospel Guardian. Would he endorse Florida College sending representatives of that school to churches, not to defend the scriptural right of such a college to exist, but to defend and promote that particular college? Would such collaboration, in his mind, tie churches and the college together in a combine which is unscriptural in character? Tell us Brother!

“Calling Names”

In previous articles, I have had occasion to mention by name several young men whom I sincerely believe to be secondary sources of Ketchersidean error among conservatives. This was done, as has been repeatedly stated, out of no ill will toward these young men nor with any desire to hold them up to public ridicule or contempt, but for their good and in the interest of God’s Truth. Barring unforeseen developments, this is my last reference to this aspect of the controversy, hence I feel constrained to review what has been done along this line.

I have mentioned by name only three young men, Edward Fudge, Jerry Phillips, and Randall Mark Trainer. Phillips was mentioned only casually in connection with the loss of a church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (of which he had been the preacher) to liberality relative to human institutions and the sponsoring church. Edward Fudge was criticized for his ambiguity, his liberal views on the question of fellowship, his adoption of Ketchersidean concepts regarding numerous passages of Scripture which faithful brethren have used for more than a hundred years to oppose innovations and pressing those concepts orally and in writing, and his acceptance of a quasi-Calvinistic concept of salvation by grace involving the imputation of the perfect, personal righteousness of Christ to the believer.

Fudge has said and written much in the intervening months, but I have neither heard nor read anything from him that would be calculated to inspire confidence on my part in his fundamental soundness. Until I do, I shall have to continue to regard him as being of questionable soundness in the areas mentioned. If other brethren and churches do not share this view, such is their prerogative. I have said what I have to say, and I believe I am right. Incidentally, I have heard two of Wallace’s defenses of Edward Fudge (Louisville, Kentucky and Lufkin, Texas). They were, in my judgement, complete fiascoes. They were completely inadequate and were demeaning to Brother Fudge. I sincerely recommend to Brother Fudge, in his own best interest, that he defend himself. He would do a much better job, and he certainly would reflect more dignity on his own person than Wallace did in his inane presentations. Let me, say without equivocation: I do not believe I have misrepresented Fudge in any important consideration unless it was to give him more credit in some areas than he deserves.

Randall Mark Trainer was criticized for his views on salvation by grace as it relates to baptism for the remission of sins and for his practice of associating himself with liberal congregations in places where there were faithful churches with which he could have associated himself. In this connection, I quoted a statement from a former schoolmate and friend of Trainer, whom I did not identify, who said he heard Trainer say that “baptism gave him trouble.” Brother Trainer denies having ever said this, and Truth Magazine gave him space on its pages to make his denial in as public a fashion as the charge. This was done with my complete approval. Yet, at the same time, having read a lengthy letter from Trainer to Lindy McDaniel on the subject of salvation by grace, it was apparent to me that baptism for the remission of sins did give him trouble, and I said so. This was a minor point. I did not, as Trainer and some of his friends and defenders assume, charge Trainer with not believing in baptism for the remission of sins. This was not the point. To the contrary, my statement was predicated on the fact that Trainer did so teach. My point was that his views on salvation by grace and baptism for the remission of sins were not consistent. His letter to McDaniel indicated his recognition of a possible inconsistency and confirmed in my mind the fact that baptism did. indeed, give him trouble.

Recently, I received a letter from Brother Charles Edmunson, one of Trainer’s friends, in which was enclosed an article on baptism written by Trainer. It was written in response to some sort of assignment which was a part of Trainer’s work at a denominational seminary in the Northeast that Trainer has been attending. I am glad to report that, apart from some objectional theological terminology, Trainer’s article teaches the truth on the design of baptism. However, if Brother Trainer ever has to meet an experienced Calvinist in public debate,, his views on the design of. baptism and salvation by grace will have to be modified and harmonized or he will be in real trouble. I have not seen nor have I heard anything from Trainer to inspire a restoration of confidence on my part in his fundamental soundness relative to the relationship which should exist between those who oppose .and those who endorse and practice institutionalism, sponsoring church cooperation, and the like. In fact, all that I know would tend to inspire a lack of confidence.

Having mentioned Charles Edmunson, I think it only right that his name should be placed beside those already mentioned. He is full of Ketchersidean concepts and sympathies. It was he, who while attending Florida College (where he made a distinguished academic record), .duplicated W. Carl Ketcherside’s articles from the Mission Messenger (after having removed Carl’s name and after having substituted instead “A Christian Brother”) and circulated them among the students in a covert manner. It has been he who has done much in the immediate past to agitate these concepts with considerable success among preacher students on the campus of Florida College. Some months ago, I received an impudent letter from Brother Edmunson concerning my statements involving Trainer and Fudge. Unless Brother Charles makes some significant changes, it would be impossible for me to recognize him as possessing an acceptable degree of soundness.

Barring unforeseen developments, this closes my discussion of these young men. If brethren wish to become involved with them, they do so in full knowledge of their background, hence will be responsible for whatever may develop. If these young men decide to change their concepts in harmony with truth, I shall be the first to offer them my hand. I stand ready at all times to be of any assistance which I am capable of giving to them to help them reach such a state of mind, and I pray that God may speed the day.

Conclusion

Brother William Wallace insists that Truth Magazine has blown-up Ketchersideism out of all proportion to the importance of its inroads among conservatives. He scoffs at the idea that the in part or in whole defection of some fifty preachers and numerous congregations should merit any great concern. Furthermore, he professes to know exactly how this problem should be handled. I asked him on the occasion of his Lufkin forum in the Union Road church building why, being so knowledgeable, he had done absolutely nothing about the situation. He excused himself on the ground of financial entanglements which requited him to do secular work. Now that he is no longer thus employed, shall we expect from him in the immediate future a thorough expose of Ketchersidean error that leaves nothing to be desired, and may we expect him through the exercise of his self-confessed winsome ways to reclaim all of the preachers and churches who are caught-up in the toils of Ketchersideism?

Surely, a man who knows so well how the job ought to be done will not withhold the fruits of his genius from us misguided zealots who have, in Wallace’s estimation, so bungled the matter. Cherishing the hope that my misguided and inadequate efforts (as Wallace described them to me at Lufkin) to expose Ketchersidean error may soon be made unnecessary by Wallace’s brilliant, thorough, Scriptural, and loving work of refutation and reclamation, I shall now return to the task of seeking in my own way to root out Ketchersideism, to which task I have set myself. By the way, I shall not be holding my breath until Wallace gets the job done, since I wish to be around awhile so he will have a classic example of unethical journalism to which he can point his ever-loving index finger.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:31, p. 6-9
June 6, 1979

By Cecil Willis

All religion finds its impetus in the worship of the infinite, transcendental Being that we know as God. When one worships God, he is paying homage or reverence to God. It is a physical impossibility for one to worship God unless there is an unfeigned faith in his heart that such a Being as God is a real entity, rather than the figment of one’s imagination. Only those who genuinely believe in the existence of God can render sincere praise and adoration to Him. For an unbeliever to try to worship God would be but folly and nonsense, because worship presupposes that one devoutly believes.

Throughout the history of mankind there have been varying amounts of atheism. Virtually from the beginning there has been some doubters. Especially throughout the past few centuries have there been atheists interspersed throughout the historical situations. History is replete with the names of men such as Voltaire, Ingersoll, Paine, and myriads of lesser lights. These men have had many idiosyncrasies. They have differed in many points, but one thing they held in common: they all denied there was a God.

The Biblical account recognizes that there are many unbelievers. It discusses the different classes of atheists, or declares why some men become atheists. We would like for you to think with us about some of the reasons why people become atheists. Not every person becomes an atheist for the same reason, just as it is likewise true that not every person turns to religion for the same reason. Some turn to religion simply because they are in despair. Others because they learn what the Scriptures teach, and so they become simple New Testament Christians because of their love for the truth, and because they love God and heaven and fear hell. So it is with atheists. Not all atheists are atheists for the same reason.

Influence of “Scholars”

First of all, there are many of our good young people who are made atheists because they are influenced by prestige. Many a mother’s heart has been broken over the unbelief created in the heart of her son or daughter because the youth has become engulfed with the personality of his or her unbelieving teacher. To many, even in our own land, unbelief is equated with scholarship. Believers are thought to consist of nothing but an uneducated, superstitious mass of gullible people. But nothing could be farther from the truth. The Bible teaches Christians to predicate their faith upon evidence. The apostle Peter commands us to: “sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear.” (1 Pet. 3:15). The Bible does not teach us gullibly to accept faith in God. In fact, the Scriptures teach that certain evidences were given to the Gentiles, so that they may be without excuse. They could have believed in God, had they only had their minds open. Paul says: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse.” (Rom. 1:18-20).

Yet so many of the world’s youth who have been nurtured “in the chastening and the admonition of the Lord,” depart from the faith, not because sound reason for unbelief has been offered to them, but because so many of the world’s educated men are unbelievers. Actually, relatively few of the world’s scholars are atheists. Believing scientists and philosophers are vastly in the majority. Nevertheless, a lot of the teenagers, and college students are jarred from their faith by ridicule from their associates. Rather than prepare themselves to answer the quibbles of skeptics, they acquiesce. They follow the path of least resistance, and forfeit their faith, thinking they gain in return for it, recognition as one of the learned.

A lot of these people never fully accept the consequences of their accepted atheistic philosophy. Without God, there is no longer any moral responsibility. One can no longer say I ought to do this or that, for there is no longer any real basis for an “I ought.” There is no criterion of moral responsibility. It was blasted into oblivion by their newly accepted unbelief. Atheism precludes moral responsibility. But actually these boys and girls, these young men and young women, fortunately, never live by the logical deductions of this theory of unbelief. They go right on living according to the moral code they learned from the Scriptures, yet they profess not to believe the Scriptures.

Moral Failures

On the other hand there is another kind of atheist. We might call him an atheist with a purpose. He became an unbeliever for a given purpose. He is the individual who labors to find some basis of unbelief in order that he may be relieved of any moral responsibility for his sinful life. He is what we may call the atheist made so because of moral failures. The Bible pictures this kind of man in vivid language. In Psalm 14:1, the scriptures say: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” Who says there is no God? The Bible says the “fool” says it. The word “fool” as used in this passage does not mean a lunatic, or a person mentally deficient. Here it has a different meaning.

We must remember that the Old Testament originally was written in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew word used in this passage, and here translated by the word “fool” is “often used in the Scriptures to denote a wicked man.” (Albert Barnes, Commentary on Psalms, Vol. 1, p. 113.) In fact, it is used many times in the Old Testament, and it is sometimes translated so as to imply wickedness. For example in Isa. 32:5, 6 the same word here translated “fool” is translated “vile person” (KJV). It means a wicked person. The word also came to mean “foolish” because of the recognized folly of wickedness. So the psalmist David is saying the wicked person who pursues the folly of sin says in his heart there is no God.

As we were studying the preceding kind of atheist, the kind caused by admiration of one’s atheistic teachers, we found that atheism will likely lead one into sin, but we find in this kind of atheism his sin leads the individual into atheism. This man recognizes that he is doing wrong, but rather than attempt any kind of correction of his fault, he attempts to justify his moral delinquency by seeking some basis upon which he can declare there is no God.

In Psalm 53 we find virtually the same language as we found in the fourteenth chapter as to why an individual will become an atheist. The writer there says: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none that doeth good” (Psalms 53:1).

You will notice in both these verses, it is said that the foolish man has said in his heart, there is no God. It may be that he never finds the courage audibly to express his unbelief, but nevertheless, because of his sinful manner of life, he has said in his heart, there is no God. The thought passes through his mind, and he reflects on it, and cherishes it. And even though this man never will openly say he does not believe there is a God, nevertheless he continues to live as though there were no God. His actions speak the sentiment of his heart, when his tongue is too fearful to do so.

In Psalm 10, David speaks of the activities of one of these wicked men, and describes how he seeks to justify his unrighteous deeds. He says: “For the wicked boasteth of his heart’s desire. And the covetous renounceth, yea, condemneth Jehovah. The wicked, in the pride of his countenance, saith, He will not require it. All his thoughts are, There is no God. His ways are firm at all times; Thy judgments are far above out of his sight: as for all his adversaries, he puffeth at them. He saith in his heart, I shall not be moved; To all generations I shall not be in adversity. His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and oppression: Under his tongue is mischief and iniquity. He sitteth in the lurking-places of the village: in the secret places doth he murder the innocent; His eyes are privily set against the helpless …. He saith in his heart: God hath forgotten, He hideth his face, he will never see it.” (Psalm 10:3-11). Notice why this man was an atheist. He had done certain vile deeds that he knew would bring about punishment if God existed. He was going to continue so to live, regardless of punishment impending, so he began to tell himself that there is not a God to punish you for your activities. So you can continue in them without fear of judgment. This is precisely the way most atheists are made. It is the result of sinful living.

The Agnostic

Then there is a third kind of atheist. He is what we may call an agnostic. The word agnostic simply means one who does not know. These people live upon the same earth, enjoy the Summer and the Winter, the blessings of the sun, moon and stars, just as do the devout believers. God sends the rain upon the just and the unjust, the Bible says. But in spite of the fact that these people are sharing the natural blessings of God, they still profess not to know whether He is existent or not. This is but another way to express unbelief.

Regardless of whether one wants to admit it or not, there are certain things that must be explained. Creatures are ere. The heavens and the earth are here. How did they come to be? Life exists. From whence did it, come? The believer proposes an explanation. He declares that the inspired Scriptures tell us how all these things came to be. We read in Genesis 1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The Bible likewise explains the ‘origin of man. It was not through the gradual development of some primordial cell that gave birth to higher forms of life, including man. The Bible, in Genesis 1, tells us that God, by fiat creation, made all these is. He spoke it into existence. He said “Let there be light, and there was light.” In Psalm 100:3, the writer says: “Know ye that Jehovah, he is God: It is he that hath made us, and we are his.” God is the creator of man. Man is not merely a glorified ape. He is the product of an omnipotent hand. He is the work of God, created in His image.

But our unbelieving associates, while denying the Bible offers adequate explanation as to the beginning of things, offer no better explanation. Indeed, quite often they offer no explanation at all. They simply propose to point out what is wrong with the Bible explanation of origins. We have no objection to one investigating the Bible account. In fact we encourage it. But if one is going to criticize the Biblical account of creation, and the Bible explanation of beginnings, he should have a better explanation to offer. If not, he should be hesitant to criticize.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:31, p.3-5
June 6, 1074