Truth Magazine

By Ken Osborne

(Enclosed is a letter addressed to you and Brethren Wallace, Fudge, and Halbrook. I found no great joy in writing that letter and would not have even done so had I not thought it to be necessary. As I mentioned in the letter, I don’t know who is telling the truth on these things but I know that someone isn’t.

Knowing more about you than 1 do any of the others it is almost inconceivable that you are indeed doing these things out of some political motivation or any other related causes. I simply cannot believe it.

I have no desire in this matter for either “side” to emerge as the winner. I wish it were possible to dismiss this whole mess. But if indeed you are right in your charges against the Guardian (which I cannot help but believe you are) then the battle needs to be waged. On the other hand if indeed you have wronged them then they have every right to set the record straight. I find no pleasure in whichever might be the case.) – Ken Osborne

“Dear Brethren:

“Of all the sins of this wicked world, certainly one of the worst in the sight of both God and man is lying. This is especially despicable when the one lying is a member of the body of Christ and, Brethren, if there is one thing obvious in this jumbled mess of a dispute between you, it is that someone is lying.

“Knowing about each of you only by way of what someone else says, I am both unable, and with the lack of facts, unwilling to decipher this mess and find the truth. There are several statements in particular which give me, and I am sure countless others, great difficulty. Perhaps you brethren could help.

“First, in the November 8th issue of the Gospel Guardian, Brother Fudge states that he believes instrumental music in worship and the congregational support of human institutions to be sinful. Yet, in the September 20th issue of Truth Magazine, Brother Halbrook states that since college days Brother Fudge has believed the use of instrumental music in worship to not be sinful. Furthermore, in the September 27th issue of Truth Magazine, Brother Halbrook said that as late as July 18, 1973 this was still Brother Fudge’s position by his own direct admission. Now, Brethren, one of you is lying!!!!!

“Second, in the April 26th issue of Truth Magazine Brother Willis stated that Brother Wallace spent a night in his home during which time they stayed up most of the night talking. Yet, Brother Wallace, in the December 6th issue of the Gospel Guardian, stated there never was such a trip or conversation. Now, I really do not care whether Brother Wallace stayed with Brother Willis one night and “took his pulse” or not, but I do care for the truth. And, Brethren, one of you is lying!!!!!

“There are numerous other discrepancies which bother me. For example, Brother Halbrook stated that Brother Fudge upon reading the articles “Appeals to Edward Fudge” said the articles were true to his beliefs. Yet, Brother Fudge says he has been misrepresented in the articles and told Brother Halbrook that all along. Brethren, one of you is lying!!!!! There are other contradictions but I think enough examples have been given to show that someone is lying!

“Unfortunately, it is probably going to be hard to prove that you are telling the truth and someone else is lying but surely there is some proof somewhere, to some of the statements which are in question. I am not after blood on this matter. All I. and others like me want is the truth. And, Brethren, one of you is lying!!!!!”

“In Him, Ken Osborne”

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

By Milton L. Anderson

Every Bible student, I am sure, is aware of the above Scripture, in which Ahab, upon meeting Elijah, made the statement of our title. All, I am sure, are also aware that the troublemaker was not Elijah, but Ahab who had strayed from God and was suffering the consequences of that which he espoused. It has always been the tendency on the part of one in error to become incensed when someone throws rocks at his glass house or ivory palace. The usual maxim (a principle or formula of embodying rule of conduct) is to cry “Foul, I have been misunderstood, misquoted,” and when questioned for divine authority, cries out that he has been mistreated. As Shakespeare once said, “Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind.” This attitude of mistreatment generally comes with a sound at first of humbleness, piousness and an air of self-righteousness. Then comes the deadly venom from the supposedly innocent, offended brother.

Often one who embarks on a career to become a literary giant among his peers, thinks he is entitled to immunity from criticism. This is a present problem faced by some in the church, and was faced by others in years gone by. It may sound well and good in politics, (which I deny) but when it relates to doctrinal issues, there is no such thing as immunity from criticism. Prolix supposition does not, in the body of Christ, give one the right to castigate and malign one’s critics. Peter, in writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit stated, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and- dominion for ever and ever” (I Pet. 4:11). Also, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in yoU with meekness and fear” (I Pet. 3:15). Paul stated, “Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man” (Col. 4:6). As Harry Truman once said, “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” If a brother cannot be questioned on what he says verbally, or in writing, he had better refrain from saying such things. I believe, as has been spoken by many others before me, “That which is worth believing is worth defending.”

For years it has been the practice of some brethren to throw out something to the brotherhood and expect no criticism. When challenged on the statements made, a favorite cliche is, “I was just trying to provoke thinking,” or “I was feeling out the pulse of the brethren.” Well, I think the pulse on recent issues has been felt, so let us either defend what we propagate or else be man enough, or Christian enough, to admit wrong, rather than accuse everyone that disagrees with us of mistreatment. For years I have personally refrained from writing simply because have seen men’s statements in print haunt them for years, yea even after death the statements are brought up time and again. Now I have asked myself the question, “Is it right to remain silent and refrain from writing while error runs rampant?” I believe that, regardless of how it may later haunt me, when wrong is voiced and the printed page is what offers the greatest opportunity for reaching and helping the innocent and young Christian, I must use every available means to counteract the error. God knows my thoughts, so why be reluctant to let the brethren know what I believe on basic issues, not only from the pulpit, but by writing on the subjects. I might, as President Nixon says, “Make it perfectly clear” I am not lining up with, nor defending, any paper or preacher, but stating what I believe the Bible teaches. Editors of papers and preachers “should be, and I believe as a whole are, capable of defending themselves. Should others agree with me, fine! If others disagree, I shall expect them to show me the fallacy or weakness of my reasoning. Now let us set about the business at hand.

“Unity”

Some would have you believe there are brethren who oppose, or are uninterested in, “unity.” I know of none. However, I do believe “unity” must be achieved by a “thus saith the Lord.” To do otherwise is to travel the weakened trail of The National Council of Churches. Sophistry is not the way to “unity.” And I learned long ago that a major premise cannot be based on supposition. Unity must be attained by book, chapter and verse. Neither do I take the position that something is wrong, per se, simply because it is done by denominations. I have no argument whatsoever with any brother or denomination if they are practicing the truth of the New Testament. My disagreement with both is to be found in their practicing and advocating that which is not by divine authority. One brother recently asked the question, “If the denominations meet on Sunday, are we wrong in meeting on Sunday (first day of the week)?” The answer is quite simple. I do not, nor do my brethren, meet on the first day of the week because of what denominations do. We meet according to the example set forth by the apostles in Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2. Another point we might mention regarding the subject of “unity” is this, “Is there anything worse than division?” Yes! Peace and unity at the price of compromising truth and righteousness.

Brethren talk of 1 John 1:1-7 as a proof text of our having fellowship with one another, but gentle reader please observe that our fellowship with one another is brought about by our being in fellowship with God. In 1 John 1:3, I believe John to be teaching primarily, or first, that our fellowship is with the Father and with the Son. Secondarily, it is with one another of like belief who also are in fellowship with the Father and the Son. If my exegesis of this is wrong, kindly correct me. Eph. 4:1-7 is where we find the grounds for fellowship, or should I say unity. A passage that is often misused and spiritualized is found in Rom. 8:16. Here Paul is talking to Christians and not aliens as to how they can know they are the children of God. Yet I must admit in years gone by, I used this passage applying it solely to the alien. The principle is there, but to so use it is to take it out of context. Others have done the same, but as has been said time and again, “A text taken out of context is merely a pretext.”

Many of the truths I preach were learned at the feet of some godly gospel preachers, but I count not myself as one of their disciples or backers. I am deeply indebted to them but my allegiance is to God. What brethren instilled in my thinking came not from their own wisdom, but from the word of God: Paul puts it better than I can when he states, “That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:5). “For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15).

In closing let me briefly mention a few other thoughts pertinent to our subject. Any time a man denies one point God has set forth, be he Christian or otherwise, on that point he is an infidel. Any time we corrupt God’s blood-bought institution or His word, and mar His masterpiece with our filthy hands, whether we like to admit it or not, we make that institution just another denomination. There once was a wide and deep separation between the Lord’s church and denominations, but now many are trying to move those divine lines with human wisdom. Another thing I have found, as many others know, invariably when one goes beyond the doctrine of Christ, he is forced into positions he would prefer not to take, but must in order to be consistent. I am not questioning the honesty, sincerity or integrity of anyone, but it is time we took a good look at, or examination of, ourselves from God’s word. Maybe this is where the saying comes from, “Consistency thou art a jewel.” Elijah in essence told Ahab, “Let us put it to the test.” And it is far past the time that faithful brethren should look at differences in the same fashion. “Let us put it to the test, using the Scripture as our sole source of proof.” Else let us remain silent and repent.

In the future, if this is published and brethren deem it timely, I would like to write on two other subjects closely related to this article. (1) Generations or Regenerations and (2) Brethren With Arms Elbow Deep in Calvinism.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:10, pp. 7-8
January 9, 1074

By Cecil Willis

Recently some exceedingly important discussions have been occurring between some who have been writing in Truth Magazine and some others who have been writing in the Gospel Guardian. Brother Gene Frost, a faithful gospel preacher who lives and works in Louisville, recently called to my attention that something I had said implied that everyone who wrote for the Gospel Guardian shared the sentiments of a few who write for the Gospel Guardian, or of the Editor who, until now, has shown a disposition to cover up for those errorists on his staff, whose teachings have been under fire. If anything I have said publicly or in private, orally or in writing, has been understood to indict every person whose name appears in the Gospel Guardian, or who has written an article for that paper, more has been read into my statement than I intended. It would be helpful, however, if those who do disagree with the error taught by Edward Fudge and his cohorts would expose that error through the pages of the Gospel Guardian.

As this article is being written, a great host of things have been said by Brother William Wallace in recent issues of the Gospel Guardian, which eventually will necessitate some reply. After he has had his “say” completely on these points, some reply will be made. Meanwhile, I want to write some things which I have contemplated writing for about five years, whether Brother Wallace agrees that the seeds of this doctrinal defection goes back that far or not.

Since the early 1950s, I have read nearly everything that Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett have written. I have watched their migration from one extreme position to another, and it is my judgment that their march into ever deeper forms of liberalism is by no means ended. The premises they have accepted do not permit them to stop now, unless they are unwilling to accept the inevitable logical consequences of these premises, and thus choose to stop in obvious inconsistency. Bluntly stated, they must either give up their insistence upon immersion as an essential of salvation, or they must give up their relativistic principles. Which they will sacrifice remains to be seen.

Philosophical Background

The title for this article is a “take off” on the title of a book by G. C. Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth. The Ketcherside-Garrett-Fudge heresy correctly has been labeled the “grace-fellowship” heresy. Recently I made the statement that I have known this controversy was inevitable among conservative brethren for at least five years. Brother Wallace scoffed at such an idea. Scores of brethren across this nation, if they care to do so, can verify that I have stated privately that this very controversy inevitably was going to arise among us. I know, God knows, and scores of brethren know that this apprehension has been expressed for several years.

It is impossible to separate what a man believes from his presuppositions. One’s basic presuppositions in philosophy are sometimes called his “world-view.” Good books which you might like to secure and read on this point are James Orr’s The Christian View of God and the World, Gordon Clark’s A Christian View of Men and Things, or An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, written by the late but brilliant Edward J. Carnell. Incidentally, the last mentioned book is without doubt the best book on Apologetics I ever read!

One’s apriori judgments color what he thinks in every field. For example, it is easy to trace existentialist (relativistic) philosophy through math, science, psychology, philosophy, ethics, theology, or any other discipline one wishes to contemplate. Just as putting on a pair of colored glasses would affect the appearance of everything one sees, one’s basic presuppositions affect everything one thinks or believes. And don’t you ever forget it: we are living in an age of philosophic relativism! The only absolute that remains, in the minds of many, is that of John Dewey: “Absolutely no Absolutes.”

At least until very recently, the prevailing theology among denominationalial scholastics has been that half-breed school of thought usually called “Neo-Orthodoxy.” Some think they now see a trend indicating a turn from NeoOrthodoxy. But Neo-Orthodoxy has many other names: Neo-Supernaturalism, Dialectical Theology, The Theology of Paradox, The Theology of Irrationalism, The Theology of Pessimism, Existential Theology, The Theology of Crisis, The Theology of Judgment, etc. Most theological historians would give to Karl Barth the “honor” (?) of being the Father of Neo-Orthodoxy. The philosophical background for NeoOrthodoxy is relativistic Existentialism.

Many of the readers of this article would question my credentials to write upon the philosophy of modern religion. When I speak upon Evolution, sometimes unbelieving “scientists” in an open-forum period challenge my credentials to speak on a “scientific” subject. I usually turn around the charge. I defy any scientist to define the “scientific method,” and then to tell me what about his background training qualifies him to speak on the origin of things. Scientific method involves observation, experimentation, etc. Now what scientist observed the creation? The origin of life and of the universe is a metaphysical (i.e. beyond the physical) subject, and this makes it a philosophical rather than a scientific subject, and it just so happens that my graduate school major was philosophy.

In this article, and perhaps in some others to follow, it will be necessary that I speak somewhat about Existentialism, and about its influence upon modern denominational theology, and then about the influence of modern denominational theology upon the thinking of some of our “precocious neophytes” (as James Adams aptly has named them). Even the peers of some of these young brethren who are defecting from the faith have recognized and called attention to their existential views toward revelation. This view causes them to state that we can never know anything for sure, since it is possible that we may not exhaustively know a subject. Though a finite mind may not know all about the Infinite Mind, this does not imply the human mind cannot know that about God which He has chosen to reveal through His Son (Matt. 11:27; Jno. 14:9; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:13). Jesus explicitly stated that one can know the truth (Jno. 8:32). One young brother among us has declared that God could not completely and perfectly reveal His will to man, because God limited Himself to human language as a vehicle for this revelation, and that human language is not perfect. Thus God’s revelation not perfect. This is existentialistic relativism!

Paul’s Explanation

When Paul’s competence to speak upon a subject was challenged, he defended his competence, though he said it made him appear foolish in the eyes of some (See 2 Cor. 12:11-13). For several years, I have wanted to say some things about Neo-Orthodoxy, and its impact upon some who think themselves to be quite conservative in their view toward the Bible. Several years ago, Leroy Garrett said it did not really matter whether one believed in the Deutero-Isaiah theory or not. Ketcherside advocated a Neo-Orthodox position toward revelation several years ago when he emphasized the difference between God’s Covenant and the record of God’s covenant; between the New Testament and the record of the Testament. Ketcherside did not then go on to advance the usual Neo-Orthodox position that the Testament and the Covenant are perfect, but that the record of the Testament and Covenant is filled with many imperfections.

I would like now to go into these matters somewhat. Some may not be much interested in articles of this kind. But those who really want to understand what is happening among us, and why, should be very interested in articles like the ones I propose now to write. Our younger student preachers particularly should find “relevancy” in these articles.

A college degree sometimes merely means a person spent a certain number of years at a school. Even graduate degrees do not necessarily imply one knows what he is talking about. I have never been one to stand in awe at my brother who has a Ph.D. degree. Nor have I stood around in envy of him. I have known some men who did not finish High School who had more education than some I knew with a Ph.D. degree. This I say that you might keep the following remarks in proper perspective.

I completed a Master’s Degree, and a few hours beyond that, in Philosophy. It was my good fortune to get to study under Gordon Clark, who has been considered the most outstanding “evangelical” philosopher in America. Carl F. H. Henry, in the first chapter of A Festschrift (The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark) said that Clark was “one of the profoundest evangelical Protestant philosophers of our time,” and that Clark “stands out above all else in the contemporary philosophical milieu, as a champion of a personal God . . . .” Edward J. Carnell, Paul K. Jewett, Carl F. H. Henry, and several others are among the outstanding contemporary philosophers who studied under Clark.

Paradoxically, most of my other graduate work in philosophy was done under Dr. Walter Sikes (William E. Wallace’s Uncle), who was about as modernistic as Clark was Calvinistic. Dr. Walter Sikes was married to the sister of Foy E. Wallace, Jr., and Sikes formerly had been a teacher at Abilene Christian College.

Dr. Sikes could be described as Neo-Orthodox. When I decided to do my Master’s Thesis on “A Critique of Emil Brunner’s Concept of Revelation,” Dr. Sikes told me, “It had better be good!” Emil Brunner was the outstanding NeoOrthodox proponent of the revised concept of the Bible, commonly referred to is Neo-Supernaturalism. As Barth did the definitive Neo-Orthodox work on the sovereign grace of God, and Reinhold Niebuhr popularized the, Neo-Orthodox position on sin, Emil Brunner was the most outstanding NeoOrthodox advocate of the existential view of revelation. Brunner wrote about forty books. About twenty of them had been translated into English, and the others were available only in German. In addition, Brunner wrote about 300 periodical articles.

After doing my research and compiling a card file system from which I was prepared to write my thesis, I wrote about half of the intended paper. My criticisms of the NeoOrthodox view of revelation were said to be not “objective enough.” Finally, I decided that if I intended to get a degree from Butler University, I was going to have to choose a historical subject, and it was at this point I began work on the paper which later was published as W. W. Otey: Contender for the Faith.

These facts are cited simply to let some of those who may think I am completely unfamiliar with the literature to which I am about to allude know that I at least have been exposed to the writings of the chief Neo-Orthodox proponents. I intend to show that there are remarkable similarities between the concepts of revelation, sin, the church, and the grace of God held by these leaders of NeoOrthodoxy, and some of those who under the guise of “orthodoxy” would restructure the church and the beliefs of church members today.

These last few paragraphs have not been written asking for any logical “special pleadings,” but merely to ask for a fair hearing. Pernicious error has been, and yet is being taught, and it must be dealt with. Indeed, healthy doctrine must be taught, and error exposed.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:10; pp. 3-5
January 9, 1974

By Ronny Milliner

Recently several of us from Florida College went to hear R. W. Schambach at a “Holy Ghost Miracle Revival” speak in Tampa. Mr. Schambach is the editor of Power magazine and speaker for “The Hour of Deliverance” radio program. Mr. Schambach makes the claim that he is able to perform miracles, just as Jesus and His disciples performed in the first century. In this article I would like to “try” (1 Jno. 4:1) Mr. Schambach’s workings with those of Jesus and the early Christians.

The first big difference that is noticable between Mr. Schambach and Jesus and His followers is that he is limited in the signs and wonders which he can do. Jesus said to His apostles in Mark 16:17, 18, “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” Mr. Schambach says he can do most of these, but he cannot drink poison or take up serpents. I wonder why Paul shook off a viper from himself and received no harm (Acts 28:5) and Mr. Schambach cannot. Jesus had control over great storms (Mt. 8:23-27). Jesus could walk on the sea during storms (Mt. 14:22-33). Jesus was able to take five barley loaves and two small fishes and feed about 5000 men (Lk. 9:12-17). Jesus, Peter, and Paul raised people from the dead (Jno. 11:39-44; Acts 9:40, 41; 20:9-12). Why do we not see Mr. Schambach doing these things?

The next dissimilarity is Mr. Schambach’s not being able to heal all those who come to him. He says in a newspaper article of the New York Times (8-25-72) that his failure is due to a lack of faith on the part of those to be healed. From John 5:1-16 we may observe that Jesus healed an impotent who did not even know who Jesus was. Then in Luke 22:4951 we have the story of Jesus healing the ear of a man who had come out to take Him captive. Jesus healed His enemies; why can’t R. W. Schambach?

The third difference between the “miracles” of Mr. Schambach and Jesus Christ and His disciples is that for Mr. Schambach there seems to have to exist a high emotional atmosphere before he can do anything. In the service that we visited, two and one-half hours were spent arousing the emotions of both the audience and the ones to be healed. The Son of Man was able to just walk up to a funeral procession, and without any preliminaries, raise a man from the state of death (Lk. 7:11-16). Peter healed a man who was not expecting anything but to receive alms (Ac. 3:1-11). If you talk long enough to some people, you can just about make them believe anything or do anything.

Also we found that Mr. Schambach, like most of the other faith-healers of today, begged for money. This act is contrary to the very nature of Jesus and His saints. If Mr. Schambach needs money so bad, why does he not make it like Jesus did (Mt. 17:24-27)? I wonder if R. W. Schambach could make the same statement as Simon Peter did in Acts 3:6, that is, “Silver and gold have I none.” The trouble with Mr. Schambach is his wanting the 5000 men to feed him instead of him feeding the 5000.

Then Mr. Schambach and Jesus differ on wanting the praise of men. Mr. Schambach wants others to spread his name and works and he loves personal testimonies. There are some cases where Jesus, after healing someone, told the people not to mention what he had done (Mk. 1:44; 8:26). Does R. W. Schambach glory in the praise of men?

I noticed one other difference between Mr. Schambach’s “miracles” and those of Jesus, which is that Mr. Schambach’s works are not of the same quality as Christ’s and that some even doubt them. Mr. Schambach says when one is not healed immediately that God is going to perform a gradual miracle. I just cannot find any case of this kind of miracle in the word of God, but rather all of Jesus’ healings were immediate. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did not have to pussyfoot around when he healed someone. When the Master cured someone, they were cured, no ands, ors, ifs, or buts about it. Eleanor Blau, who wrote the article in the Times said, ‘Concluding the revival was a healing session in which a teenage boy described as unable to hear or speak was said to have been cured.” (Emphasis mine, R.M.) This lady doubted if this one was really healed. After watching Mr. Schambach in action, I do not believe his healings either. The reaction of the people witnessed for Jesus the greatness and trueness of the miracles which He performed. Why can people not say this statement about Mr. Schambach?

In 1 Cor. 13:8-12 Paul wrote that miracles would cease when we received the complete revelation of God’s word. Mr. Schambach does not acknowledge the word of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37). He said at the beginning of his sermon that he was alright as long as he had the Bible behind him. My friends, a true servant of Christ is going to have the Bible in front of him.

Truth Magazine; XVIII:9, pp. 11-12
January 2, 1974