Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

From the time when God interrupted the natural processes of history and intervened by giving a supernatural revelation, there has been an almost endless discussion concerning the potentiality and priorities of reason and revelation. We might even go further and say, not only have there been discussions, but there have been very definite ostensible tensions between reason and revelation.

Man seeks the most reliable standard by which to live. Since man has come to conceive of truth as the best standard of life, much of man’s effort is expended in seeking the proper means of arriving at truth. Every person is compelled to act in accordance with what he thinks is best. In order for a proper criterion of action to be established, the philosophical problem of epistemology must be injected into the discussion. In this article, actually our discussion will revolve around the problem of “how can we know?.” Is it possible for one to derive a pattern of life from the inductive processes of naturalistic logic alone, or should there be a proper proportion of reason and revelation, or must there be an exclusive position taken, relying solely upon revelation for one’s supply of every kind of knowledge? These are the questions we must face.

Inasmuch as this has somewhat been an age-long problem, perhaps the best way to get a general perspective of what has been done toward solving the perplexity may best be by an historical survey of the various positions that have been taken. We shall try to categorize the varying views expressed in the history of this issue.

As one approaches a problem such as this one, he is dealing with the very essence of philosophy. Philosophy is one’s search for knowledge, and knowledge will never come into one’s possession without employment of reason or revelation or both.

Priority of Faith

Virtually in every age, there has been a group of philosophers who have maintained that faith is prior to reason. Revelation has been held to be self-sufficient. In the New Testament period, and immediately following, the Gnostics claimed to have knowledge. Christians also claimed to have knowledge. Their strife was not in their claim, but in the means by which they had arrived at this knowledge. The disciples of Jesus declared that their insight to truth had come to them by revelation of Jesus Christ.1 But the Gnostics rejected divine revelation and claimed to know without God’s word. They knew by reason alone. The book of Colossians is thought to be a reply to the Gnostic heresy, showing that divine truth comes only by revelation from God.

The post-apostolic writers continued to dispute the audacious claims of reason and to assert the necessity of a prior faith. Tertullian, in the seventh chapter of his book, On Prescription Against Heretics, attempts to show the “foolishness” of philosophy. He says that all heresies are instigated by philosophy. The heretics and the philosophers continually discuss the same subject matter. And with blistering irony, Tertullian says:

“Unhappy Aristotle! who invented for these men dialectics, the art of building up and pulling down, an art so jar-fetched in its conjectures, so harsh in its arguments, so productive of contentions-embarrassing even to itself, retracting everything, and really treating of nothing!”2

Tertullian goes on to declare in oratorical style that the man who had the knowledge of the gospel needed nothing else. He was sufficient in Christ. Hear him as he says in the now famous passage:

“What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon (Acts 3:5) who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. (Wisd. 1:1). Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the Gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.”3

But the attitude of Tertullian is perhaps best, reflected in the most famous expression preserved of his writings. In speaking of the Bible teaching of the incarnation and sacrifice of Christ, he said, “It is believable, because it is absurd; it is certain because it is impossible.”4 This statement was in direct contrast with the views expressed by both Clement and Origen, both of whom were members of the church in Alexandria. They said that revelation must be reasonable. Tertullian believed that the individual’s immediate intuition of God is the surest witness to truth he could have-surer even than rational proof and even surer than revelation. For Tertullian held that revelation is to “enlarge the knowledge the soul already possesses.”5

Augustine also held that faith was prior to understanding, but his views were not as exclusive of reason as were Tertullian’s. He held, with Justin Martyr, Clement, and Origen, that there was a fundamental agreement between reason and revelation, but that reason was not capable of arriving at the truth. But reason could agree with the truth once it was declared by revelation.

Prior to Augustine’s “conversion,” he was a Manichean. He was earnestly seeking for a well-founded basis for faith, and to his surprise, found that the truth about God, the evidences for God’s existence, were not understandable by reason alone. The existence of God was not demonstrable, he concluded. Augustine concluded that adequate proof for the existence of God was to be found within each human spirit, whether the individual gave heed to it or not. He, like Tertullian, thought that truth is to be grasped, not by; sense, but by intellectual intuition. Of course, the sensationalists of his day sought to contradict this claim.

Augustine said that one must believe in order to understand. This statement was equally applicable to religious and secular truths. There were many commonly accepted secular truths that were not demonstrable. One could not demonstrate mathematical truth. By reason, one could not conclude seven plus three equal ten. Moral truths were also not demonstrable. How could one demonstrate that one ought to seek wisdom? Nor could his’ epistemological truth, “I think, therefore I am,” be demonstrated. From these instances Augustine concluded that truth is superior to human reason. Reason alone could never grasp truth. So one had to believe in order to receive truth. Augustine said: “Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that thou mayest believe, but believe that thou mayest understand.”6One had to believe that there was something to be understood before he could seek its understanding. So one had to begin with faith in order to end with understanding, whether this search was for secular or religious truth. Yet in this kind of system, faith was prior.

It is difficult to classify Anselm in the categories we have set up to follow in the writing of this article. In a very real sense, he is an Augustinian. He speaks the language of Augustine. But in another sense he is a Thomist. Hence we shall refer to him under both headings. Almost repetitious of Augustine’s sentiments, Anselm said:

“I do not endeavor,’ O Lord, to penetrate thy sublimity for in no wise do I compare my understanding with that; but I long to understand in some degree thy truth, which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, that unless I believed; I should not `understand.”7

Augustinians may not all say the same thing, but at least they have one thing in common; they all assert the priority of faith over reason.

Revelation Supplements Reason

The next category of thinkers we are considering in the discussion of the specific provinces of reason and revelation is that of those who say revelation supplements reason. These individuals hold that there are certain spiritual truths that are capable of logical demonstration separate and apart from revelation. They are mediators between the preceding category and the succeeding one. But while holding that some truths are logically demonstrable, they also believed that there were many which were not. So in order for all truth to be given, God had to inform man by revelation of those truths which man was unable to arrive at by demonstration.

As we had just mentioned Anselm in the preceding section, it is appropriate that we begin with him in this division, as we asserted he could be classified under both headings. How Anselm would harmonize this contradiction in his position I am not sure, but we shall try accurately to state what he said. While Anselm had so plainly stated that one could not understand without first believing, he also said that without the presuppositions of faith, he could demonstrate the existence of God. In the famous “ontological proof,” he purported to give a purely logical demonstration of the existence of God. This proof would exist within the individual mind, if it is demonstrable, whether there was a divine revelation or not. Anselm was so encouraged by, the ease with which he had demonstrated God’s existence, he went on to demonstrate other Bible doctrines, or at least he thought he had. In his Monologium and Proslogium, he “proved” that God was a Trinity of Divine, Persons by “conclusive dialectical arguments.” And in his Cur Deus homo, he sets forth his rational proof necessitating the incarnation of Christ. The incarnation occurred because it was logically necessary. It could have been no other way, without disproving the validity of logic. Anselm , says he,

Aleaving Christ out of view, as if nothing had ever been known of Him, proves, by necessary reasons, the impossibility that any man should be saved without Him. Again, in the second book, likewise as if nothing were known of Christ, it is moreover shown as no less patent rational truth, that human nature` was ordained for that purpose, viz. that some time the whole man should enjoy a happy.immortality, both in body and in soul, and that it was necessary that this design for which man was made should be fulfilled;’ but that it could not be fulfilled unless God became man, so that all things which we hold with regard to Christ had necessarily to take place.”8

Others of this clan took a milder or lessened view of the capabilities of a rationalism to declare the teachings of God’s Word. Yet all considered under this heading felt that some of the teachings of the Scriptures could have been discovered by reason alone.

Should one select a classic writer as being representative of this system of thought, certainly he must choose the now official philosopher of the Roman Catholic Church, “St. Thomas” of Aquinas. He is an excellent example of one who held this empirical theological epistemology. He maintained that he began with the sum of his sense impressions and from these concepts could prove that God existed.

Thomas said: “It seems that the existence of God is selfevident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene said, the knowledge of God is naturally inplanted in all. Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.” 9 Thomas meant; by this natural knowledge that is implanted in us, that we have the inherent qualities that enable us to know Him. He stated it this way: “To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature.”l0

However, to the credit of Thomas, it should be noted that he said sense impressions and natural intuition enable man to know God only in “general and confused way.” “From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as he is in His essence.”11

Even though Thomas realized reason alone was not enough, yet he did feel that his famous five-fold proof constituted a demonstration of God’s existence, and that these proofs were not dependent upon divine revelation for their support. This approach has come to be set aside as inadequate by many modern apologists. With the insight which he had received from revelation, ;Thomas, and others set out to view nature to reach certain conclusions. But after reaching the destination, they then turn back, pleading pure empiricism. Aristotle, studied nature, and from it could only detect an impersonal Unmoved Mover. Do modern Thomists have any more insight into nature, or did they have access to more data than did the ancient Philosopher? But Aarmed with the conviction that the Trinity is the true God, Thomas had no difficulty re-introducing into the system of Aristotle such notions as divine creation, exemplarism, and providence. The very eagerness which Thomas evinced to renovate Aristotle is glaring proof that he anticipated nature with a God that he found by other than empirical means” 12 As another critic of Thomas said: “Thomas and others, coming to the universe on revelational assumptions, could find God written in every area of it; there is more significance than usually thought in the statement that only a Christian could have framed the five-fold proof.” 13 But as this article does not intend to be a critique of the various views, but merely a chronicler of them, we must proceed.

Philosophers and theologians who have held that part of God’s revealed truths could be grasped by natural reason alone have lived in almost every age. All have given way to the prominence of Thomas, so with him, we will close this category of our discussion.

Priority of Reason

Our review has been progressive. We observed the system which says revelation is the only means of arriving at truth. Next we noticed those who taught that some revealed truth could be derived by reason. Now we are ready to consider the period or class of thinkers who are pure rationalists. They attempt to live within the limits of reason alone. This is an exclusive attitude as it feels no need for revelation.

The roots of this modern philosophical disposition reach far back into history. It had its inception in Arabic philosophy. The early proponent of this movement was Averroes. He felt that absolute truth was to be derived, not from any given revelation, but from reason. And to him, reason had become personified, in the person of Aristotle. Any doctrine that could not be gained from a perusal of Aristotle’s dissertations could hardly be germane to the philosophers.

Averroes believed that all truth could be given to mankind by the exploitation of logic. But if all truth could be arrived at by this system of rationalism, why was there any need for revelation at all? To this Averroes replied by stating that different individuals have varying capabilities. Not every man is a philosopher. Not every man is capable of following logic to its end. But every man does need truth by which to pattern his life.. So to Averroes, the Scriptures are not given to be of benefit to the philosopher, for he could know all they say before they were given, but the Scriptures were given for the unphilosophically inclined beings. So that actually, there could be no conflict whatever between reason and revelation. If ever there should be a contradiction, the harmony must certainly lie in correction of an illogical process, or ruling out a pseudo-revelation. This disposition to harmonize reason and revelation is exemplified in Averroes’ book, The Agreement of Religion and Philosophy.

Every rationalistic philosopher since Averroes has essentially followed in his steps, for this is rationalism by definition. It is the conviction that one can arrive at truth without relying upon a supernatural revelation. And it can be said that genuine rationalists must believe in the essential agreement between reason and revelation. They must conclude that what is true in a revelation is in agreement with the truth deduced by reason. And Christians would agree that what truth can be logically deduced by reason would be in agreement with supernatural revelation. The issue is whether any proposition is to be accepted which is not capable of logical demonstration, but whose veracity is totally dependent upon the authenticity of revelation.

Reason Examines Revelation

No one doubts that there is a definite relation to be sustained between reason and revelation. The medieval and modern theologians and rationalists recognize there is a sphere of relation between the two. But the problem has been that of ascertaining the proper province and limitation of both.

the Bible is given is to tell man how to be saved. So one can rightfully say that the Bible has limitations in the areas of knowledge it uncovers. It is a Book of spiritual truths, and one would make a mistake to accept it as a text-book in mathematics.

At the same time, one must realize that reason has certain boundaries set for it, beyond which it cannot go on its own power. It is admitted that many of the facts of life and science can be discovered by naturalistic reason, but at the same time, one can never logically proceed to spiritual truths. If there is any truth at all in revelation, it plainly is the truth that the Scriptures furnish the Christian completely to every good work. 14 The apostle Peter goes on to state that the knowledge one receives through the revelation of Jesus Christ provides one with “all things that pertain to life and godliness.” 15 The Scriptures teach that the truths given to us by God are adequate to guide one from earth to heaven, if man will but follow them. This fact must be accepted by reason, or else reason must contradict it, by asserting that the whole of revelation may be discarded, leaving man to stumble through life and toward Judgment on what light can be shed forth by one’s immediate intuition and logic.

However, if one admits that God’s revelation to man is adequate to do that for which God gave it, namely, give man instruction as to how to obtain remission of sins, and an entrance into heaven, then he is faced with the question of declaring the utility of rationalism at all. For if rationalism is not to be used to the exclusion of revelation, and even if it should be admitted that rationalism could arrive at some spiritual truths, yet if one admits the adequacy of the Scriptures, rationalism could therefore arrive at no truth than those already expressed by divine fiat. And if rationalism simply reiterates what God has already said, it can give no additional light.

Reason must be applied to revelation. Man is not to be expected gullibly to accept every claimed supernatural revelation, else the contradictions between the “revelations” would rule out the supernatural element altogether from these revelations, leaving nothing but books of contradictions. Contradiction is not the quality of God, but of man. Man just decide upon the origin of revelation by evidence. It would be irrational to attempt to decide the origin of a given “revelation” by that revelation itself. To do so would be to argue circumlocutiously. One cannot get assent of his reasoning faculties to submit to a divine oracle, unless he is satisfied it is indeed a divine oracle. So when one investigates the Scriptures to determine whether they are the product of man or God, reason is examining the Scriptures. If the “revelation” is found to be the product of fallible man, without supernatural guidance, it should be discarded as a supernatural revelation, and should be placed in the library of human products. But if one’s investigation leads him to the conclusion that the work being investigated is the work of God, it should be read accordingly.

Revelation does not pretend to reveal all knowledge. The Scriptures do not teach there is nothing that man can learn that is not revealed in the Scriptures. There are many fields of knowledge that the Bible leaves wide open to the investigation of the scientific man. It is not the purpose of the Bible to give us a wealth of information on geography, astronomy, history, linguistics, etc., but the reason for which

A little over a century ago, Brother Robert Milligan published a book entitled, Reason and Revelation. In this work he stated some of the provinces of reason in matters pertaining to divine revelation. He said these provinces are: (1) Decide on the origin of the Bible (pp. 15-153); (2) Decide on the canon of the Scriptures (pp. 154-212); (3) Decide on the integrity of the Scriptures (pp. 213-346); (4) Decide on the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures (p. 271); (5) Decide on the proper theory of inspiration (p. 271); (6) Decide on and apply the proper rules of exegesis (p. 286 ff.); (7) Acquiesence to whatever God has revealed.

Reason should be used to decide the origin of the Scriptures. If then, the revelation is concluded to be a divine revelation, then the fullest extent of one’s mental ability should be employed in seeking to grasp what God has said, and the whole of man’s will should be consumed in applying what God has commanded to one’s life.

A captain a battle field may receive a message claiming to have been sent by his general. The captain must decide whether it really came from the general or not. If his decision is affirmative, it therefore becomes the duty of the lesser officer to submit humbly to what his superior says. If man’s infinite Superior speaks, man must listen, and obey.

Footnotes

1. Galatians 1:12; 1 Corinthians 2:13.

2. Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. VII.

3. Obid. Ch. VII.

4. Tertullian, De Carne Christi. 5

5. Fuller, History of Philosophy, pp. 351, 352.

6. Augustine. On the Gospel of Saint John, xxix, 6.

7. Quoted in Gilson, Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages, p. 24.

8. Anselm, Cur Deus homo, Preface.

9. Thomas, Summa, I Q.Z, A 1.

10. Loc. Cit.

11. Thomas, Op. Cit. 1. Q.Z, A. 2.

12. Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, p. 132.

13. Henry, Remaking the Modern Mind, p. 231.

14. 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.

15. 2 Peter 1:3, 4.

Bibliography

Augustine, On the Gospel of Saint John, xxix, 6; in Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages. Gilson, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1938, p. 19.

Casserly; J. V. Langmead. The Christian in Philosophy, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951.

Carnell, Edward J., An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, Third Ed., Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950.

Fuller, B. A. G., A History of Philosophy, New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1959.

Gilson, Etienne, Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1938.

______ The Unity of Philosophical Experience. New York, Scribner’s Sons, 1952.

Henry, Carl F. H., Remaking the Modern Mind, Second Ed., Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1952.

Milligan, Robert, Reason and Revelation, Cincinnati, R. W. Carroll & Co., Publishers, 1868.

Anselm. Cur Deus homo. Preface, S. N. Deane’s translation, pp. 178, 179.

Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. VII; in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Buffalo, 1887, vol. 3, p. 246.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:8, p. 3-7
December 20, 1973

By Irvin Himmel

Nothing is more clearly revealed in the Scriptures than our dependence on God’s grace for redemption. Paul said to the saints at Ephesus, “by grace are ye saved” (Eph. 2:5). Everyone who is permitted to enter heaven will be there by grace.

Today there are teachers, even in the church, who have warped conceptions of grace. Some seem to feel that grace is the big “cover-up” for whatever they want to allow that is not taught in the Bible. There is endless speculation about what grace may do. Having no desire to join the ranks of the conjecturers, I offer the following facts revealed in God’s word.

1. Grace does not circumvent Jesus Christ. It is folly to imagine that God’s saving grace may somehow take a circuitous route that by-passes Jesus Christ. “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). God demonstrated His loving-kindness for sinful man in the gift of His Son. In Christ “we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace” (Eph. 1:7). Saving grace is found in Jesus, not out of Him. Paul said to the Corinthian Christians, “I thank my God always on your behalf for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:4). The grace that saves comes to man by or through, not apart from, Jesus Christ.

2. Grace does not ignore the Gospel. The good news of justification through Christ is referred to as “the gospel of the grace of God” and “the word of his grace” (Acts 20:24, 32). To preach the gospel is to distribute saving grace. The saints at Colosse were reminded of “the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth” (Col. 1:5,6). It was not until the gospel was preached in Antioch that people turned to the Lord and the grace of God was “seen” in that locality (Acts 11:19-23).

3. Grace does not permit access apart from faith. “Access” is that which gives admittance, entrance, or introduction. One must show faith in Jesus Christ in order to gain access into saving grace. “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (Rom. 5:1,2). Since faith comes by hearing God’s word (Rom. 10:17), one must hear the gospel to enter God’s favor. “For by grace are ye saved through faith . . .” (Eph. 2:8). God provides salvation through undeserved favor; man accepts that provision of grace by means of faith.

4. Grace does not rule against baptism for the remission of sins. The faith which gives access into grace is active trust-confidence expressed in cheerful obedience. God requires that we show faith by being baptized, and that demonstration of faith is unto the remission of sins. “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:12). Peter preached repentance and baptism “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). But he acknowledged that it is “through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” that we shall be saved (Acts 15:11). Salvation by grace requires faith, and faith requires baptism unto the forgiveness of sins.

5. Grace does not give license to sin. The law of Moses was given to show the exceeding sinfulness of sin. Under the law sin abounded. “But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. . . ” (Rom. 5:20). Does this mean that the more men sin, the more grace will be shown? Or, as Paul worded the question, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” He answered, “God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (Rom. 6:1,2). The triumph of God’s grace over sin is not to be interpreted as a license for the Christian to indulge in unrighteousness. “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof” (Rom. 6:12). “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly . . .” (Tit. 2:11,12).

6. Grace does not offer unconditional security. Just as our entrance into saving grace is conditioned on our willingness to show faith in Jesus Christ, our remaining in that grace is conditioned on our willingness to continue in faith. The Hebrew writer warns us that one may “fail” or “come short” of the grace of God (Heb. 2:15). The Galatians were called “into the grace of Christ” but afterward accepted false teaching that “removed” them (Gal. 1:6,7). Paul wrote to them, “ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). This explodes the theory of once in grace, always in grace.

7. Grace does not save on the basis of human merit. The Bible sometimes uses the word “work” to convey the thought of activity that earns, or effort that deserves reward. In this sense Paul used the word when he wrote, “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt” (Rom. 4:4). Our salvation is based on faith, not something earned or deserved, “that it might be by grace” (Rom. 4:16). This is why boasting is excluded. “Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:9). Actions in exercise of faith are sometimes called “works” (James 2:24), but they are not in the category of efforts that earn or merit. No man deserves salvation. God’s grace saves and shows our inability to reach heaven by our own might, ingenuity, or deserving. God owes us nothing; we owe Him everything.

I have used this negative approach to show some of the revealed limitations which God places on grace. Hopefully, this will point out that God’s saving grace is not a mystical catch-all for whatever odds and ends. the speculators in theology may wish to conceal. And let us stay with revelation, giving no honor to speculation.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:8, p. 2
December 20, 1973

By Norman E. Fultz

Having recently purchased a set of cassette tape recordings of the New Testament and having taken time to only listen to portions while at home and busy with the regular day to day activities, I have found a way to really enjoy them. On a trip recently with the family, we took a rest from conversation and radio, and placed one of the tapes in our portable tape recorder which we had taken along and so listened to Paul’s letters to the Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians. Even more recently while driving to a series of gospel meetings more than five hundred miles from my home, I again took my recorder and tapes. It is a thrill to listen at one sitting to the whole book of Matthew, take a little break, if desired, and then hear the account of the Lord’s life by Mark, or to jump to the Acts or Romans.

There is something so stimulating about the reading of the scriptures by the professional reader as he reads the Sermon on the Mount or delivers Jesus’ scathing rebuke of the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew twenty-three or hear His appeal, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem. . .” or the depiction of the judgment scene in Matthew twenty-five. The time passes rapidly and the miles flow by as one breaks the monotony of Interstate driving while being profitably occupied.

Other valuable tapes to me are tapes of Homer Hailey’s studies in the prophets which I made a couple of years ago in a series of gospel lessons, and Roy Cogdill’s lessons on I and II Timothy and Titus and lessons by a number of other gospel preachers whose subject was of such interest that a recording was made. Yes, there are times on those trips when I still enjoy the fine music available on the stereo, but how good and profitable it is to have something that is even better than the stereo.

The recorded New Testament can be purchased for a very nominal price and there are so many uses that could be made of it in addition to those I have mentioned herein. This just happened to be the one that I have enjoyed most. Preachers often spend a great deal of time driving, brethren whose jobs take them on the road a lot and families on vacation or shorter trips would profit from this use.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:7, p. 14
December 13, 1973

By Cecil Willis

Elsewhere in this issue I am re-printing an article that was written by my friend, William E. Wallace, Editor of the Gospel Guardian. This article entitled “The Political Mr. Willis” appeared in the November 22, 1973 Gospel Guardian, and constituted the first in three very harsh articles written by Brother Wallace attempting to reply to some of the things which have been written in Truth Magazine by Brother James W. Adams and me regarding some positions taken by Brother Edward Fudge, Associate Editor of the Gospel Guardian, on the subjects of grace, fellowship and some related issues.

In this article entitled “The Political Mr. Willis,” it appears to me that Brother Wallace stooped to an all-time low in journalism among faithful brethren. Bill Wallace and I have been friends for nearly twenty years. I do not intend to let what he says in a few articles written under great pressure, and possibly while his blood pressure was considerably elevated, destroy my friendship with him. In case you do not take the Gospel Guardian, I suggest that you write for the issues pertaining to this discussion. Two other lengthy, but similar articles, appeared after the one reprinted in this issue of Truth Magazine. Please write the Gospel Guardian and request the other two articles that followed in this series. The last article that appeared that I have seen as I write this article on December 15, 1973 was received yesterday. It is dated December 13th. Bill’s December 13th article filled five pages of the Gospel Guardian. I believe his other article appeared in the December 8th issue of the Gospel Guardian, though I do not have a copy of it before me as I write. It will be dealt with later.

In the Masthead of the Gospel Guardian, I do not see any single issue price listed. Perhaps they will send you copies of these issues free. But if not, please purchase them. The address of the Gospel Guardian is Box 858, Athens, Alabama 35611. Several other articles have appeared since April, 1973 pertaining to this discussion on fellowship. Preferably, you should read all-of their articles on that subject. I cannot speak for them, but Truth Magazine will now send you completely free of charge the entire series of 20 articles by James W. Adams, plus the articles by Ron Halbrook, and those which I have written, so long as our supply lasts. In my judgment, this entire series of articles is tremendously important to every brother interested in keeping up with what is going on among churches opposed to congregational support of human institutions and to sponsoring churches. If you have not kept up with the discussions in past months, you need to catch up. So please write both the Gospel Guardian and Truth Magazine for copies of pertinent issues. Ours will be sent free, as long as our supply lasts. Of course, I have no authority to offer copies of the Gospel Guardian free to you. Purchase them, if you must, but be sure you read Brother Wallace’s three articles, beginning with the November 22nd issue.

To “fill in” anyone who has not kept up on his reading, let me simply state that a discussion has been going on for several months regarding the position of some brethren on the subject of “Fellowship.” Particularly under fire, from many sources both oral and written, has been the position of Gospel Guardian Associate Editor, Edward Fudge. In order to try to clarify Brother Fudge’s position, within the last two weeks Editor Wallace has spoken at Expressway church in Louisville, Kentucky; Indianapolis, Indiana; Hobart, Indiana; Lufkin, Texas; and somewhere in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. At the Louisville discussion, which was the only one I was able to attend, ‘due to some necessary minor surgery, I publicly offered to pay the fare to get Brother Edward Fudge present for such a discussion, since it was evident to all present that it was primarily Brother Fudge’s position that was under fire. Brother Wallace stated publicly that he thought it would take considerable “smoking out” (his terminology) to get Brother Fudge into such a session. I even offered to provide some of the heat necessary to “smoke him out” and to get him into one of these discussion sessions, and asked Brother Wallace if he would agree to provide the other necessary heat to “smoke him out.” After some hesitation, Brother Wallace stated that he would not promise then and there publicly to help “smoke out” Brother Fudge.

There have been some remarks made by Brother Wallace indicating that some of us had misrepresented Brother Fudge, and that we had made derogatory remarks regarding Brother Edward. Though the tapes of the Louisville meeting have not yet been transcribed, I am prepared to state now that Brother Wallace said more derogatory remarks concerning what Brother Fudge believes, and concerning his inability or unwillingness to state clearly what he believes, than any of us, or all of us combined who have criticized Brother Fudge’s position. As soon as the tapes are transcribed, I will document this statement.

Though Brother Wallace stated in one of his articles that I was enjoying this discussion, his statement merely indicates the truthfulness of Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 2:11 indicating that no man can know the heart of another man, unless that man specifically reveals the contents of his heart. The fact is that this necessary discussion has grieved me much; certainly as much as it has grieved Brother Wallace or Brother Fudge. One of my major concerns has been, “Where and when is this discussion going to end?” No answer to that question has yet become evident to me.

One thing is for sure. I have determined that the discussion, so far as my part in it is concerned, will not end until the damaging teaching of Edward Fudge is stopped, and until Brother Wallace quits trying to cover up for Brother Fudge. Brother Wallace has charged that I wanted to run the brotherhood. Once again, he evidences that he does not know a man’s heart. He is as wrong as a man can be about my intentions and desires. He even cites some unnamed brother who is supposed to have said that “Cecil Willis is trying to head-up his, own Church of Christ. . . .” Brother Wallace has permitted himself to believe a lie in regard to this matter. Cecil Willis- abhors as utterly repugnant the thought of any man “heading-up” Christ’s church, and deeply resents the false charge that such a sinister intention might’ exist in his heart. It would be most interesting to know who the “renowned brother among us” is who convinced Brother Wallace to believe this lie. If Brother Wallace will name the “renowned brother,” I will call him what he is: an unmitigated liar! Do you care to tell us who this “renowned brother” is, Brother Wallace? One brother said to me, “I wonder if it is the same brother who said to me in April, 1968 that something is going- to have to be done about the loose teaching being done in the Gospel Guardian:” I pray that it was not this “renowned brother” who maligned me and perjured himself.

It is my, opinion that a corner recently may have been turned in this controversy. Brother Wallace stated in Louisville that if he met the same nearly unanimous objection to Brother Fudge’s teachings elsewhere as he did in Louisville, he would have to “reassess” Brother Fudge’s relationship to the Gospel Guardian. Frankly, I felt sorry for Bill in Louisville. He got punched around in the open forum period like a punching bag. So far as I was able to tell, there was only one person present in sympathy with Brother Wallace’s defense of Brother Edward Fudge. And Bill found out while in Louisville what a number of other brethren already knew: that brother was preaching for a liberal church, though a fairly frequent writer in the Gospel Guardian, and also in the ultra-liberal Mission magazine. Bill told me afterward that learning what he did about the only sympathizer that he had present (so far as I know), he was going to have to “cut him off” as a writer in the Gospel Guardian. Now if you want to see if he does so, watch to see if any other articles appear by young Brother Stephen Goad!

While I, certainly have no aspirations to “head-up” my own Church of Christ,” however, it does happen that I am a member of the Lord’s church. I also attempt both to preach and to write lessons on the gospel of Christ, and to oppose error within and without the church. If Edward Fudge is not a teacher of “pernicious error” (as Brother James Adams has called it), I completely have misunderstood him. Brother Wallace stated in Louisville that he did not know why Brother Fudge cannot express himself clearly. I think the trouble is that he has expressed himself clearly enough that nearly every person present for the Louisville discussion (and there were perhaps 200 present) seemed to understand precisely what Brother Fudge was saying. In fact, Brother Wallace stated Brother Fudge’s position on the imputation of the righteous life of Christ to those who have “imperfect knowledge” and therefore practice instrumental music and institutionalism, and that such persons will be saved by virtue of the imputation to them of Christ’s righteous life. Brother Wallace stated exactly what I had understood Fudge to be saying, and stated it so clearly that so far as I could tell, virtually every person present recognized it for the palpable and pernicious error that it is. Bill took an unmerciful beating in the open forum. He even stated that Brother Fudge, who told us in the November 8th Gospel Guardian how that the “Lord naturally endowed” him with a “gentle” spirit, would have “lost his cool” under the barrage of questions which Brother Wallace had to field in Brother’s Fudge’s defense.

Earlier I referred to my wonderment about where all this discussion might end. I cannot speak for others, and will not attempt to do so. But so’ far as I am concerned, the discussion will end either when Edward Fudge quits teaching ;- his Calvinistic doctrine on grace and his latitudinarianism on fellowship, or when the effect of his teaching. has been so nullified that- young gospel preachers will cease to be destroyed by it. The- casualty list grows increasingly longer. About ten days ago, a young preacher called me late at night, and nearly in tears (perhaps literally in tears), begged me not to let up now. He had just, that night received word from the parents of another young preacher whose faith had been destroyed by the false teaching of Edward Fudge.

Brother Wallace referred to me as “The Political Mr. Willis.” Yet he admitted that he was out “feeling, the pulse of the brotherhood” again. If the brotherhood objected too strongly, he was going to have to “reassess” Brother Fudge’s relationship to the Gospel Guardian, and said that if he got in other places the same response that he received in Louisville, he would be forced to ask for Brother Fudge’s resignation. Brother, that- is religious politics! If the brotherhood will continue to tolerate such a false teacher, Brother Wallace will leave him on the staff. If the brotherhood objects too strongly, he will ask for Brother Fudge’s resignation. Talk about somebody being political!

If Brother Wallace meant what he said, and if indeed he can demand the resignation of the son of the major stockholder who owns the Gospel Guardian, then I think we soon will see the withdrawal of Brother Edward Fudge from the staff of the Gospel Guardian. But what of that? Does that solve the problem? If they were to put Ed Fudge in a capsule and shot him to the moon, as long as his false teaching continued to wreck and ruin young preachers, his teaching would have to be opposed. The Gospel Guardian has been one of the primary instruments of Ed’s damaging influence. If Brother Wallace wants to convince brethren he is going to try to “clean house” and get the Gospel Guardian on scriptural foundation again, let him oppose Ed’s false teaching, correct the error taught by Brother Fudge, and try to help salvage some of the’ young preachers on the brink of spiritual wreckage as the result of Ed’s grace-fellowship error. Then I will be among the first to commend the Gospel Guardian, and will do all I can to help it regain the confidence of faithful brethren, which confidence it has lost.

Brother Wallace would have you to believe that I would like to seethe Gospel Guardian die, because this might help Truth Magazine somehow. Wrong again, Brother Bill! I would like to see the Gospel Guardian contend for the truth, and oppose error, like it has in the past, and like it did when it built up the good reputation it once enjoyed, Set the Gospel Guardian on a good sound; militant course, and then ask me to help you promote it. See how quickly I will join hands with you, and try to help it regain the confidence the Gospel Guardian once enjoyed. Set the record straight, set the course straight, and call on me to do anything within my power to help you salvage the Gospel Guardian. You do your part, and then see whether I will do my part. Wonder why I would want to see the Gospel Guardian die, but would delight in the prosperity of Searching the Scriptures, Preceptor, Bible Standard, and every other good paper operated by faithful and true brethren? And just for the sake of the record, let me state that Bill Wallace told me that the CEI Company did over $100,000.00 a year more in business than did Truth Magazine. Brother, “contend earnestly for the faith,” and you will have every ounce of encouragement and assistance I can give you. But early in my life, I committed myself to oppose error and compromise, and I do not intend now to change my course, God being my Helper!

The articles Brother Wallace wrote, and my replies, may sound like we detest each other. That is not the case. After the Louisville exchange, Brother Wallace came to Indianapolis, and went the next day to Hobart, Indiana. On his way back home, he drove considerably out of his way to come by my home to visit me. He told me he had some rough articles coming out about Truth Magazine and me. He urged me not to get too upset over them. He said he hoped to be in contact with me again in two weeks or so, and I hope the contact is made. He wanted to talk to me after a December CEI Board meeting. I promised Bill I would not be unduly upset about his articles, but also asked that he not be unduly upset about what I had to say in response to them. I must confess that his articles were rougher and indicted my motives much more than I anticipated that he would do. But as I agreed, I am not so upset by them that I cannot meet and talk congenially with my friend and brother, Bill Wallace. But there are some other things he said that demand reply, and I intend to correct some other erroneous statements he made.

Meanwhile, write for the Gospel Guardian containing the aforementioned articles, and lets all watch to see if Associate Editor Fudge resigns, or if Editor Wallace asks for his resignation. The CEI Board of Directors consists of four women and one man. I sincerely hope proper steps will be made to regain the good reputation of the Gospel Guardian, rather than to continue to permit it to be used as an instrument through which to promulgate Calvinistic and latitudinarian error, and to instigate compromise with false teachers.

At Louisville, Bill stated it was the intention of the owners of the Gospel Guardian to turn the Gospel Guardian into a Twentieth Century Christian-like, paper. Let me suggest that if you want a Twentieth Century Christian-like paper, you can order the real thing from Nashville, Tennessee. However, I. personally cannot recommend it.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:7, p. 3-6
December 13, 1973