Truth Magazine

By H. L. Bruce

In order for a preacher to persuade brethren that discipline is right and proper and that it is ordained of God and should be scripturally practiced in a congregation, it should not be necessary for him to fight the members of that congregation. But many times that is exactly what, he has to do. Furthermore, when he has to fight the members, the story does not stop there. Before he gets through, a lot of times he has either been severely hurt himself or winds up being dismissed by the elders of that congregation. Why is it some brethren think that in the tense and unpleasant procedure of corrective discipline that it adds anything at all for them to put the preacher under pressure by dropping an additional hot potato in his lap?

In the twenty-two years that I have been preaching the gospel, I have tried to influence congregations where I preach, among other things to practice corrective discipline as is taught in the New Testament. During that period of time it has been our unpleasant experience to have to withdraw from over 45 unfaithful and delinquent members. It was not pleasant in any sense. But this article does not deal with the mechanics of discipline, even though that would be an interesting and profitable study.

The way that brethren act during the procedure is what disturbs me! Why the additional burdens placed on the preacher when discipline is practiced? Why the implications against the preacher when he begins to ask brethren to do what God says? Why will a congregation that has never practiced discipline, and which has a tremendous backlog of ungodly and unfaithful members, fire their preacher when he tries to get them to practice scriptural discipline?

Why is the preacher the bad guy and the gambler the good guy? What makes the preacher wrong and the reprobate right? What makes illicit sex right and the preacher a church splitter if he wants corrective discipline? Why should a preacher have to sell his house, move away, have his family subjected to a strange territory, his children change schools, leave their friends behind, and experience the emotional strain of a fresh start and multiple adjustments simply because a congregation filled with ungodliness refuses to honor what God authorized with regards to discipline?

Yet some wonder why preachers become soft and relegate their preaching on discipline to either mere lip service or passive complaints. Preachers sometimes become cowards after having their hands burned and reputation wounded by ungodly people who toss them hot potatoes when they try to influence them to do what God says. Some fear their image. Brethren sometimes will ruin them if very much is said in trying to get them to practice discipline.

I have preached on discipline dozens of time and plan to continue to do so. I have influenced brethren to practice discipline and shall continue to do so, if God permits me to live. Some have been out right rebellious. Some have started and changed horses in the middle of the stream. Then there have been those who wanted to practice discipline and would go along with the action, provided they could keep the preacher walking on hot coals along as they went. While practicing discipline, they wanted to burn the preacher some way as if he were responsible for the necessary action. Then, thank God, there are those devout, resolute, Godfearing individuals who respect the word of God, at all costs-and there is a price. They are the ones who please God. They are the ones whom I respect. May their tribe increase. And may the preachers who are cowards increase their faith in God and be courageous.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:10, p. 10-11
January 17, 1974

By Raymond E. Harris

Palm reading, crystal ball gazing and character analysis by Astrologers has become big, big business in America and throughout the world. Despite the fact that America has developed the most sophisticated and intellectual society the world has ever seen, signs are springing up along the streets advertizing the powers of fortune tellers, tea leaf readers and card layers. The variety of methods of “personality analysis” is almost endless. Astrologers feature full page ads in scores of magazines. They claim that with the help of computers and other modern paraphernalia, the stars can reveal the real you. Yes, for a “modest” fee that can run all the way from a few dollars to “highway robbery,” the mystics of the day will tell you what you always wanted to know about yourself????

Recently, Dr. Ross Stagner of Wayne State University has given his own “personality analysis” to a special group of people. More than 90 per cent described his analysis of them as “rather good” to “amazingly accurate.” The subjects were sophisticated personnel managers.

How did he do it? How did he know so much about them? Does he have a crystal ball or is he an astrologist? No. It’s just that he has learned that a great per cent of all people see themselves pretty much the same way. This information came out as a result of having many people evaluate their own personalities. Of all the people tested for personality traits, it was learned that:

1. 85 per cent felt they had a strong need to be liked and admired by others.

2. 82 per cent felt they had a tendency to be self-critical.

3. 73 per cent felt they had a lot of capacity they had not used to their advantage.

 

4. 73 per cent admitted to some personal weaknesses but thought they were generally able to compensate for them.

 

 

4. 91 per cent prefer a certain amount of change and variety and feel dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitation.

 

 

4. 80 per cent pride themselves as independent thinkers.

 

 

4. 68 per cent felt they had to be careful and not reveal too much about themselves to others.

 

8. 61 percent admitted that even though they try to appear self-controlled, they frequently worried and were insecure within themselves.

 

9. 71 per cent felt security was a major goal in life.

 

 

9. 78 per cent felt that even though they were extrovert and sociable at times, there were other times when they were introverted and reserved.

 

Now, what can we conclude from these tests? Simply this: 75 to 80 per cent of all people evaluate themselves pretty much the same. Hence, the palm readers, the crystal ball gazer or the Astrologer could give everyone exactly the same “personality analysis” and about 80 per cent of all the millions that consult these pseudo-psychics would be very impressed that the analysis was very accurate and applied to them distinctly.

So before you accept your next newspaper horoscope as very revealing, keep in mind that the same general statements would also be very acceptable to a high percentage of the people you know.

Dr. Stagner’s findings just add that much more evidence that astrologers and all fortune tellers are frauds. Truly, there are tricks to all trades. Millions of intelligent people are being duped by these charlatans. The mysterious has always had a certain fascination. However, the children of God need to realize that Jehovah through His word has always condemned the witches, astrologers, and diviners of every generation. They deceive the people into looking away from the one true God for guidance. They practice a form of idolatry and they and all who patronize them will be condemned and punished in the day of judgment.

If we would learn what we are, who we are and where we are bound, we must turn to God and His word.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:10, p. 6
January 17, 1974

By Cecil Willis

Nearly every false religion has resulted from an unscriptural emphasis upon a scriptural doctrine, or from a perversion of a scriptural doctrine. History is replete with the instances of this very thing occurring. More than one hundred passages teach salvation by faith, but sectarians give undue emphasis to saving faith when they conclude that salvation is “by faith only.”

Certainly the Bible teaches that salvation is by grace. Obvious passages on this point would be Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8,9; Tit. 2:11. Instances of an unscriptural emphasis being given to the Bible doctrine of grace would be in Marcionism, Antinomianism, Perfectionism, Universalism, Protestant Reformationism, Neo-Orthodoxy, and now most recently among us, through the new “Unity Cult” lead by Carl Ketcherside, and his lesser lights of Leroy Garrett and Brother Edward Fudge, with their “Grace-Fellowship” heresy.

Some erroneous religious systems result from an unscriptural emphasis upon a scriptural doctrine. But even this much cannot be said for the doctrine of grace, as taught by Brother Edward Fudge. His doctrine of grace is not even scriptural; instead it is Calvinistic. Brother Fudge’s doctrine of grace entails the imputation of the perfectly righteous life of Christ to every Christian who seeks to be obedient. On January 4, 1971 Brother Fudge wrote a complimentary letter to the University church on Perkins Road in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The occasion for the letter was to compliment them for having hired two part-time liberal preachers, Ken R. Durham and Lynn McCauley.

Brother Bill Wallace has been critical of the usage of correspondence to establish what a man teaches. Brother Edward Fudge stated in this letter, from which I am about to quote, that he wanted its contents made public. The first sentence of this letter addressed to the before mentioned Baton Rouge church said: “I do not know who opens the mail there, but would be happy for this to be either read aloud to the congregation on a Lord’s Day or posted so that all could see it, as it is to you all at Perkins Road.” So let us not have any crocodile tears about reading from a personal letter. Brother Fudge wanted this one made public.

Pertaining to God’s grace, and in view of this congregation having forced those who would endure sound doctrine to leave and then proceeded to hire a pair of liberal preachers, Brother Fudge said: “. . . we are saved ones because of God’s grace to us in His Son, and we are accepted by Him `in the Beloved!’ Not because we know it all, or do it all right.” Brother Fudge then adds: “Such blessings are not possible through works of righteousness which we may do, but by the grace of God. They do not come because of our perfect conduct or understanding, but because God understood our plight and His Son lived a perfect life in our stead! Praise God!”

Brother Fudge, in this public letter, proceeded to sympathize with. these brethren because of “vicious articles attacking you and your decision recently . . . .” He here refers to teaching efforts made by faithful brethren who sought to prevent a “take-over” of the Perkins Road church by the liberals. Fudge advises these liberal brethren that `fall who would live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” Apparently Brother Fudge equates living godly with accepting liberalism and its false teachers. So he tells them that they should not “grow weary in well doing.”

Further he advises them, “we have the word of our Savior that when men revile us and speak evil of, us we are to rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is our, reward in heaven. The prophets received similar treatment, as did the Son of God . . . . The cross precedes the crown. You are not alone!” Brother Fudge closes by saying, “I find comfort in knowing that throughout the country there are many, many good brethren (on both sides of the so-called `institutional issues’) who have their own convictions, but who are happy to recognize other brethren in the Lord who may differ in certain regards.”

Brother William Wallace wants us to believe that his Associate Editor, over whom Brother Wallace says he has complete and absolute authority and for whose position on the Gospel Guardian staff he solely is responsible, is sound in the faith and merely misunderstood by a few hundred of his brethren who are out to “get’.’ him. In the Baton Rouge letter, Brother Fudge does state that “it best honors the Lord” for churches not to contribute to human institutions, and not to become involved with sponsoring churches. But those who oppose what Brother Fudge would have us believe he believes to be “sinful,” Brother Fudge says are guilty of writing “vicious articles,” and that the liberals are being “mistreated,” and “slandered,” and are suffering for righteousness’ sake, like Jesus and His apostles, and that “great” will be their reward in heaven. If with these facts before him, Brother Wallace still believes Brother Fudge is a faithful gospel preacher, then I must confess that my concept of a faithful preacher and Brother Wallace’s concept of what constitutes a faithful preacher are not quite the same!

His Theology of Grace

The cornerstone to Edward Fudge’s softness and sympathy with false teachers is his doctrine of grace. Edward believes that the perfect life of Christ will be imputed to each of us. He believes that I will get credit for the perfect life of Christ in the Judgment. Pray tell me, “How could anyone to whose credit Christ’s perfect life has been accounted go to hell?” Let just this observation be made at the present: If Brother Fudge’s imputed perfect life position is correct, it then follows (1) either all men will be saved, which is blatant universalism; or (2) God is a respecter of persons, and will not impute Christ’s perfect life to some, which is equivalent to the Calvinistic doctrine of “Election and Reprobation,” and very closely akin to Calvin’s “Limited Atonement” position. Edward must either forsake his “imputed perfect life” position, or logically be forced to accept either Universalism or Calvinistic election. It is no wonder he has opted now to pull out of this discussion. It would not surprise me if he also were to opt to pull out of the Lord’s church, and to pull into some form of denominationalism. This has been the practice of the Anti-Legalists and Antinomians who infected the Lord’s church about 25 years ago. Nearly all of them ended up in the modernistic “Disciples of Christ.” It is the prayer of many who love Edward that this often-traveled road can be averted by the concerted efforts of many to teach him more perfectly the way of the Lord.

Karl Barth

About 1918 Karl Barth published his celebrated, Der Romerbrief (The Epistle to the Romans). For all practical purposes, historically this publication date might be called the beginning of Neo-Orthodoxy. G. C. Berkouwer, for many years Professor of Systematic Theology at the Free University of Amsterdam, wrote a book entitled The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth. Berkouwer probably was as competent to write a critique of Barth, as Paul King Jewett was of Emil Brunner, or Edward J. Carnell was of Reinhold Niebuhr. On the jacket of Berkouwer’s book, it is stated: “The tremendous debate centering around the theology of Barth touches a central concept of the Scriptures, namely, grace.” Berkouwer also speaks of Barth’s “dangerous approximation to universalism,” as I have just done in regard to Edward Fudge’s “imputed perfect life of Christ” doctrine.

Barth’s emphasis upon what was called the sovereign grace of God was the central theme in his theology, and thus was that which gave initial impetus to Neo-Orthodoxy. Berkouwer presents Barth “as the contender for a theology of triumphant grace which is moving in its imposing effort to restore to its due place in Christian thought and in the life of the Church the sovereign grace of God revealed in Jesus Christ” (p. iv). This triumphant grace is called by Berkouwer Barth’s “central theme” (p. 10), his “central thought” (p. 12), and his “dominant motif” (p. 19). Further stating this central theme in Barth’s concept of God, Berkouwer says, “This approach to Barth gives us the right to place central in theology and in proclamatior, namely the triumph of grace . . . . Unquestionably: the tremendous debate centering around the theology of Barth touches a central concept of the Scriptures, namely, grace” (p. 22).

Conclusion

Do not take these articles to imply that I am charging that Edward Fudge takes the identical view of grace as that accepted by Karl Barth. Instead, I am affirming that it was in a perversion of the Bible doctrine of grace that both erred. Both, as they began to promulgate their new doctrine, acted like they were the first ever to discover the word “grace” in the Bible. With a distorted view of grace, each proceeded to build thereon, and the theological superstructure digresses from Scripture in direct proportion to their additions to their basic errors on grace.

The Universalists got the love of God so out of Biblical perspective that they concluded that the love of God never could be defeated; hence, all, somehow would be saved. Those who pervert Biblical grace began to speak of legalists, when they refer to those who believe that faithful obedience also is necessary. Sin becomes simply “imperfect knowledge,” or a failure to get the atoms of the brain arranged properly. Surely, we are told, God’s triumphant grace will overlook such formalities!

These who emphasize grace also seem to think rather highly of their own humility. So they charge others with being “vicious beasts.” (This was what Brother William Wallace said in Louisville Edward Fudge viewed James W. Adams and me to be.) We are accused of being sectarians, making vicious attacks, of being legalistic and pharisaical. Barth warned of a new phariseeism. He says the new phariseeism is not only ” ‘self-justifying’ but humble to boot!”

Brother Fudge recently told us in the Gospel Guardian how the Lord’s servant must not strive, but to be meek and humble. But this, according to Brother Fudge, is no problem to him, since the Lord graciously bestowed by nature upon him such a spirit. On the other hand, Brother Wallace told us that Brother Fudge could not undergo the questioning which Wallace received in his effort to defend Fudge, “without blowing his cool.” And some report he did in fact “blow his cool” in one of the public sessions in Athens.

Keep in mind that Brother Fudge must logically give up his “imputed perfect life of Christ” doctrine of grace, or accept either universalism or Calvinistic election (and Calvinism makes God a respecter of persons). Which horn would you prefer, Brother Ed? There are three options, the latter two of which are to accept the logical concommitants of your erroneous doctrine of grace, but which two concommitants also are pernicious error. We much would prefer to see you give back to the Calvinists their “imputed perfect life of Christ” doctrine, and to see you return to “sound doctrine,” and cease to teach “a different doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:3). You say this 1 Timothy passage would suffice as a substitute for what you call our perverted use of 2 John 9. So we will ask you simply to abide by 1 Timothy 1:3!

Truth Magazine, XVIII:10, p. 3-5
January 17, 1974

By Leon Willis

While Moses stood atop the mountain of Sinai to receive the law by the hand of God, the Israelites, anxious about his return, and fearing him dead, turned to the idols of Egypt and fashioned for themselves a golden calf in rebellion to the commandments only recently given by God. Proclaiming a day of feasting, they worshiped the idol and indulged in reveling and song, praising the image for their deliverance from bondage., As the sounds of merriment drifted to the cliffs of Sinai, Joshua awaited the return of Moses. “And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp. And he said, It is not the noise of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome, but the noise of them that sing do I hear” (Gen. 32:17, 18).

Joshua heard, or rather thought he heard, the clash of weapons and cries of war as the children of Israel battled a mighty foe; but, according to the old saw- “appearances are deceiving.” That which seems to be is often that which is not. Knowing that the people had corrupted themselves, Moses pronounced that there was no battle, there were no victors, but the “noise of war” was the shouts of laughter and mirth as “the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.”

In the New Testament, the Christian metaphorically is described as a soldier of Christ, suggesting also that the church is an army, marching to war. With armor supplied (Eph. 6:10-17), and leadership sure (2 Tim. 2:3, 4), the man of God is furnished completely to “assault and entrench, to outwit and overreach, to confound and catch, never faltering nor flinching,” totally committed to his work, knowing he is no longer his own man. Let Satan unleash his most fearful weapons, it will be to no avail against the man so prepared, the church so fortified.

However, we are all familiar with the braggart soldier, the hypocrite, who garrulously describes his “old war injuries,” umpteen medals, and great expectations in future excursions, while his weak and cowardly performance in the fray reveals his true character. So it was with the Israelites who sounded as if they were fighting a great battle for the Lord when, in actuality, they were flying in the face of His righteousness with their gross immoralities and drunken merrymaking.

So it can be with the church of God. Although there are many stalwart congregations, some literally outposts in the territory of Satan, who have fought by word and deed to spread the gospel, to strengthen the saints both physically and spiritually, and to put to silence false doctrine; there are other churches who simply blow great brass trumpets. They seemingly agree that in this age of indifference and declining moral values, there is more than ever a need to sow the seed. With many flourishes they proclaim that if they only had the time and ability, “great things” could happen, and perhaps in a feeble effort to bring to the neighborhood, tracts are given an attractive display at the door, an occasional gospel meeting is held, and the few visitors that come are awarded a handshake and “how do you do.” Yet many of the members are unfaithful, new converts are nearly nonexistent, and they continue to exclaim “if we only had the ability.” Why?

These are only the sounds of warfare. In reality, the members are worldly and uncommitted to doing the will of God, the teaching does not meet the spiritual needs of the members, and there is so little personal work being done that, in all probability, even the family living behind the meeting house has never heard the pure gospel. Where is the love for the souls of men, the caring for the eternal destiny of friends, relatives, even strangers? Just as the Israelites, they have forgotten the God that delivered them from bondage.

Our very lives depend upon our victory as soldiers of the cross. Are we dancing about an Egyptian calf of worldliness and indifference, while sustaining only the sounds of warfare? Remember the fearful words of the Christ, “So because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:10, p. 13
January 9, 1974