Truth Magazine

By Harry E. Ozment

Historical Background

One of the greatest periods of human history was the Protestant Reformation. Prior to this movement, the Roman Catholic Church held the world in a dark, corrupted, and stagnant mire. Out of this confusion arose great men of courage such as Martin Luther in Germany and John Knox of Scotland who were intent upon reforming the religious world. One of the greatest reformers and brilliant thinkers of his day was John Calvin. Although born in France, he had to flee for his life to Geneva, where he became a leader in the Swiss reform movement. At the age of 27, he wrote his famous Institutes, which set forth his particular theories of religion and introduced what we know today as “Calvinism.” Calvinism consists of five points of doctrine: (1) Predestination and Election; (2) Limited Atonement; (3) Total Hereditary Depravity; (4) Irresistible Grace; and (5) Impossibility of Apostasy. Although we may admire Calvin for his desire to reform the Roman Catholic Church, we cannot condone his “theorizing” in religious matters. Probably no set of doctrines could be found which is more destructive to faith in God’s word than the tenets of Calvinism. In spite of this fact, however, many churches teach Calvinism in their official creeds and many people hold to Calvinistic ideas.

Definition

The root of Calvinism is the doctrine of “Predestination and Election.” Before we can consider the doctrine at all, we must first have some idea of its nature and what it teaches. The word “predestinate” simply means to plan or determine beforehand. All will agree upon this. Therefore, the issue is not the meaning of “predestination” but rather the object of predestination.

It might be a surprise for some to know that the Bible does indeed speak of predestination and election. Paul states in Rom. 8:29-30: “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Paul speaks of the same idea in Eph. 1:4-5, 11: “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, . . . in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”

The Bible doctrine of predestination is a very simple one. In the beginning, God foresaw that man would sin. Man, of course, would not have the power to save himself from sinhe would need the grace of God. God realized this, and He formulated a scheme of redemption. In this scheme, God predetermined to save a collective group or body of people (otherwise known as the church). Any person can now become a part of this body by obedience to God’s scheme of redemption. That this is the Bible doctrine of predestination is proven by Paul in Eph. 3:9-10: “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God (this is what is involved in predestination-HEO), who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church (the object or fulfillment of God’s predestination, HEO) the manifold wisdom of God.”

The Bible doctrine of predestination, however, is not the predestination of Calvinism. Whereas Bible predestination involves an elected body or group to be saved (which any person can be added to), Calvinism’s predestination involves the election of individuals to be saved (which is exclusively limited to those persons chosen by God Himself). We read in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished …. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby he extendeth or witholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to obtain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.” (Chapter 3) The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, in commenting on Calvin’s theory, states: “Calvin’s mode of defining predestination was as the eternal decree of God, by which He has decided with Himself what is to become of each and every individual. For all, he maintains, are not created in like condition; but eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal condemnation for others.” (p. 2436)

Errors of the Doctrine

Such a doctrine, even on the surface, seems preposterous to any Bible believer. Indeed, this doctrine destroys the Bible picture of our all-perfect God. This Calvinistic theory:

1. Makes God a respecter of persons. In chapter 3 of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, we read: “Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving Him thereunto.” That, my dear friend, is respect of persons-pure and simple! A judge in our court system today would not be tolerated long at all employing these tactics. But the same denominational “scholars” who would condemn an earthly judge for showing respect of persons will, in their next breath, accuse God of the same thing and praise Him for it! Oh consistency, thou art a jewel!

The fact of the matter is that God’s infinite justice would not allow Him to act accordingly. This is emphasized again and again in holy writ. Peter said to Cornelius, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.” (Acts 10:34) Peter was trying to show Cornelius that he, as a Gentile, had a perfect right to obey the gospel and be saved. If God did not elect a particular nation for eternal salvation, how could he have been so unfair as to elect a particular person for salvation? Paul emphasized the same point in Rom. 2:11-12, “For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.” Now this is what we would expect from a fair and just God. It makes no difference if you are a Jew or Gentile (Acts 15:9; Rom. 10:12), bond or free (Eph. 6:8-9)-you will receive justice at the hand of God. Peter sums it up in I Pet. 1:17: “And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear.”

2. Makes the invitation of God foolish. The invitation of God is found in Rev. 22:17, “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” Jesus expressed it this way: “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.” (Matt. 11:28-30) Beautiful words, aren’t they? But absolutely senseless-if Calvinism is true. Why should God invite the lost to come to Him if they are to be lost anyway? Moreover, why should the lost accept God’s invitation if it would be of no benefit to them? My, what a doctrine-it robs God of His wisdom and robs Christianity of its beauty! Heaven forbid!

3. Makes the work of Satan unnecessary. The Bible reveals that there is a real person named Satan, and Peter explains his work in this way: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” (I Pet. 5:8) But why is this “devouring” necessary if Calvinism is true? In the case of the lost and “unelected” person, Satan already has full possession of his soul. It matters not how morally good that person might be nor how much he might desire to obey God-God has already consigned this person to the clutches of Satan! Why should Satan do anything in this case? On the other hand, in the case of a saved and “elected” person, his glorious fate is sealed and cannot be altered. It matters not how sinful and ungodly Satan might tempt him to be, he is bound for heaven because he was “elected.” Question: Why should Satan seek to “devour” this man if such is impossible? If Calvinism is true, there is no need for Satan to stalk about as a roaring lion, seeking to lead all down the broad way to damnation-God has already done his work for him!

4. Makes accountability to God impossible. If the parable of the talents teaches anything, it teaches that man one day must give an account of what he has done in this fife. “After a long time the lord of these servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.” (Matt. 25:19) There will indeed be a day of reckoning. Paul said, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” (2 Cor. 5:10) Calvinism, however, denies this is going to happen, for man has no control over his own fate and therefore is not responsible. If a man is not responsible, he cannot be held accountable. According to these denominational theorists, the judgment took place before the beginning of time in the mind of God. If Calvinism is true, why should there be another judgment at the end of time in which man gives account of something he had no control over?

5. Makes love for God impossible. The Psalmist once wrote, “O love the Lord, all ye his saints.” (Ps. 31:23a) This was important under the Old Covenant. Jesus said, “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.” (Mk. 12:30) However, how can man love God if Calvinism’s concept of Him is true? In I Jn. 4:19 we read, “We love him, because he first loved us.” But how much love does God show to that person who is consigned to the depths of hell even before he has a chance to draw his first breath? Yes, who could love a God who arbitrarily, despotically, and tyranically chooses some to be saved and others to be damned?

Calvinism is so destructive to the Biblical picture of God that it needs to be opposed with all the strength of Godfearing men. Even the Calvinists themselves admit how terrible their theory really is. Theodore Parker said, “The God of Calvinism is an almighty he cat, playing with the mice until he is ready to destroy them.” (The Christian, May, 1879, p. 3) It i, reported of Calvin himself: “Calvin confesses that this is a ‘horrible decree.'” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 2436) How could any Bible believer believe in Calvinism’s theory of predestination and election?

Truth Magazine, XVIII:27, p. 9-10
May 9,1974

By John McCort

Some of our brethren are beginning to accept and teach theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is the theory that God created life, but that He chose to create man and the various species of animals through a process of gradual evolution. This dangerous theory is gaining more popularity than many brethren are willing to admit.

Many accept evolution because they have been brainwashed to think that evolution is a proven fact rather than an unsubstantiated hypothesis. Many are under the mistaken impression that scientists have proven that man has inhabited the earth for many millions of years. Theistic evolution is nothing more than an illegitimate, hybrid compromise between infidelity and faith. The offspring of this illicit union is modernism in its rankest form.

Biblical Consequences

Acceptance of theistic evolution leads to a modernistic view of the Bible. One would be required to deny that God spoke man into existence and that the world was created in six days. The creation of Eve out of the rib of Adam would have to be denied. The Scriptures also teach that God created the animals and that they were to reproduce offspring after their own “kind.” Again, another portion of the Bible must be rejected, if evolution is to be accepted.

Those who accept theistic evolution must adopt an allegorical or symbolic view of certain portions of the Bible. In order to keep from rejecting the Bible completely, many theistic evolutionists take an allegorical view toward the six day creation, the special creation of Eve, animals reproducing after their own kind, and many other features of the Bible which contradict evolution. This is the beginning of modernism. Pandora’s. box has been opened, leading the way to an allegorical view of the resurrection of Christ, His virgin birth, His miracles, Jonah and the sea monster, and all of the supernatural events in the Bible.

Theistic Evolution And Faith

The moral and spiritual effects of accepting theistic evolution are devastating. Thomas Huxley once said, “It is clear that the doctrine of Evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation. As applied to the creation of the world as a whole, it is opposed to that of direct creative volition. Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe the Bible.” (American Addresses, p. 10, quoted in the International Bible Encyclopedia, p. 1048-B). Charles Smith, former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism, said, “The theory of evolution bankrupts the Bible . . . . If we descended from apes, we do not need a Savior . . . . If you accept evolution you must give up the Bible . . . . The theory of evolution is atheism; it substitutes the natural law for supernatural intelligence.” (Oliphant-Smith Debate, p. 112)

Moral Consequences

Acceptance of theistic evolution will ultimately lead to the acceptance of many immoral political and social philosophies. The most ignoble dictator mankind has ever known, Adolph Hitler, derived his basic political philosophies from the evolutionary theory. Hitler wanted to develop a “super-race” through “selective breeding.” He reasoned that all of the weak, crippled, retarded, and feeble needed to be exterminated because they would impede the development of his fabled “master-race.” This is an exponent of the survival of the fittest concept. Hitler’s diabolical career was the result of a life-long love affair with Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Mercy killing, selective breeding of human beings, and the killing of societies’ incapacitated are natural outgrowths of the evolutionary theory. Many people are now beginning to accept this social philosophy. Charles Smith said, “Weakness of mind and body are now transmitted to increasing numbers in each generation, when, Nature left alone, would weed them out.” He proposed that we just let the incapacitated die off like animals. He further states, “The crowning glory of evolution is to have shown how to improve the human stock-not by prayers to God; not even by education, but by selective breeding. “(Ibid, p. 76)

How long is it going to take us, brethren, to realize the spiritual crime we commit when we allow our children to accept this theory? How long are we going to allow them to be brainwashed while we meekly stand by? How many Hitlers will mankind have to produce before we take a stand? We hand our children the gun of spiritual suicide when we say nothing.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:28, p. 8
May 9,1974

By Cecil Willis

It would be interesting to have a complete list of all the papers published by members of the churches of Christ. Several years ago, I heard Dr. Claude Spencer, who was then Curator of the Disciples of Christ Historical Society in Nashville, say that he had counted more than 1300 papers published by men connected with the “Restoration Movement.” Recently Mission magazine published a report on 66 journals and magazines that currently are being published by members of the churches of Christ.

Would you be interested in what Mission (the most liberal journal among us) said about Truth Magazine? In a way, they complimented us; and in another way, they slurred us. Having surveyed the field of 66 religious journals now being published by the brethren, Mission then narrowed the field to seven which they called “Some Recommended Journals.” Of course, they featured the very liberal papers like Integrity, Mission, and Mission Messenger. But they suggested that if you wanted to read the other side (which some of our brethren will not do, as I propose to show in this article), then they said that Truth Magazine “is a well written and attractive weekly journal which presents rational writings by an ultra-conservative denomination of the brotherhood (it believes the Gospel Advocate to be liberal), and can be ordered from Box 403, Marion, Indiana 46952.” (Mission, January, 1974). Of course, we deny belonging to any “denomination,” either within or without “the brotherhood,” but we do admit that we are very (ultra) interested in “conserving” all the truth that God has revealed, and in following the pattern laid down in the New Testament for the kingdom of His dear Son. Let them call us what they may!

Each magazine has its own specific purpose. If a magazine does not have a stated purpose, it should have. Several of the papers listed in Mission are devoted entirely to teaching non-Christians. Some are prepared especially for Bible class teachers. Others are newspapers, others devotional in nature, and some are published to promote some special effort. Truth Magazine is published to provide a medium for Bible discussions of live issues. It is not designed with the non-Christian in mind. In fact, we actually would prefer not to sell a subscription either to or for a non-Christian. Truth Magazine is designed with mature Christians in mind. It is intended to spotlight, and then to root out incipient errors that might seek to destroy or to damage the Lord’s church. Simply stated, Truth Magazine deliberately intends to be a controversial paper. We intend to controvert every error, and to be in controversy with every purveyor of pernicious error.

Some may think we actually get some kind of sadistic pleasure out of this type of work. I wish that every brother was teaching the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that such had always been the case and always would be the case. But to expect such an Utopian world would be a tacit affirmation that the Devil has broken off militant contact with the people of God. As long as the Devil exists and his servants are at work, there will be the need for preachers and papers that will “reprove, rebuke, and exhort.” When a preacher or a paper begins to criticize that which is done or taught by others, that preacher or paper had better be prepared for the counter-attack. It is inevitable. I think it was Harry Truman who said, AIf one cannot stand the heat, he had better stay out of the kitchen.” Those of us who write for Truth Magazine have received our share of the heat. I am not disposed to whine about it, or to beg for anyone’s sympathy. Instead, we knew it was coming and we are prepared to pay the price of teaching truth and controverting error.

But I must admit that some incidents have occurred in connection with the controversy in which we recently have been engaged with some of the Gospel Guardian writers over the grace-fellowship heresy which have appalled me. Certain men who now are on the staff of the Gospel Guardian have been either teachers of error or sympathizers of those who do teach error for about ten years now. That we were going to have a sharp conflict over this Ketcherside-instigated grace-fellowship error has been evident for at least five years. Historically, I suppose we would have to give Brother Carl Ketcherside the dubious credit for creating and popularizing today the error now being taught on fellowship. But to Brother Edward Fudge must go the unseemly accolade for initiating the particular brand of error on grace among us that now is associated with the grace-fellowship heresy.

Certainly not everyone who writes for the Gospel Guardian, or even everyone who is on the staff of the Gospel Guardian, believes Brother Fudge’s Calvinistic position on the imputation of the personal righteousness of Christ to the believer. Certainly there are men on the staff of the Gospel Guardian who would oppose the renewal of fellowship with those who use the instruments in worship, and with the institutionalists. But virtually nothing from these brethren on these subjects has been heard within the pages of the Gospel Guardian. Why not, brethren? Is the door shut, so that you cannot be heard? If it is, then I would sever my relationship with such a journal. But if the door is open to you to oppose this heresy within the pages of the Gospel Guardian, that would be the most effective place to expose this error.

William Wallace

Brother Bill Wallace and I have been very close friends for many years. He is a very likable man, and most congenial ordinarily. This past week I received a letter from a close friend of mine who said I had “a head of flint.” I take it that he thinks I am a little hard-headed. In my judgment, that is not too bad a trait, if a man is right. But if a man is wrong, that trait certainly can work against his own spiritual self-interest. Brother Bill Wallace also has a slightly hard head, and he has persistently set out to defend Brother Edward Fudge, and it appears that he is willing to sink with Brother Edward Fudge. He refuses. to see what serious error Brother Fudge is advocating, and refuses to cease to try to cover-up for a false teacher. Bill’s father, Brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr., made it very evident thirty or forty years ago that he had as little use for a sympathizer with a premillennialist as he had for the premillennialist himself. Brother William Wallace’s chief crime in this whole matter has been his continued determination either to cover-up for, or to exonerate by his ipse dixit, a false teacher. It grieves me to see a man who has enjoyed the respect of the brotherhood to permit his influence for good to be eroded and damaged so seriously by his effort to protect a false teacher, who in all probability will go further and further into the Calvinistic error to which he has committed himself. Calvinism is a system, and it is logically impossible to accept one part of it without accepting all parts of it, unless one is willing to stop in very evident inconsistency.

One of the little petty things that really disappoints me in my brother, Bill Wallace, is his complete refusal now even to receive Truth Magazine on a complimentary basis. From his Kentucky Bible Banner days down through the days of his association with Truth Magazine, Bill Wallace again and again chided prejudiced brethren who would not even read what those who disagree with them have to say. That precisely is the unenviable position in which Brother Wallace now finds himself. In a letter dated January 16, 1974, Brother Wallace wrote me:

“Dear Cecil: We are convinced that reviews we get in the pages of Truth Magazine will continue to be unfair, inaccurate, and misrepresenting. So we are cancelling our exchange arrangement with you and taking your name off our mailing list. We request that you delete our name from the mailing list of Truth Magazine and send us no more copies. If you want to continue receiving the Gospel Guardian we would honor your subscription at the regular rate of $6.00 per year. I do hope you will honor our request and not send your paper to us anymore. Yours fraternally, William E. Wallace.”

Now, doesn’t that take the cake? When I got the letter, I breathed a deep sigh of disgust, and dutifully sent in payment for the Gospel Guardian. I want to continue to read what those brethren have to say, whether their ears are open to what we have to say or not. About a century ago, a very disgusted Isaac Errett “wrote off” David Lipscomb, and said, “I’m done with David Lipscomb.” And then Errett proceeded even deeper into the digressive quagmire. It would be interesting to know what papers are still on the Gospel Guardian exchange list. If I were a betting man, I would stake a few dollars on the chance that Mission, Gospel Advocate, Firm Foundation, Mission Messenger, Restoration Review, Integrity, and perhaps even the Christian Standard are still on the Gospel Guardian exchange list. We have opposed the Calvinistic error taught by Brother Fudge, and so those who are at the helm of the Gospel Guardian do not want to read Truth Magazine any longer, even if it is sent to them free. I must confess that this disposition and this action on their part is a very “disappointing incident” tome. Quite frankly, I had thought all the men connected with the Gospel Guardian were bigger men than that.

The brethren who own and operate the Gospel Guardian told us some time ago that they intended to turn the Guardian into a “Twentieth Century Christian-type” family journal. I guess about the easiest way to bow out of a controversy is to cease to read what your opponents have to say. It seems that I remember that not too long ago, the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation felt toward the Gospel Guardian as Editor Wallace now feels toward Truth Magazine.

Edward Fudge

Nothing Edward Fudge has taught recently, or will teach in the future, will surprise me much. For about ten years, I have known that he was a badly mixed up young man. On three different occasions, Brother Bennie Lee Fudge (Edward’s father) talked with me about his concern as to where Ed was headed. Brother “Bennie Lee” told me that he nearly knew Edward would end up in the “Ketcherside camp.” Clifton Inman told me that “Bennie Lee” expressed similar apprehensions concerning Edward’s soundness when they met at a Chicago Book-seller’s convention several years ago. Several other brethren have told me that “Bennie Lee” expressed the same apprehensions to them about Edward. So what he has taught, and will yet teach, has not surprised me much.

But his attitude and actions in this discussion have been another “disappointing incident” to me. Some months ago, Brother Fudge told us that he did not have to worry much about Paul’s injunction that the Lord’s servant should not strive, because God endowed him by nature with a peaceable spirit; with a meek and quiet spirit. His statement reminds me of a preacher I heard in Tampa while I was a student. Someone asked him, “To what do you attribute your great success as a preacher?” He replied, “I attribute my great success as a preacher to my great humility!” Digressionists, from Isaac Errett on to the present, always have tried to impress their hearers with their super spirituality. You can get a good dose of that out of nearly any issue of Mission Messenger.

Brother Fudge also has tried to leave the impression of some kind of super piety. Study a little history, brethren. Nearly every modernist begins by trying to destroy our “formality” and by trying to increase our “spirituality.” They usually end up substituting some kind of a subjective religious experience for the objective Word of God. Brother Wallace has said publicly that Brother Fudge could not endure what he (Wallace) took in Louisville in the open forum as he sought to defend Fudge, without “blowing. his cool.” And I will have to give Bill plenty of credit. There are very few who could take the severe grilling he took, in Ed’s behalf, in Louisville, without “blowing his cool.” I marveled at how well William handled himself when he was being grilled and pressured by nearly everybody in the audience. Bill went through every kind of contortion imaginable in his effort to exonerate Ed from the charge of false teaching. But he was attempting the impossible.

Cled Wallace was a favorite writer of mine. I have enjoyed reading after him, especially during the Bible Banner days (1938-1948). Brother Cled was often engaged in controversial writing. He said on one occasion that he always had to suppress a strong desire to stick a pin in G.C. Brewer (one of Wallace’s adversaries), and let a little of the air out. Brewer was one of the earliest defenders of the sponsoring church and of church support of colleges. I sometimes feel the same urge to stick a pin in some of these super pious brethren, and let a little of the air (piety?) out.

To show you that Edward Fudge is not the super-cool, super-scholar, super-pious fellow he would like everyone to think he is, let me relate to you the following incident. Ron Halbrook and some other brethren (including Steve Wolfgang) passed through Athens on Friday, February 22, 1974. They went by the CEI Store, and visited a while with Edward Fudge. As they started to leave, Edward told Ron he wanted to tell him something. Edward began by saying, AI just want you to know that your quoting those letters from our Florida College friends was the lowest, dirtiest thing I have ever seen.” This was a reference to eight brethren who wrote Ron verifying that Edward had been a Ketcherside sympathizer since his Florida College days. Edward then charged all eight of his former schoolmates with lying about him, and stated that he almost engaged him a lawyer about the matter.

Ron said that Edward then continued Ain the most abusive language (in the context of a religious discussion) I’ve ever heard or been subjected to.” Edward’s boisterousness had made a first-class “scene” of the encounter, since they were in a public place and customers were coming and going . . . and watching and listening. Edward charged that Ron had spread “damn lies” about him all over the country, and then took off “on another string of abusive adjectives . . . . ” Ron asked Edward, “Do you still believe we have fellowship in Christ with those who use instrumental music?” And Edward replied, “Don’t you believe you have fellowship with those who disagree with you on some things?” Edward’s answer constituted a “Yes” answer to Ron’s first question. Ron went on to explain the difference between matters of faith, and matters of opinion. Ron sought to show Edward that there is a difference between issues like going to movies and wearing slacks, and issues like instrumental music in the worship.

This encounter ended by Edward saying, “Well, you just go on teaching your legalistic way to heaven instead of turning to the grace of God.” Steve Wolfgang heard most of the conversation, including the “damn lies” statement, but Steve said “its still hard to believe.” Wolfgang also said that he wanted to say a couple of things himself, “but he was so taken aback at the tirade of abusive language that he couldn’t get his thoughts organized.”

Two months have passed since this encounter occurred. I had determined that if Edward apologized for his conduct and his language, I would say nothing about it. But he has let this matter stand as is for several weeks now. Some brethren have thought that Brother James Adams and I were too hard in our dealing with these matters, but we have not used such crude language as “damn lies” in dealing with it.

Brother Fudge may feel that he does not owe anyone an apology. After all, he holds very broad views about the grace of God. He thinks that the personal perfect righteousness of Christ will be unconditionally applied to the Christian at the judgment, and that this imputed righteousness will cover sins such as instrumental music and institutionalism. He, and his proteges, teach that “sins of ignorance” and “sins that result from the weakness of the flesh” will not damn the soul of the Christian, even though these sins are never repented of, or confessed, or prayer made for their forgiveness.

Brother Fudge may think that his explosion that brought out the “damn lies” statement was a sin that resulted from the weakness of the flesh, and therefore does not have to be corrected. Perhaps the imputed perfect personal righteousness of Christ will cover for his “damn lies” statement too. Or, perhaps Brother Fudge thinks that he was using the expression “damn lies” like the apostle Peter used “damnable heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1). But that will not work either. Brother Fudge believes that “sins of ignorance” will not “damn” one. If we have misrepresented Brother Fudge in any way, it has been inadvertent, and at the worst ours could only be a “sin of ignorance,” and no one will be damned for those sins . . . as per Brother Fudge. So it will be very interesting to see what disposition Brother Fudge makes of this incident. It does not sound as though it was his God-given “meek and quiet” spirit that was showing through on February 22, 1974.

Such an incident as this just related disappoints me. We all would like to think that we can discuss doctrinal differences without the discussion reverting to an abusive tirade. Some of Brother Fudge’s most avid defenders believe that a Christian is “always in the grace of God.” In view of Brother Fudge’s recent action, indeed it would be “a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort” (in the words of the Methodist Discipline on “faith only”) if the Christian is “always in the grace of God.” This point we will have to explore later.

Doyle Banta

Brother Doyle Banta is a well-known preacher and was recently appointed Associate Editor of the Gospel Guardian. A gospel preacher reported recently that he heard Brother Banta say that he hoped an airplane would come crashing right through the roof of my house, and he hoped it was a big one too! My, my, Brother Banta! I certainly hope that does not happen. I might add, if Brother Banta should happen to be on-board that plane as it came crashing through the roof of my house, it would have to be a great big one! (Pardon the “pun,” but Brother Banta frequently refers to himself as the “biggest preacher in the brotherhood.” He refers to his physical size, and is not immodestly appraising himself as a preacher.) How childish can grown men get? So far as I can recollect, Brother Banta and I never have had a cross word about anything. Did he really mean that he would like for a big airplane to come crashing through the roof of my house? If he did not, he should not make remarks like that. Brother Banta sounds a little like the “Sons of Thunder” referred to in Mark 3:17 who wanted to call down from heaven fire upon the heads of the Samaritans (Lk. 9:54).

My wife and children said they certainly hoped that no big plane crashed through the roof of our house, for I would probably be off in a meeting somewhere, and they would be the ones that got “racked-up.” Brother Banta, do you remember who it is who has been writing in the Gospel Guardian on “Marks of Maturity” and the fine series on “Turning Stumbling Blocks Into Stepping Stones”?

Conclusion

No doubt there are some serious doctrinal disagreements among us. Do not ever lose sight of what this controversy is about: Some of our brethren, led by Brother Edward Fudge, desperately are trying to establish some ground upon which we can fellowship the institutional brethren and perhaps a few of those who use mechanical instruments in worship. When they start off with their, “Is there anything about the Bible you do not know?”, or “Is it possible that you may be wrong on a single point?”, or “What would happen to a fellow who was thinking about his sermon and his speedometer tipped over to 56 miles per hour, and one second later he dropped dead?”, just remember that they really are not concerned about the points raised in these questions. Their real concern is to establish some rationale that will permit them to fellowship brethren in churches which support human institutions or work through sponsoring churches, and to fellowship some in the more conservative Christian Churches. And don’t you ever forget it!!!

But while we discuss these issues brethren, can’t we do without prejudice that would prevent you from even reading Truth Magazine? Can’t we do without such vulgarism as saying someone is telling “damn lies” about you? And please, Brother Banta, quit hoping that a big airplane will come crashing through my roof. Reckon God might grant your wish? Reckon you should pray that God might grant your wish?

Such an outburst as this from Brother Banta reminds me of a letter Yater Tant, former Editor of the Gospel Guardian, received perhaps twenty years ago. Some “dear” brother wrote stating that he hoped Yater “had a rapid demise, so that I will get the privilege of spitting on your (Yater’s) grave.” Yater, in good hurrior, replied, “Now hold on, little buddy. A fellow does not get a rare privilege as that so easily. You will just have to wait your turn in line.” Then Yater commented that the more dealings he had with brethren like the one who had written him, the more possible it was for him to join in their prayer that he might have a “rapid demise.”

Incidents like these that I have called “disappointing” do not really upset me. They indicate to me that these brethren are frustrated in their effort to defend what they have espoused, and are lashing out in their frustration. It would be very interesting to read my mail from the “goody goodies” who think we are the “big bad wolf” if someone in Truth Magazine should react as some have reacted among the Gospel Guardian staff. It is not too difficult to make me angry, but flailing and thrashing incidents like these just mentioned do not make me angry. Actually, I guess I am more inclined to laugh, when I should be weeping over the deeds of these distraught brethren.

Brother Banta has made some good points in his articles on “Marks of Maturity” and “Turning Stumbling Blocks Into Stepping Stones.” It would behoove us all to quit our repeated stumbling, and to mature into the likeness of Christ. Even when evil was done to Him, instead of rendering evil for evil, He returned a blessing. As we have challenged the teaching of Brother Fudge, we have not done so with any evil intention. If we have to undergo ridicule (as in (Faith Magazine), or reviling as mentioned in this article, such shall not deter us from making a sincere effort to “continue in the grace of God” (Acts 13:43), and to “speak truth,” and to rebuke error and those who teach it . . . the Good Lord being our Helper.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:27, p. 3-7
May 9, 1974

By Morris D. Norman

A controversy between brethren emerges and inevitably someone will say, “Who is right?” Or, “Which side will you take?” It is just possible that no one is right. While it is desirable to walk in agreement with all brethren (this is what God pleads for) it is not always possible. In almost every controversy, the issue will come to involve personalities, and when such is the case, it is a strong person who does not, in some way, manifest an ugly attitude. When personalities and attitudes are inserted, they often becloud the issue and we “line up “with people. More than “Who is right, “we ought to be concerned about “What is right.”

We should be concerned for brethren in every controversy. Often we find ourselves on opposing sides to dear friends, or a dear brother is “attacked” because of his position on an issue. In either case we must try to be objective in our study so as to determine where truth is. We ought never to ‘line up” with any brother or paper but with the truth.

We should never be obligated to defend any man. We are urged to “contend earnestly for the faith”(Dude 3); to be “set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:17); and “strive together for the faith of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27). We are obligated to ‘preach the word . . . reprove, rebuke, exhort” (2 Tim. 4:1, 2). We are to be on guard against departures from the truth (Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim. 4:1). As we fulfill this we will find brethren in error. As we oppose error we will see the necessity of opposing brethren who hold error. Even then, as we oppose our brethren, it must be for no other purpose than exaltation of truth. When Paul found it necessary to withstand Peter, it was because Peter’s actions were sinful, opposed to the truth of the gospel, and he had great influence among saints to draw certain ones away after him (Gal. 2:11-14).

Spiritual brethren are to restore erring brethren in the spirit of meekness (Gal. 6:1). The servant of Christ is not to strive, but teach with gentleness, meekness and patience (2 Tim. 2:24-2fi). But, “them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (I Tim. 5:20). Often we may be able to defend and teach truth and oppose error without dealing in personalities. This seems to be the case of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians. He severely rebuked the false teachers at Corinth, describing and opposing their false doctrine without naming them. On other occasions it may be impossible, for we find Paul and John naming those who were subverting truth. It takes great wisdom to determine when brethren in error must be named and opposed, but when the time comes it must be done for the triumph of truth.

So as controversies arise among brethren over issues that are divisive and concern error, let each of us be set for the defense of truth, study as objectively as possible so as to determine “what is right,” not so much as “who is right. ” If this means we must part company with dear friends, then let it be, for only truth will triumph. If dear friends must be rebuked for error, let us not attack the one who does the rebuking (unless his attitude is wrong, then rebuke him for improper attitude) but rather exhort the gainsayer because of your love for him. Follow no man wherein he does not follow truth. Brethren, this is important and basic. Pray God for wisdom to apply it correctly. The soul you save may be your own; be objective to truth.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:27, p. 2
May 9, 1974