Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

We have recently warned of loose views on unity. Not only has our effort included the series in Truth Magazine, but also recent preaching in Tennessee and north Alabama (along with Tom O’Neal). Printed booklets (“Bible Unity vs. A ‘New’ Unity Movement”), bulletins (both Tom’s and mine), and charts were used-all including some documented references to Brother Edward Fudge’s loose 1feaching. Brother Fudge and this writer spoke Sunday afternoon, October 7, at the Jackson Drive Church of Christ in Athens, Alabama, that he might clear up alleged “misrepresentations.” Since others have quoted him critically recently, he has been trying to clarify such matters in the Gospel Guardian.

In the July 26 Gospel Guardian, he says, “The truth of the matter is . . .” We add respectfully, but firmly, “being muddled. “To muddle is “to make turbid or muddy,” “to mix confusedly.” We do not question motives; we do question whether anything has been clarified after all this clarification. If we have misunderstood Brother Fudge, we earnestly desire to understand him clearly. He did not show a single misrepresentation on Oct. 7 in Athens, but we remain open to consider anything he wants to say. He may feel the mud is in the eye of insincere beholders; we fervently implore him, with no motive but love of truth. Will he clear these muddled matters?

I. Ketcherside. “The truth of the matter is that I have never.. . held to or promoted a single concept, doctrine, or interpretation of Scripture that could fairly be considered uniquely ‘Ketchersidian,'” said Brother Fudge in the July 26, Gospel Guardian. Likewise, in Athens on Oct. 7 he objected to the material in the booklet (by Brother O’Neal and myself) because it indicates he has followed Ketcherside on some key matters.

Methinks Brother Fudge protesteth overmuch on this. It is a documented fact that he shares Ketcherside’s peculiar views on (1) a very limited definition of the word “gospel,” (2) the supposed distinction between “the gospel” and “the epistles” or “the doctrine,” (3) the idea that 1 Cor. 1:10 does not require doctrinal unity, and other matters. (Those not familiar with the documentation should see the booklet referred to above.) It is a documented fact that Ketcherside taught such ideas before Fudge. We are ready to document the fact that Ed was under Ketcherside’s influence while forming these ideas.

Why not give credit to whom credit is due and at least admit Ketcherside introduced him to these ideas? Then defend them as true, if they can be defended! Certainly among our brethren, Ketcherside is “unique” in his teachings on 1 Cor. 1:10, gospel-doctrine, etc. But the point is not “guilt by association;” it is that those who embrace the same premises generally end up with the same conclusions. No one says Ed has followed Ketcherside all the way, but it is true that Ed has borrowed some of. the peculiar-amongour-brethren ideas Ketcherside has been promoting.

II. Instrumental Music in Worship; Other Innovations. Is such sinful? For many years, Brother Fudge has said, “No. ” This has been a matter of public record since 1967. After specifically mentioning “instrumental music” (and other innovations like institutionalism, centralization of church work, etc.), he said: (1) We should not reject “God’s dear children, because they may not be able to see alike.” (2) Men should not be required to accept the innovations, but, “This does not give the objector the right to forbid the other brother’s doing” what he thinks best. (3) “Nor do these principles allow that the ‘conservative’ on any issue demand a ‘confession’ of the ‘converted liberal.’ ” (4) Such things “are matters of `opinion’ ” (see July 8, 1967 Christian Standard).

He held this position adamantly, right up into the week preceding Sunday, Oct. 7. But within a very short time before his Oct. 7 presentation, he says he discovered a new definition of sin in the Greek dictionary which will allow him to call the instrument in worship sin. We hope. this may be a hopeful sign. But, we wonder (1) exactly what the new definition is; (2) exactly where did he find it; (3) why is not the instrument sinful by the “old” definition; (4) is it sinful within itself, or just if pushed so as to cause division; (5) does it miss God’s mark (an objective standard), or just the mark of our own personal conclusions and inferences (a subjective standard)?

We ask for clarification. It cannot be clear as it stands because:

(1) He began and ended his remarks by saying he had NOT changed his position since he started writing on these matters.

(2) He did not agree to correct the matter in publications where his former position appeared.

(3) He defended his article on 2 Jn. 9 (Nov 30, ’68 Christian Standard), where he said “the doctrine of Christ” has nothing to do with “differences or arguments between saints on how best to please Christ,” especially since the instrument is not mentioned in the context.

(4) Whereas 2 Jn. 9 (“the doctrine of Christ”) cannot apply to such issues, he thinks he could use 1 Tim. 1:3 (“teach no other doctrine”); since 1 Tim. does not mention instruments any more than 2 Jn., how long can he hold this position? His rule seems to be that passages like Gal. 1:8-9, 2 Jn. 9, 1 Cor. 1:10, and Jude 3 can only be applied to the specific issue mentioned in the context. We wonder how anyone can meet any modern error with Brother Fudge’s rule for Gal. 1:8-9, 2 Jn. 9, 1 Cor, 1:10, and Jude 3, if the rule be applied to the rest of the Bible! And, why should it not be applied to the rest of the Bible? Maybe he will tell us.

(5) It was announced Oct. 7 that Ed’s articles on restoration and unity are being reprinted from the 1968-69 Gospel Guardian. (See IV below; to see firsthand, order from CEI Store, Athens, Ala.).

Since Brother Fudge seems to be doing some extra study on how to define sin just lately, we respectfully submit 1 John 3:4 and Matt. 7:23 for consideration. He will not even need a Greek dictionary for this-no disrespect for the Greek intended! (Ed Fudge has a Masters Degree in Greek-Cecil Willis) John says, “Sin is the transgression of the law” (KJV) or “sin is lawlessness” (NASV). Matthew says “iniquity” or “lawlessness” will cause us to be lost. Since Brother Fudge admits instruments are not authorized, he should be able to see with or without a Greek dictionary that such things are without law, outside law, and therefore utterly lawless. Anything that is lawless is sin, for “sin is lawlessness.”

Of course, if Ed’s special rule for 2 Jn. 9, etc., be applied, we confess that we would not recognize any sin unless it were dressed in first century garb. The simple recognition of sin can become a complex, scholarly, enigmatic system of gnosticism when Ed’s special rule gets involved. It would be interesting to see what our esteemed brother would do if he tied in with a sharp Christian Church preacher on the instrument-if the preacher knew about our brother’s special rules of interpretation, special definitions of sin, and special theories on “gospel” and “doctrine”! We fear our brother still fails to see the dangerous, practical results of all this. And so he goes on muddling the truth without seeing why his brethren are concerned, why certain ones have become unsettled )y such theories, or why anyone fears a “new” unity movement. All he seems to see are spiritual cannibals with bad attitudes and ugly spirits.

III. “Fellowship” Halls. In paragraph 2, p. 218, Aug. 9, 1973 Gospel Guardian, under “Coffee and Donuts,” Brother Fudge tries to settle brethren’s fears on his position concerning certain innovations. If there ever was a case of stirring up mud and making, it thicker, this is it! Ed says of the reasoning that leads to kitchens, gyms, etc., “It reflects . . a fleshly-oriented, pleasure-seeking, and worldly-minded attitude that is totally out of harmony with all the Bible says.” Clear enough? Yes, until one reads paragraph 3. Concerning those who worship where such innovations exist, Ed says, “No doubt many such people are very spiritual-minded and have the right attitude about these matters in general.” Clear as mud-stirred and made thicker!

Building, maintaining, and using “fellowship” halls, gyms, etc. involve the collective activity or corporate program of the church. This is not like a sin of one or two members; it involves the function of the body. Yet, many spiritually minded people work and worship where the corporate function and collective activity of the church is “fleshly oriented, pleasure-seeking and worldly-minded . . . totally out of harmony with all the Bible says.. .” What is the result of having part in “the works of the flesh”-and can one “live in the Spirit” without walking “in the Spirit”? (Gal. 5:19-25).

IV. The Bible and Unity. This confused mixing is not new. Consider “Christian Unity-Second Thoughts” (June 20; 1968, Gospel Guardian). “It is right to emphasize the place of the Bible in Christian unity.” Clear? Let us see. It is not “strictly true that the Bible is the basis upon which we are to unite … We are to unite around Christ and in him.” Next, “correct understanding of any subject … belongs. . . not to the subject of Christian unity . . . based on such passages as Jn. 17, 1 Cor. 1:10ff, 2 Jn. 9-11, or Eph.- 4” (Emphasis added). Eph. 4 and 1 Cor. 1:10 only emphasize “unity of sentiment, of aim, of spirit, of love,” but this “is not the unity of Jn. 17.”

Results: Whatever we may emphasize about the Bible and unity, (1) we cannot emphasize the Bible as the basis of that unity, but must emphasize Christ instead. (2) Understanding and obeying the apostles’ doctrine is not required for unity by Jn. 17, 1 Cor. 1:10, 2 Jn. 9-11, or Eph. 4.

Or, consider “That They May All Be One” (May 1, 1969, Gospel Guardian). We must “trust . . . and obey Him,” should not make “an unscriptural distinction between Christ and His teaching,” and should emphasize “the New Testament Scriptures in dealing with … unity.” But, not “even the plainest New Testament teachings are the basis of unity” and it is not “strictly true that the Bible is the basis upon which we are to unite,” he adds. If the Philippian jailor learned and obeyed nothing after baptism, he still had Christ, salvation, and unity. “It is possible to conceive that he never enjoyed the benefit and blessing of additional instruction.”

Results: After we emphasize faith, obedience, and the Bible, we are still left with this: (1) The Bible is not really the basis of unity. (2) If one is scripturally baptized, he may have Christ even if he never hears, understands, and obeys the divine order for the New Testament church.

V. Human System of Interpretation. Brother Fudge recently wrote some fine thoughts on the need to avoid falling into human systems of interpretation (“Take My Yoke . . .” Aug. 23, 1973, Gospel Guardian.) He has repeatedly told me that “some” conservative brethren have created “an elaborate, legalistic, human system of interpretation” in fighting recent innovations. When I urged him to expose it and show us all where the truth lies, he said he would not do so because all he has is “a-more scriptural human system of interpretation.” This kind of talk and teaching is what has many brethren concerned and confused about our brother. Brother Fudge does not seem to see these contradictions and blatant inconsistencies, so he feels “misrepresented” when someone objects to the muddle.

VI. Compromise. In the July 19, 1973 Gospel Guardian, Brother Fudge declares he is all-out opposed to compromise. That should settle it, he thinks. But if we asked Carl Ketcherside if he was for or against compromising God’s Word, he too would make a declaration against it. What Ed needs to see, and what we are trying to show him, is that the positions he has taken on various matters is compromise. Instead of just waving his hand and saying he opposes compromise, Ed needs to defend what he has taught and show it is not compromise.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:5, p. 10-11
November 29, 1973

By Cecil Willis

(EDITORS NOTE: The following article is somewhat different from the usual editorial in this magazine. For several years, it has been evident to some of us that some of our young intellectuals had adopted a Neo-Orthodox view of Scripture. Now Brother Edward Fudge has discovered a new definition of sin. His new definition boils down to an action that results from “imperfect knowledge,” but which action will be compensated for in the Judgment by the imputation of the perfect life of Christ to our account. Hence, according to Brother Fudge, actions like instrumental music in worship and the practice of institutionalism will not cause any soul to be lost, if these actions result from “imperfect knowledge.” Thus it is in order for us to now take a good look at the NeoOrthodox view of sin. The following article was written several years ago, but is now being published for the first time. Brother Franklin T. Puckett recommended that I now publish the article. The Neo-Orthodox concept of Revelation leads to the Neo-Orthodox view of sin, which inevitably will lead these adherents to the Neo-Orthodox view of salvation.)

One of the great themes that has merited the attention of thorough thinkers throughout the annals of human history, since the time of the fall of man has been that of an adequate view of sin. The pens of men have been voluminous in seeking to depict the nature of man, and the nature of sin. One’s view of sin is seen to be more inclusive when one understands that his view of salvation must be directly proportionate to his view of sin, since salvation is to redeem one from the consequences incurred by sin. In this article we are restricting ourselves to Neo-Supernaturalism’s haematology (view of sin).

Perhaps one of the greatest perplexities that we must face in this effort is that of arriving at a proper definition of neo-supernaturalism. This problem must be confronted before one may investigate it’s view of sin. Of course, the term “Neo-Supernaturalism” is being used synonymously with Neo-Orthodoxy. But what is Neo-Orthodoxy? And who are the proponents of such a view of sin? This precisely is the first problem which we seek to solve.

One may best understand Neo-Orthodoxy if he understands what gave birth to the movement. For several hundred years just prior to the twentieth century, so-called Christendom had become an almost stereotyped movement. Partially due to the monastic ascetical lives of the clerical members of the Roman Catholic Church, those who wore the name of Christ had sought to remove themselves from society rather than to make any effort to improve it. They sought to extricate themselves from their environment, but yet remain in it. Too, theologically, they had come almost to a stalemate. Men seemed to be content to go along with the same mystical theologies garnered from the middle ages.

It seems that it always takes a radical to overcome and to move the complacent majority, and so it was in this condition. There arose a group of very liberal preachers who began expounding what is now called the “Social Gospel.” Their idea was that the religion of Christ is not wholly an “other-worldly” movement, but has a very definite contribution to add to “this worldly” activities.) They maintained that religion must renovate society, rather than withdraw from it. This movement began in England about 1830, but it was near the end of the 19th century before the repercussions began reaching America with any overt result. But with the coming of this “social-gospel ethic” there also came, what was to “conservatives,” a horrifying wave of liberalism. As a result of this liberalism, orthodoxy was almost completely alienated from the social gospel movement, but there were individuals within both liberalism and orthodoxy who could not concur wholly with either of the two divergent views; consequently there grew up a movement which now bears the name of “Neo-Orthodoxy,” which was an effort to counteract the liberalism of the theology accompanying the social gospel movement.

Edward Leroy Long, Jr., who considered himself a part of the Neo-Orthodox movement, gave a clear statement of its roots and background.

“Where the social gospel has been qualified without being totally rejected, there has appeared a concern to relate Christian faith to social problems, which has been accompanied by a sober recognition of the contrast between the Christian ideal and what can actually be done in given situations. Many of the leaders of this new orientation, which for want of a more precise name may be called ‘neoorthodoxy,” are heirs of the social gospel.”2

Neo-Supernaturalism is therefore seen to be a revolt against the liberalism of the social gospel movement, and is an, attempt to maintain orthodoxy while being a participant in the view that “Christianity” has a social relevance, yet abstaining from some modernistic tenets accompanying the social gospel theology.

We are seeking to define Neo-Supernaturalism. Max Black said that there are but two ways to define: connotatively and denotatively.3 We have been seeking to show what gave birth to the Neo-Orthodox movement, and consequently to show what it connotes. But to denotatively define the movement would be to show some examples of men who are Neo-Supernaturalisms. In speaking of the view of sin in Neo-Orthodoxy, one must select certain men who are representative of the field to study. In doing this we will be denotatively defining the movement.

In this article we will confine our remarks primarily to the widely heralded but recently deceased leader of the American portion of the Neo-Supernaturalistic movement, namely Reinhold Niebuhr. Those who have followed the movement are, perhaps, more familiar with the names of the outstanding German-Swiss theologians, Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. Other Americans, who maybe considered a part of Neo-Orthodoxy are Walter M. Horton, Robert L. Calhoun, John C. Bennett and H. Richard Niebuhr, Reinhold’s brother.4 But our remarks must be confined to him’ who was certainly the leader of the movement in America, Reinhold Niebuhr.

One can better understand what Neo-Orthodoxy is, and that for which it contends, against the background of that against which it revolted in Liberalism. Carl F. H. Henry, a moderate Fundamentalist, says that “liberalism modified Biblical anthropology with both idealistic and naturalistic emphases.”5 These “idealistic and naturalistic emphases” were the points with which those who now comprise the movement toward “orthodoxy” disagreed. Since, these liberalistic contentions are so wedded to the Neo-Orthodox view of sin, we must give some consideration to them.

Inevitability of Progress

Liberalism’s philosophical view of history was that of automatic progress. They thought that progress was inevitable. This concept of axiomatic progress of modern liberalism was quite a contrast with the ancient pessimism of the middle ages. There were several reasons why they thought of advancement as being certain. With the coming of the renaissance or the period of the enlightenment, there were vast technological advances. Modern science had progressed so far that some men even thought they had excelled the Biblical miracles by natural means. With such fantastic advances in technology, progress seemed inevitable.

Men were made overly optimistic by the fact that some then relatively insignificant nations, such as America and Germany, were coming to the forefront as world powers. They were advancing. Then, of course, Hegelian intellectual or logical evolution, and Darwinian biological evolution seemed to make progress inevitable. So overwhelming became this philosophy of history that “this faith in the power of life to establish and magnify itself through the progessive (sic.) mastery of its environment,” Perry called “the most significant religious idea of modern times:”6 John Randall also added that “all the scientists, from Descartes down, despised the ancients and carried the day for faith in progress.”7 Niebuhr recognized the fact that men almost universally had adopted this philosophical view of history which asserted the inevitability of progress. He says “the ‘idea of progress’, the most characteristic and firmly held article in the credo of modern man, is the inevitable philosophy of history emerging from the Renaissance.”8 Later he adds: “the idea of progress as the most dominant and characteristic article in the creed of modernity is powerful enough to use the most diverse philosophies as its instruments.. ..”9 But even though this theory of axiomatic progress was widely held, yet there were certain factors which pointed to its fallaciousness.

Liberalism had its development before the bleak war years of 1914-45, in which the world was engulfed in two world-wide conflicts. After the misery and wreckage of these two great wars, liberalism was less optimistic, or at least fewer were willing to consent to the optimistic positions of liberalism. “So quickly moved the world smashing events, hardly able to make room one for the other, that no chapter in political science is so replete with crisis. In our lifetime all nations have stood constantly in the judgment hour.”10 The world had gone into one of the most horrifying periods of its history in what was called a “cold war.” Even at the present hour men, by the thousand, are shedding their blood in great struggles that few understand. And while there looms over the world the threat of greater devastation than ever known by man, in the form of the hydrogen bomb which is a thousand times stronger than its relative, the atomic bomb which drove the Japanese nation into terror and surrender during the World War II, men are even less optimistic, and are now living a life of terror; anxiety and pessimism. Reality forced men like Niebuhr to deny the “idea of progress,” so that he said “the course of history, particularly in the past two centuries, has proved the earlier identification of growth and progress to be false.”11 The doctrine of the inevitability of progress was the first tenet of liberalism that forced a break toward “orthodoxy” on the part of many.

Inherent Goodness of Man

A second position of liberalism was that of the inherent goodness of man. This position came logically from the theory we just discussed, the assurance of advancement. This surety of advancement was certified because man was inherently good. By this good which they affirmed to be inherent within man, liberals did not mean that man was born free from sin, but that by nature he was good. Some of the Calvinists who affirm that man is inherently evil have tried to weave their way into the Neo-Supernaturalistic movement. Man is deterministic toward neither good nor evil. He` has the freedom to choose. But it was not in relation to a condition at birth that liberalists spoke of goodness. It was in relation to activities which are the result of choice that they affirmed the essential goodness of man.

Niebuhr, championing the cause of Neo-Orthodoxy, countered by affirming, or restating the essential sinfulness of man. We must defer a discussion of his view of sin for a while in order that we also might understand the result of naturalism on Liberalism, and its counterpart; reconstructed liberalism or Neo-Supernaturalism. We already have seen that Liberalism’s idealistic anthropology, which affirmed the inevitability of progress and the inherent goodness of men, was rejected by Neo-Orthodoxy.

During the years when this optimistic outlook of Liberalism was developing, another movement which was giving potency to this modernism, was likewise being formulated. This was biological evolution. It stated that man was essentially a beast in an advanced state, and that sin was a natural step in man’s advancement; so that eventually man would have so developed that he would be beyond the state in which he would sin. Man’s sensuousness was described as the remnant of the brute instincts which survive in him as a consequence of his animal ancestry. “It was the drag of brute instincts on the higher spiritual ideals which pulled men down.”12 One readily can see that if man was going through a natural process over which he had no control, and this natural process included the stage which man called “sin,” then the individual had no moral responsibility in these “sinful” activities, for they were beyond his control. It became apparent that there had to be some middle ground between this liberalistic, deterministic system of irresponsibility, and an equally deterministic system of inherent total depravity propagated by Calvinistic Evangelicals. Consequently, there arose the Neo-Supernaturalistic view of sin. This new view, in some circles, now wears the name of the “realistic” view of sin.

For the first authoritative statement by an American of the Neo-Orthodox attitude toward in, one may look to the year 1932 when Reinhold Niebuhr published his Moral Man in Immoral Society. This compromising system was developed in a series of articles in 1934 called Reflections at the End of an Era; and then the most complete statement of this new view of sin appeared in 1943 in the two-volume statement of his 1939 Gifford Lectures, entitled, The Nature and Destiny of Man. In these different writings, Niebuhr affirmed that sin was lodged in the will of man, and not in some animal instinct carried over from a former state.

As to the origin of sin, Niebuhr’s explanation is rather circumlocutious. He states that sin is present because of original sin, but that original sin is not inherited, or is not actually original. Man still has a moral responsibility for the existence of original sin in his life. Both “original” and “actual” sin have their roots in the will of man. Niebuhr says that in the “Biblical myth” man was tempted by the devil, and as a result of this temptation original sin was introduced. But even though the devil misrepresented the injunction of God, man still had to persuade himself that this misrepresentation was true. He says that this self-deception was partly unconscious, but partly deliberate. Therefore, man has a responsibility for he was deliberately selfdeceived. The fact that man was partially self-deceived is evidenced by the fact; says Niebuhr, that he

confessed that he was not wholly deceived, when he expressed regret or remorse.13

Niebuhr says that man has freedom, and since he has freedom, therefore he is in constant anxiety concerning this freedom, but that this anxiety is the basis of sin. Freedom is the Ainternal precondition of sin,@14 says Niebuhr. He affirms, though, that sin cannot have its roots from any source outside of man himself, else man is not morally responsible. This is why he holds that man was self deceived in the AFall.@ Thus he is responsible.

Actually, to Niebuhr sin is divided into two categories; original and actual. Original sin is not an act, but is postulated as a defect in the will. This defection of the will must be present before there can be any act. He maintains that Athe Bible knows nothing about a good mind and an evil body@15 precisely because the body can do nothing without the consent of the mind, and so the original sin is the precondition of the mind, which he calls anxiety, which leads one to the overt action, to which he refers as actual sin.

The clearest (?) explanation of the origin of sin, as expressed by this influential American theologian, is voiced when he adapts the phrase of the philosopher, Kierkegaard, stating that “sin posits-itself,” which is a logical contradiction, for certainly first or original sin could not come from sin, unless one is willing to sacrifice the principle of causation; for from nothing, nothing can come. Where did the first sin come from that gave birth to what Niebuhr would term the first “actual sin?”

But Niebuhr attempts an explanation when he says that the “precondition of sin” is postulated in man’s freedom, for freedom creates anxiety, and anxiety is the root of sin, although not sin itself. Anxiety might be spoken of as being amoral. Freedom is a God-given attribute of all men, and this freedom gives birth to anxiety which is the foundation for sin. In an ideal situation, faith might overrule anxiety, but in reality, it never does. Therefore, sin is the “unnecessitated inevitability.” “I ought,” which implies freedom of choice, but “I cannot” says Niebuhr.

Thus Niebuhr, and other Neo-Supernaturalists affirmed that if man is going to be saved, he must be saved as a sinner, although “selfishness” (or sin as defined by Niebuhr), in the light of the Biblical view of sin, is an inadequate definition of sin. Salvation would then be the suppression of one’s own egoistic, self-centered interests, and the renovation of one’s will into an altruistic spirit. But Biblical salvation or redemption is viewed much more importantly.

Sin in the light of Biblical teaching is the setting of man’s will against the will of God. God’s infinite holiness is the standard or essence of all holiness. Man is given the responsibility to emulate the holiness of God, but he does not. This failure of man’s holiness to correspond with the infinite holiness of God is sin, and salvation is the redemption of man from the guilt incurred by this failure in his life to correspond with the holiness of God.

It is doubtful whether the views of Neo-Supernaturalistic theology are less divergent from those of “orthodox theology” than from those of liberalism. They are more liberalistic than orthodox. In fact, Neo-Orthodoxy is a misnomer. It should be called “The New Modernism,” as Cornelius Van Til so appropriately labeled it.

Footnotes

1. Walter Rauschenbusch, A Theology for the Social Gospel, Chapters 13.

2. Edward Leroy Long, Jr., Conscience and Compromise, p. 32. 3. Max Black, Critical Thinking, pp. 192-194.

4. Mary Francis Thelen, Man as Sinner.

5. Carl F. H. Henry, The Protestant Dilemma, p. 127.

6. Ralph Barton Perry, Present Philosophical Tendencies, p. 47.

7. John Herman Randall, Jr., The Making of the Modern Mind, p. 382. 8. Reinhold, Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man, Vol. II, pp. 154, 155.

9. Niebuhr., Op. Cit., Vol. II. p. 165.

10. Henry, Remaking the Modern Mind, p. 19. 11. Niebuhr, Op. Cit., Vol. II, p. 206.

12. Henry, The Protestant Dilemma, p. 130. 13. Niebuhr, Op. Cit., Vol. I, p. 205.

14. Ibid., p. 182.

15. Niebuhr, Op. Cit., Vol. I, p. 7.

Bibliography

Black, Max, Critical Thinking, Second Edition, New York, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952.

Henry, Cart F. H., Remaking the Modern Mind, Second Edition, Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1948.

The Protestant Dilemma, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1949.

Long, Edward Leroy, Jr., Conscience and Compromise, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, c. 1954.

Perry, Ralph Barton, Present Philosophical Tendencies, New York, Longman’s, Green and Co., 1912.

Niebuhr, Reinhold, The Nature and Destiny of Man, Volume I, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1943.

The Nature and Destiny of Man, Volume II, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1943.

Randall, John Herman, Jr., The Making of the Modern Mind, Boston, Houghton, Mifflin Co., 1940.

Rauschenbusch, Walter, A Theology for the Social Gospel, New York, The Macmillan Company, 1918.

Thelen;-Mary Francis, Man As Sinner, Morningside Heights, New York, King’s Crown Press, 1946.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:5, p. 3-7
November 29, 1973

By Roy E. Cogdill

Perhaps most of the readers of Truth Magazine know by now that I have moved from Henderson, Texas to Conroe, Texas. This took place shortly after the first of August. The church in Henderson is making splendid progress. They have hired’ Brother Leonard White of Houston, and he is laboring with them full time and they are able fully to support him. I predict for them a good future. Our year with them endeared all of them to our hearts and we found them to be a devoted group of disciples.

The Spring Branch Church in Houston offered to support me full-time and the Norhill Church is furnishing me a housing and utility allowance to enable me to help the church here in Conroe worshiping at Third and Lewis Streets to get on its feet. This is one of the fastest growing sections in the country and we believe the faithful church here has a good future. I have preached in the past for both of the churches that are assisting me and my association with them has been pleasant and encouraging in every way. We are grateful for their confidence.

It is the purpose here to let the local church put all of its efforts into finding a new location and building a suitable place of worship which we believe will be the biggest step forward that can be taken in this work at this time. We have a good group and our attendance is increasing some and the contributions are growing. Property is extremely high but we have hopes of finding something suitable that we can afford and are working to that end. We invite any who are passing this way to stop by to see us and worship with us. My local address is 439 Cypress Drive, Conroe, Texas, 77301.

Soon after moving here I had to go to the Diagnostic Hospital in Houston for surgery. For about three months I had suffered from very severe pain in the right hip and leg. I had gone through the clinic in Pampa, Texas, where I have gone yearly for some time to Dr. Lang for an annual physical. He reported that my blood chemistry had completely changed in the past year and that, it indicated that I might have a malignancy somewhere. He suggested that I go back to the surgeon that did a prostate operation a year ago last May and see if the trouble might be there again. It was discovered that a new growth had come and that it was malignant. Then bone specialists also found a malignancy in my left hip- Some surgery was performed and treatments were begun.

I am happy to report that I have been home five weeks now and making splendid progress. I am still walking on a cane and sitting on a stool to preach but I hope to be able to discard both before too long and feel confident that I will before long be completely well.

I want to use this medium to express to brethren everywhere my gratitude for the interest that has been shown by literally hundreds of phone calls and cards and many beautiful flowers as well as personal visits. I feel like Paul – every time I think of so many brethren that I have been associated with through the years and learned to love and that I believe love me, I thank God for them. So may I say to all of you who have communicated and many who have kept us in their hearts and prayers that I and my family are eternally grateful for your love, encouragement, and prayers.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:5, p. 2
November 29, 1973

By Mike Willis

Inasmuch as some have become disenchanted with our “narrow-minded, exclusive sect which thinks that they constitute the only saved people in the world,” I think it might be good for us to remember or reconsider, whichever might be the case, how we became so narrow-minded.

The entire basis on which we have stood in the past has been that truth demanded it. We have also noted that truth is exclusive in nature when we have preached in the past. To illustrate exactly what that means, let us consider these facts. Heb. 11:6 states, “And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.” If this statement means anything, it means that those who are atheists are lost. Let the circle below represent all of the world. The shaded area represents those of atheistic persuasion of the world, including the millions in the communistic countries, who are lost.

Another truth is added. “I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins” (Jn. 8:24). “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (Jn. 14:6). This truth excludes an even larger number of humans from salvation. The billions of people worshiping a god through any one of the world religions is pronounced lost by this verse. Our circle now looks like this, with even fewer people possessing the hope of salvation.

Another truth is added. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5). This truth reveals that even among the theists who also believe in Jesus, not all will be saved-only those who have been born again. The circle of the saved becomes even smaller.

Other truths can be added which are equally exclusive. The ones not worshipping in truth or in spirit (Jn. 4:24), the hypocrites (Mt. 7), the ones who have lost their first love (Rev. 2:4,5), the ones preaching and/ or upholding a false doctrine (Rev. 2:20; 1 Cor. 15:33-see the context; 14:37, 38-NASB; 2 Jn. 9-11), etc. are lost further narrowing the circle of the saved, leaving only a small handful in hope of salvation.

Rather than believing what Jesus said–“For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it” (Mt. 7:14)-some begin to seek ways of enlarging the circle of the saved. Those who believe that the above illustrated picture is true are called “legalistic,” “narrow-minded” and “sectarian” by men such as Carl Ketcherside. Like Paul said in Acts 24:14-“But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers . . .,” I also admit that I serve God in this Way which is called a “sect” by men such as Ketcherside as well as denominationalists of every hue.

Those following Ketcherside have broadened the circle of the saved in several ways. They included in their concept of the saved those who have perverted the worship and the work of the church as well as those who have perverted the purpose and action of baptism. Still they are legalistic.’ They legalistically believe in something which they call baptism, excluding from their concept of salvation and fellowship those who do not receive it. (It is not Bible baptism since they have asserted that a person does not need to know the purpose of his baptism to make it valid.) They legalistically exclude from the saved all atheists and Jews. How such men can criticize others for legalism when they legalistically hold these beliefs and can consider themselves consistent while doing it is beyond my comprehension.

I suggest that before anyone adopts the belief that we have been “narrow-minded, exclusive and sectarian,” becomes enamored with the Ketcherside unity position, and begins preaching it, he seriously consider the exclusive nature of truth. Somewhere down the line every man will become legalistic or else he is logically to accept the doctrine of universalism.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:4, p. 9-10
November 22, 1973