Truth Magazine

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

By Larry Ray Hafley

I resisted the temptation to entitle this article, “The Smart-Alecks.” I am temperate by nature and my nature won out, but it was close. The Lord’s people in various and sundry places are plagued with self acknowledged knowledgeable men. It used to be that unlearned and ignorant men could preach the gospel plan of salvation and establish a church after the New Testament order. Opposition came from the sects, but they were heathens, and their Sauline persecutions were oxen kicking against the goads. But any self respecting ox soon finds that he does not get a kick out of his kicking, so the denominations left us alone.

But now we have a gospel intelligentsia, a spiritual brain trust. These fellows are making it hard for us boorish preachers of meager mental acumen to simply preach the gospel and urge folks to love it and live it. We are urged to “re-evaluate” our “structured forms” of work and worship and to dally in “dialogue” (a smart guy’s term for the savage and harsh word “debate”) about true grace and meaningful faith. We are encouraged to be tolerant while our bright, young men drink from the wells of denominational concepts and spue forth the same. We are beseeched to smile a lot and seek to be as learned as some tell us they think they are. Until, however, it is proven that preaching the New Testament system makes me as foolish as some tell me it does, I think I will prefer to be foolish rather than wise in my own conceit.

Now, I ain’t got nothing against education nohow. If that plane statement don’t convince you, then it is beyond my ability to learn you any better. I do desire to keep growing in mind and spirit, but I am not so eager to obtain an education that I will consent to study and learn a great deal that is not so in order to say I know something. That much, I do know. I rather enjoy discussing “true grace.” In fact, I enjoy it so much that every time I preach the gospel I talk about it (Acts 20:24; Titus 2:11, 12). As to the structured forms, which need no re-evaluation unless the Holy Spirit wants to rewrite and revise the New Testament, Peter proclaimed such things as congregational government in a real structured fashion, and then he said, “this is the true grace of God wherein we stand” (1 Pet. 5:12). Evaluating true grace is one thing, but I have no disposition or inclination to reevaluate, which means, when you clear the fat away, revamp and expand. No need to exclude me from a re-evaluation exercise as I choose not to show up.

My adamant attitude is indicative of the typical “Church of Christ formalism.” When you are enlightened, you can perceive Pharisaical traditionalism in simple New Testament Christians. If you are content to preach the truth and intent on folks obeying it in an ordered and scriptural manner (Col. 2:6), you probably did not notice my “rigid ritualism” received by tradition from my exclusivist forefathers on the frontier. If you, for example, preach “damnation” even half as much as you sweetly tone the word “salvation,” you also are structured, unenlightened, and intolerant of pious faces that are “searching” to find themselves in the maize of the contemporary religious scene. Welcome to the club.

If the enlightened ones are a curse to be accursed, what shall be done about them? There are obvious steps-study with them, teach them, pray for them (avoid sitting down on the floor and holding hands with them when you do). When you are finished with your endeavors, though, you will remain confined in your narrow-minded, stereotyped “Church of Christ faith,” and most of the wise ones will be oh so much wiser in their ways than before. So, you are not likely to succeed. “But this does not solve the problem of what to do with them,” you protest. Well, you will not have that concern much longer. With a swan song of, “We are forced to leave the Church of Christ branch because of its uncharitable, hostile, bickering intolerance of Christian love to God’s people in all segments of the Christian spectrum,” they will take their leave. Over their shoulder they will yell “grace” and decry your “one true churchism.” They may still profess to personally be opposed to mechanical instruments of music in the worship, but they can tolerate it much better than they can stomach your “incessant, public harangues” against it, so off they will go to write a book telling us why they were conscience led to abandon us. When the book comes out, I will read it if they give me a copy. It will be easier to weep over it than it will be to read in it, for they will be gone, but they will think I am.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:9, pp. 5-6
January 2, 1974

By R. L. (Bob) Craig

(EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article by Robert Craig appeared first in THE BIBLE STANDARD, November 5, 1973. It shows that others have been worried about some of the things appearing in the GOSPEL GUARDIAN. Robert Craig and Kent Ellis co-edit THE BIBLE STANDARD, a sixteen page paper which is printed twice each month. Subscription price to THE BIBLE STANDARD is $3.00 per year, and may be ordered from P.O. Box 3284, Austin, Texas 78764.-Cecil Willis.)

Some time ago I wrote an article questioning the associate editor of the Gospel Guardian, Edward Fudge, on his explanation of 2 John 9. He had taken the same position as had Carl Ketcherside and Cleon Lyles in times past. Their idea is that this verse has to do altogether with the divinity of Christ and has nothing to do with overstepping the boundaries of the gospel. Some were critical of my efforts but most were of the notion that more needed to be said-and, seemingly, that little article got the ball rolling. Truth Magazine has really jumped into that battle on Ketchersidism and the turn the Gospel Guardian has taken.

A little later, the editor himself, William Wallace, my friend and contemporary, flung himself into the battle by defending those he referred to as “second generation” preachers. I then dealt with his “second generation” junk in another article. Evidently Wallace, Fudge, and the G. G., consider Bob Craig and the Bible Standard too insignificant to call by name and to consider what we say, hence, Fudge has given no explanation as yet on 2 John 9 and Wallace just takes side-swipes at us; kinda like brushing off a little dog that might be nipping at your heels. (If he will check our ownership statement and compare it with his, he will see that, even though we are little right now, we are growing every day while the Gospel Guardian has dropped considerably from the 5000 plus when I was printing it for Roy Cogdill.)

We have a good article by Ron Holbrook in this issue dealing with Ed Fudge so I need say little along that line except to concur with Ron and add that Ed’s position for a good while is that mentioned. While preaching for the little church in. Sweetwater, Texas, he collaborated with Jerry Phillips (who was holding them a meeting at that time) and Larry Fluett, liberal preacher in Sweetwater, to move the conservative brethren back with the liberals with the concept that “there is not enough difference between the two groups to warrant separation.” Fortunately, Robert Hargrove, faithful man of God in Sweetwater, would not allow this to happen.

Very recently, Fudge has written an article in the G. G. explaining his position on fellowship. Rather than just plainly stating forthrightly what his position is, he quoted from a speech made by James Adams in the Arlington meeting, and said, “I believe precisely, exactly and fully what the following paragraphs state . . .” Now James Adams doesn’t need me nor anyone else to defend him. He is well able and willing to do that himself and is doing it right now in Truth Magazine, but for the benefit of our Bible Standard readers, I give this explanation which further shows the character of the young G. G. editorial writer. The main point Edward is using from brother Adams is the statement “I have never made these matters a test of fellowship.” If you will carefully examine the speech made by brother Adams (you can read it in the book, The Arlington Meeting) you will find that he was answering a question posed by a liberal preacher in regard to people like James having made cooperation, etc., a test of fellowship, hence causing division among God’s people. James was showing that this was not so–that the liberals were the ones who had hung out the quarantine sign to begin with. And, if Edward had read all the article, which I think he did, he would have heard James say, “I just cannot have fellowship with you when I am placed in the position of having to participate in things I believe to be wrong. When such is demanded of me, I must withdraw myself even if it requires me to start a new congregation.” Now-Big Question: could Ed Fudge have fellowship with them? Would Ed Fudge withdraw himself? If so, then his position is not the same as James Adams. If he could not, then what does he mean by saying “I do not make this a test of fellowship?”

So much for Fudge. Let’s get back to William Wallace and the title of this article. I’m afraid that William is too much like his daddy; when someone tries to tell him something, he bows his neck and becomes obstinate. I wrote him a letter a good while ago pointing out how the G. G. was no longer the militant journal it once was and even offered to buy him out. (This was before the Fudge alliance.) He would not sell (i.e., not to me) and observed that some (probably me) mistake obnoxiousness for militancy. Perhaps. But his dad and uncle Cled and uncle W. E. Brightwell surely used to be obnoxious-and got the job done.

So, William has been warned about such as Fudge, Phillips, Trainer, et al., and, true to family tradition, he bows his neck. He not only defends these “second-generation” writers but accuses all of us who would be critical of either he, them, or the Guardian, of practicing what he calls NeoMcCarthyism. Well, if some people had listened to McCarthy back in the 40s and 50s we would not be in such a mess, nationally, as we now are. And if people will listen to the “Neo-McCarthyites,” we might still preserve a portion of the Cause we all love and cherish. But if we hearken to the likes of Fudge, Phillips, and Trainer, we are in for much more destitute times, spiritually speaking. And if brother Bill doesn’t open his eyes or soften his neck, the Gospel Guardian will be a second Mission Messenger.

Specifically, brother Wallace defends young Randall Trainer. Randy wrote an article concerning “Theological Liberalism at A.C.C.,” in which he said there was none. Several took exception to that article and that conclusion. A.C.C. liked it and reprinted it as did the Firm (?) Foundation. Brother Wallace says: “Some do indeed turn off second-generation preachers and then maul and maim them. This is what was done in the case of young Randall Trainer.

Frankly, I am more inclined to accept the conclusions of a novice who was on the scene two years at Abilene Christian College, concerning theological liberalism, than the reports of someone who seems to have an axe to grind. The mauling of young Trainer was wrong and did not at all disprove what Trainer actually and precisely concluded.”

Since I have had personal contact with young brother Trainer, I believe that he is completely un-qualified to write on the subject as he seemingly doesn’t know what liberalism, either theological or otherwise, is. One who had been on the A.C.C. scene for years said there was such-Eugene Clevenger. Randy (Bill says he is a novice) was on the scene two years and says there is none. Randy is steeped in the sentiment of Carl Ketcherside to such an extent that he is blinded. While here in Austin, he refused to meet with a sound church and chose rather one of the most liberal and excused himself by use of the Ketchersidian concept of “Well, after all, no congregation is perfect. It is just a matter of degree.” He was so blind that he even made the observation that John Allen Chalk, then preacher at Southside, was as conservative as I, Bob Craig. I leave to all readers who even slightly know of me or Chalk, to draw their own conclusion concerning whether young brother Trainer is to be considered as a competent observer of “Theological liberalism” at A.C.C. or of anything else.

This Ketcherside looseness is catching on with lots of people, whether we call it by that label or not. It is past time for William Wallace to quit pussy-footing around and cut these fellows off from writing or else take them to, task when they get off the trolley. If he will not, then he must bear the consequences, and the guilt of what is inevitable.

In closing, Bill says that anyone whose writings have been used to make them appear dangerous should have the same opportunity to be heard in the same journal. He, or they, have my personal invitation to appear in our pages in defense of their loose attitude.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:9; p. 3-4
January 2, 1974