Truth Magazine

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

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