Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The first time that I heard a review of situation ethics, was amused at the apparent self-contradiction which lay in its premises. The first universal law of situation ethics is that there are no universal laws! Being self-contradictory, the system falls.

Similarly, I cannot help being a little amused when I read Carl Ketcherside’s Mission Messenger. Regardless of what he titles his articles, and some titles are eye-catchers, I know that he is writing on the same subject-unity-in-diversity. His main doctrine is that one must not have conformity in doctrine in order to have unity. Ketcherside goes to and extreme to get “conformity in doctrinal belief” to his doctrine which says “doctrinal conformity is not essential to unity. “Like the situation ethicist, he has a system based on self-contradictory premises.

While I might be amused at its self-contradiction, I am amazed that our brethren are believing the false doctrine. Men who have never even heard of Carl Ketcherside believe the very doctrine which he is promulgating. Brethren, let us wake up and study the issues that we might be prepared to prevent another major apostasy. Preach on the doctrines being attacked. The best defense is a strong offense!

Truth Magazine, XVIII:22, p. 14
April 4, 1974

By Joe Neil Clayton

Chosen But Stiffnecked

When Stephen told the Jews of his day that they were “stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears” (Acts 7:51), he was not saying anything new! God had perceived early that this was the perennial condition of His “chosen” people. Only a few days after God had spoken in thunderous tones from the top of Sinai, and had warned His people, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me . . . Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image” (Exod. 20:3-4), they had made a golden calf to worship. God said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people” (Exod. 32:9). He wanted to destroy them right there, but Moses interceded. God placed conditions, however, on the staying of His wrath. They were to put away their ornaments as an act of submission to God (Exod. 33:1-6).

When Moses returned to the mountain with the second set of stone tables, God demonstrated and proclaimed His character before Moses. He declared himself to be both merciful and just, forgiving and condemning. But, Moses worshiped Him and boldly asked that He go “in the midst” of them, even though they were stiffnecked, and in need of constant forgiveness (Exod. 34:1-9). God consented and made a covenant with Israel, requiring them to reject and destroy idolatry in their midst (Exod. 34:10-17).

God once more was roused to such wrath that he threatened to destroy Israel, when they refused to go into Canaan (Num. 13:1-14:35). He forgave them generously, again, but when they came to the point of entering Canaan after 40 punishing years of God’s wrath, that purged multitude was warned against thinking they deserved to have the land. God said, “Hear, O Israel, thou art to pass over the Jordan this day, to . . . disposess nations greater and mightier than thyself . . . Speak not thou in thy heart . . . saying, For my righteousness Jehovah has brought me in to possess this land . . . Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thy heart, dost thou go in to possess their land; but for the wickedness of these nations Jehovah thy God doth drive them out . . . for thou art a stiffnecked people . . .” (Deut. 9:1-7). So, God would not tell the remnant that they were blessed, even though they were certainly purged of hundreds of thousands of the wicked rebels of the past. The prophet Moses warned them that God would choose another nation and people to repay them for their provocations (Deut. 32:21).

Throughout the remainder of the history of God’s relations with the children of Israel, He published clues to His policy of the future. He urged them to look for a day, called “Today,” an opportunity to hear his voice again, and warned them to resist the hardening of their hearts, such as characterized their fathers (Psalm 95:7-11, Heb. 3:7-4:13). He also predicted the change of the covenant, so as to include in it only those who would keep His law in their hearts (Jer. 31:31-34). He would even identify the Gentiles as the “people” to whom he would turn when he could no longer bear the rebellion of the Jews (Isa. 65:1-7). In fact, the work of the longed-for Messiah would be to also save the Gentiles (Isa. 42:1-4, 49:5-6).

When God came to the day that He no longer followed a policy of being a national God to Israel, He accepted into His kingdom only the cream of the crop. In His “nation” there would no longer be only a minority of “heart circumcised” people. Rather, He would win them first to this standard of character before He included them in His fold. It would be learned first by Peter that “in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to Him” (Acts 10:35). God sought men who were “ordained to eternal life” (Acts 13:48). They would be those who were susceptible to the “election of grace,” whether Jew or Gentile (Rom. 11:1-7). Finally, they would be those who believed and confessed and called upon God (Rom. 10:913).

Now, does God say He will retain in His favor those who are faithless or disloyal? No. He rejected the nation of Israel because of their unfaithfulness, but he warns those Gentiles who have taken their place that they must retain it by faith (Rom. 11:11-24). So, God now deals with individuals, instead of nations. His standard is such as will include every soul that submits faithfully to His will. He will no longer bear the stiffnecked in His chosen people. The opportunity for salvation is universal, but the standard is high. The glory of being included in the Kingdom of God cannot be comprehended, until God takes the redeemed of all nations into His eternal home. Yet, the enticement of the inadequate descriptions of that glory are enough for those who “by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption.”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:22, p. 10
April 4, 1974

By Weldon E. Warnock

My article, “A Few ‘Licks’ for Florida College,” was far more powerful than I realized. I thought it was mediocre, to say the most, but evidently I was wrong about its impact. Brother Jeffery Kingry has been provoked by it to write two responses, the second of which appears in this issue. Apparently, he was not satisfied with his first one. I ignored brother Kingry’s first reply, believing that no worthwhile purpose could be served by responding. However, his second article leaves me no choice but to say a few things.

I have re-read my article that has given Brother Kingry such a tizzy and I fail to see where I misrepresented anybody. Jeff said that I misrepresented Brother Royce Chandler. This is news to me! Since when is Royce Chandler spelled, “some brethren,” or “these brethren?” I am sorry that Jeff does not like the way I write, but I write as I see fit and will continue to do so.

It is to my chagrin that brother Royce Chandler’s name has been brought into this matter. Royce is a most dedicated, sincere Christian as well as a capable and competent preacher. I imagine that I know Royce better than Jeff does. He needs no unsolicited defense of himself. He is most able to take up for himself. But Brother Chandler was misunderstood by brethren in the May, 1973 issue of Torch. Brother Chandler wrote, “Secular courses taught by Christians are desirable and almost universally admitted. Why not concentrate on teaching these secular subjects in an atmosphere of belief, and just disband the organized Bible departments? What would it hurt? If the main function of a school is to provide a secular education taught by believers, then what harm would be done to that function by disbanding the Bible department? When we each do our own work, such things as Bible departments or any other questionable organization will have no need to exist.” You can readily see why brethren would get wrong impressions from these excerpts, except brother Kingry, of course.

Granted that Brother Chandler’s article prompted me to write mine, I certainly made it general enough to catch every brother who is opposed to Bible colleges and broad enough to miss Royce if he were misunderstood (which he was). Is not Jeff aware of some preachers who are opposed to the Bible being taught at Florida College, even some young preachers who attended F.C.? Where has he been the past few years? There is nothing wrong with my article and those who defend the Bible college must do so on the same basis that I did. It would be interesting to see Brother Kingry write an article in defense of the Bible department of Florida College and refute those who argue the unscripturalness of such an arrangement. What about doing this for us, Jeff?

One of the board members of Florida College wrote me and said, “Appreciate very much your article, ‘A Few ‘Licks’ for Florida College.’ Those of us on the Board of Directors appreciate your backing of the school in all matters when we are right.” (Jeff, you can guess who the board member was, and if you ask me point blank as you did about Royce, I will tell you who it was, also.) I appreciate the commendable words above and I am happy to be able to commend Florida College to the youth of our day. I am glad that it exists and value all the good it does. We need more to personally get behind the school and lend their moral and financial support. Actually, if Brother Kingry’s approach is indicative of being a staunch friend of Florida College, the school needs no enemies.

A fellow-preacher wrote Jeff a letter, a copy of which was sent to me, “I have just finished reading your article, `Let’s Put It In The Light’ and also recall reading Weldon’s article on Florida College. In my opinion, Weldon’s brief article was both fair and honest. It had several good points; apparently in Weldon’s judgment, the matter was best dealt with generally, and I whole-heartedly concur. I believe you overlooked this important point.” Is it not strange that this brother thought my article was fair and honest, but Jeff thought it was divisive and misrepresentative?

Interesting enough, the article that Brother Kingry is trying to defend (Brother Chandler’s article) is a general article. Brother Chandler wrote, “If that is true and we believe it (that is, the church is perfectly equipped to build itself up, W.E.W.), why do some of us hold so vehemently to the absolute necessity of maintaining a college Bible department for the training of young men to become preachers and elders?” Who did Royce mean by “some of us?” Jeff, did you chastise Royce for his ambiguity? If not, you had better get at it or you show partiality toward brethren. Really, I do not know of any among us who believes in the “absolute necessity” of a college Bible department. I believe the church can get along without such a department, but this is not the reason brethren established a Bible department at Florida College. It exists because of the benefits it affords young men and women. We could get along without Torch and Truth Magazine, as well as all the others, but we must agree that they can be a valuable asset to edification. The same thing is true with college Bible departments.

In conclusion, may I say that “it has come to a sad state of affairs when a supporter and former alumnus of the school” cannot write a general article about the merits and right of the Bible department in the school without being branded as guilty of misrepresentation.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:22, p. 8-9
April 4, 1974

By Jeffery Kingry

It was obvious from the articles “A Few Licks For Florida College” (Truth Magazine, Nov. 22, 1973) that Brother Weldon Warnock was reacting to material that appeared in the May 1973 issue of Torch magazine by Royce Chandler. While in Tampa, Florida for the 1974 Florida College lectures, Brother Warnock confirmed this to me in conversation. But, at the time I wrote my plea to Weldon asking him to be more specific I did not know this. I did not want to fall prey to the very thing I sought to rebuke: Misrepresentation. Brother Warnock has misrepresented Brother Chandler, and in effect labeled all those who agree with what was written by Royce, as being opposed to the school’s inherent right to exist. I can sympathize with Brother Warnock, for he reacted out of a desire to defend something which is very precious to him. No man can find fault with that. But, misrepresenting brethren and what they believe works no good to them, to the school, and does great disservice to Brother Warnock’s own effectiveness as a teacher and a preacher.

The events of the past twenty years should serve to remind us what happens when brethren confuse and mix “issues.” Classical Sommerism is one thing . . . the all sufficiency of the church is another. I would oppose the brother who claimed that an educational institution could not be privately run by a brother. I would oppose the brother who claimed that the educational institution can do anything for the church just as strongly. Brethren Needham and Chandler have not taken a Sommer view towards privately run secular schools, but have addressed themselves to the latter issue. Responses such as Brother Warnock’s, and of some who have recently written me, tend to drive brethren to the Sommer view rather than away from it.

The only way this human institution will remain viable and useful to parents and students is when it is constantly criticized in a constructive manner to keep it useful. It is indicative of the very problem Torch has vocalized that I would feel called upon to state that I am a supporter of the school, a contributor to it, and a solicitor for students. It has come to a sad state of affairs when a supporter and former alumnus of the school cannot criticize how the school may be run, or oppose brethren who would make it a “Church School,” without being branded as a heretic.

There is enough error among us without dividing our forces and resources opposing one another over something made by men’s hands. Brother Warnock expressed to me on the campus of Florida College that he is loathe to become involved in a conflict, and that he has more important work to do. Who is not loathe of conflict? And it is certain that our work is in saving souls and building one another up. Let us follow this road then, and put our affections where they belong, and cease from writing the kind of material which prompted this exchange in the first place.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:22, p. 8
April 4, 1974