Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Since the American Standard Version went out of print several years ago, some who have used that translation to study and preach from have experienced some difficulty in finding a copy of it bound well enough to stand the wear of daily usage. Consequently, much appreciation should have come when Logos International published the American Standard Version in a study Bible comparable to Dickson’s Analytical Bible in the King James Version.

This edition of the American Standard Version is an outstanding job of printing, as the price reflects, which is bound in genuine leather, has gold edges and a ribbon marker. No copy of any translation of the Bible to my knowledge is superior to this one in that respect.

The Logos Study Bible has an excellent concordance and detailed cross references. (The cross references are much more detailed than in the old edition of the American Standard Version published by Thomas Nelson and Sons or the New American Standard Bible published by Creation House.) In addition to the concordance and cross reference, this publication also has a topical analysis of the Bible passages relative to most Bible subjects which is well indexed. This section of the Logos Study Bible is similar to Nave’s Topical Bible except that it only lists the verses pertinent to any given subject and does not quote them.

A critical apparatus is appended to each page to list the variant readings and textual basis behind each reading. Obviously, this publication was intended to be used by serious Bible students.

In addition to twelve topographical maps, the Logos Study Bible also includes a brief introduction to each book which discusses authorship, subject material, destination, and purpose of each book. All of these helps would be useful to any Bible student.

I would like to be able to unequivocally recommend this publication of the American Standard Version but I cannot conscientiously do so because of the 120 page commentary on the Holy Spirit included in the Study Bible in which the authors make every argument which I have ever heard to defend the Pentecostal (Trinitarian) position on the Holy Spirit. (Perhaps this will remind us that the helps, published in most every Bible, are uninspired.)

The commentary is so subtle that it would easily deceive the person who is not prepared to discuss the subjects of Holy Spirit baptism, the cessation of miraculous spiritual gifts, tongue-speaking, the manner in which the Holy Spirit leads an individual and most other distinctive Pentecostal doctrines. Here is an example to illustrate just how subtle the commentary is. The comments on 2 Cor. 12 about Paul’s “messenger of Satan” or “thorn in the flesh” attempt to prove that it was a false teacher who followed Paul from town to town. After citing what he apparently thought was sufficient evidence to prove that, the author said, “If Paul’s thorn in the flesh was the continual aggravation caused by a hostile person and not a sickness, then one cannot claim support from this passage that there are some illnesses which God may refuse to heal.”

Arguments on tongue-speaking are presented, modern experiences of it are reported, and instructions are given about practicing it in this 120 page commentary on the Holy Spirit.

For this reason alone, I cannot recommend the Logos Study Bible. If you are able to handle the Pentecostal position very adequately, you might be able to use this publication profitably. But to the young, inexperienced Bible student, the commentary on the Holy Spirit might constitute a serious threat to his faith. He could easily be tossed about by the winds of that false doctrine. I would much rather recommend the New American Standard Bible to such an individual.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:1, p. 12
November 1, 1973

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

A few months ago a series of articles began, entitled: “Teaching Successfully.” Eight articles in the series appeared in Truth Magazine. The response to these articles has been good and we are ready to continue writing under this general theme. The frequency of this ‘material will be determined by the writer’s schedule. Hopefully this will become a regular column.

Restatement of Goals

Recognizing that few teachers have formal training in the area of Bible Class teaching, it is essential that teachers strive to master to some degree the skills of effective teaching. Mastering the art of teaching processes, lesson planning, and the direction of students in the Bible class room affords great personal enjoyment to the teacher. The goal of these articles is to direct brethren by way of instruction in matters that will assist them in the impartation of knowledge relating to the Bible.

Advice and Help

As in the past, future articles will not approach the theme in textbook type of presentation. This writer desires to merely offer advice and help in the essentials of Bible class teaching. Speaking as one Bible class teacher to another, heart-to-heart discussions are always best. No claim is made to originality. We are merely restating in convenient form (sometimes using the writer’s privilege of over-statement) a few fundamental truths which have been restated many times in various publications. My only excuse is that with the exception of an occasional article appearing here and there, there has been no presentation of material briefly enough and simply enough for the needs of the masses of brethren. Available works are either too expensive, too technical, or too much over the heads of brethren. Whatever be the faults of these series, I can positively guarantee that every problem discussed is real, every principle dealt with has daily application and every suggestion offered will be one that has been found to work in practice.

Important Position

The Bible places the teacher on a high pedestal. It says, “they that be wise (teachers) shall shine as the brightest of the firmament” (Dan. 12:3). Teachers must improve their positions. They must become more efficient in the presentation of matters relating to Christ, the Bible, the church and general Biblical background information. We are losing too many brethren to Satan!

Millions in our nation under seventeen years of age are not receiving any religious instruction at all. Two out of every three children in America are not enrolled in a Bible Class of any kind. About every fourteen seconds a crime is committed. Within each forty second period someone commits a murder. Think :of the thousands across America who profess membership in the New Testament church who are not receiving Bible class instruction. Thousands of others are attending classes, but enjoying it less. Collectively speaking, teachers hold the destiny of thousands in their grasp. Teachers must learn better methods of imparting Bible knowledge. This can be done in spite of limited helps and so many odds against the Bible class teacher.

Conclusion

No effort will be made to deal with all of the methods of teaching nor to present our material exhaustively. We desire only to help brethren have -a more important concept of his wonderful task. May each of us strive to be better communicators of God’s Word. “Do your best to win approval in God’s sight, as a worker who is not ashamed of his work, one who correctly teaches the message of God’s truth” (2 Tim. 2:15, Good News For Modern Man).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:1, p. 11
November 1, 1973

By Jeffery Kingry

Have you ever stopped in your rushed life to think of the vast vault of time that lies awaiting judgment, or of the lives that have filled that immensity? It is not easy for man in his hour-by-hour existence to comprehend the enormity of history, or to acknowledge the souls that drew breath generations before we were born. There have been men whose eyes beheld the Tower of Babel, the Pyramids rising from the sand, yea, even gazed upon the face of our Lord Jesus. Men have lived, loved, hated, felt pleasure and pain. They all met death and are now awaiting the judgment toward which we are all hurtling. Time, such a plodding thing for the present, is such a swift irretrievable vapour when it is past.

“The days of our years are three-score and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away” (Psa. 90:10). Our lives are lived, and what we have done, seen, or felt all the books of the world could not hold. And yet millions upon millions have felt the same cool of each new morning, and thought that it was theirs alone. One lifetime is but a heart-beat, a blink, a glance. “Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in generation after generation. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God … for a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday, when it is past, and as a watch in the night … thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass that groweth up . . .” (1,2,5,6).

Yet who patterns his life? Who actually redeems the time? Too many lights are turned on for scant seconds and eternally put out. We are born, grow in the supreme ignorance of youth, labor, grow old, and too late gaze back upon the years and mourn “for all our days are passed away in thy wrath: we spent our years as a tale that is told” (v. 9).

David, whose body is one with the earth, died yearning for the day when man would see Jesus. “Return, O Lord, how long? And let it repent thee concerning thy servants. Make us glad according to the days wherein thou hast afflicted us and the years wherein we have seen evil. Let thy work appear unto thy servants,, and thy glory unto their children” (13-16). He died, never seeing that day. The time finally came when all was fulfilled. Men saw the Word in the flesh. The time of His appearance came and went. God had promised and in the fullness of time, when the’ time had come, God ‘fulfilled his promise.

God now speaks to us, saying again when the fullness of time is come that the “heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise … the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with a fervent heat, and the earth also and all the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the corning of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat” (2 Pet. 3:7-12).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:1, p. 10-11
November 1, 1973

By James W. Adams

Trouble among the churches of the Lord did not begin with the Gospel Advocate’s and Tolbert Fanning’s and David Lipscomb’s fight against instrumental music and missionary societies. It did not originate with the Gospel Guardian’s fight against centralized control and oversight and human institutionalism, nor did it first spring from Truth Magazine’s current opposition to Ketchersideism in any or all of its forms. It began among the churches while apostles of Christ were yet living. Because of difficulties among brethren springing from false doctrine and bad attitudes, James wrote:

AWho is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him show out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom deseendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace@ (Jas. 3:13-18).

James raises the question: “Who is a wise man?” Then, he answers his question. If I know my heart, and I believe I do, I desire in all matters of controversy among brethren to be a “wise man” as defined by James’ inspired statement. With this as a guide, I should like to make some observations concerning a recent editorial in the Gospel Guardian written by Brother Edward Fudge of Athens, Alabama (Vol. 25, Number 19, September 13, 1973).

My Personal Attitude

All readers of Truth Magazine know that I have been critical of Brother Fudge concerning his teaching and actions relative to matters connected with the baneful influence of Ketchersideism among conservative brethren, especially among some of our excellent young men aspiring to preach. Such has sprung from no personal ill will on my part toward Brother Fudge. In fact, I barely know him in a personal way:.My criticisms emanate from no love of strife on my part. I detest strife among brethren. My personal record in local work and meeting work over the past forty years will bear that out. I have never been asked to leave a church, nor have I ever left one in a state of turmoil. This is not to say that there have not been problems that had to be worked out nor that there have not been erroneous ideas and unrighteous attitudes and practices that have had to be rebuked and corrected. It in to say that my relationship with the churches with which I have labored has been as tranquil and irenic as that of any preacher whom I have ever met. I, therefore, keenly resent and unequivocally repudiate as gross misrepresentation any suggestion that I have at any time or . place filled the role of a “meddlesome troublemaker,” and I unhesitatingly challenge any man to name such a time and place. Such charges always characterize those whose teaching and practice are justifiably suspect.

The Dictator Complex

The Gospel Guardian and Brother Fudge seek to cast Truth Magazine and its writers in the role of aspiring dictators and invaders of the sacred precincts of “congregational autonomy and individual conscience.” I challenge the Gospel Guardian and Fudge to cease using innuendo and be specific. Let them name the time, place, and circumstances in which we have violated congregational autonomy or invaded the sacred realm of individual conscience. Brother’ Fudge by implication charges us with employing “pressure and force” rather than “the godly power of truth and moral persuasion.” I categorically deny the truth of this implication and ask Fudge to say when and where on the editorial page of the Gospel Guardian or stand indicted with gross and wilful misrepresentation. If an individual or a congregation teaches and / or practices pernicious error, I have both the right and duty to challenge and oppose such in as public a manner as the teaching and practice has been done. I invade neither the realm of conscience nor congregational autonomy in so doing. Neither John nor Paul was guilty of “lording it over the faith, autonomy, or conscience” of individuals and churches when they wrote them rebuking them for their false teaching and illicit practices. We do not equate ourselves with apostles of Christ, but when truth has been violated, we have the same right as did they to oppose and expose it.

The Arlington Meeting Again

Brother Fudge quotes scattered excerpts from a speech I made at the Arlington Meeting several years ago and avers that his attitude toward fellowship and mine as expressed in that speech are the same. I categorically deny this to be true. I wrote Brother Fudge several weeks ago that my attitude today is exactly the same as that which I expressed and manifested in the Arlington Meeting and always has been from the beginning of current problems, and that my practice has been uniformly consistent with it. Brother William Wallace, several years ago, affected to perceive an inconsistency in my opposition to certain liberal statements made by him relative to fellowship and my sentiments expressed at Arlington. I replied to that in the most public way and heard no more of it. Brother Bill should have warned Brother Fudge about such an approach, or did he encourage him?

The capable men at Arlington who constituted my opposition there understood me perfectly. They had charged that we instigated a breach of fellowship over these matters. My speech was a denial of this charge. I pointed out, that from the beginning of the discussion of the issues under consideration, I had not desired to discuss the question of “fellowship,” that I wanted fellowship to be the very last consideration. They, of course, charge everywhere that it was Brother Yater Tant who raised the fellowship issue. I have uniformly defended him against this charge insisting that he was misunderstood and his statements distorted. My desire was for a complete study of all issues from the standpoint of Bible teaching with the hope that a breach of fellowship would not occur, and wherever it is possible, I still desire this. However, the Gospel Advocate made such all but impossible when its editor called for a quarantine of all of us who believed and taught against the scripturalness of sponsoring churches, and church support of human institutions.

My reference to brethren who think me “soft,” which Brother Fudge cites, was to certain extremists among “conservatives” who think every person who holds views which they consider “liberal” is the devil incarnate and lower than a snake that crawls on his belly in the dust of the earth. I deplore such an attitude. I do not subscribe to the idea that so-called “liberal” brethren are dishonest, mean, and wilfully determined to take the churches down the road to apostasy and ruin. I believe that many of these brethren, and they are my brethren, even preachers among them, are as sincere, as dedicated, and as interested in keeping the churches in harmony with the will of God as I like to think of myself as being. They are persons who have been born again; they are in covenant relationship with God through Christ.

Despite these facts, however, they are in serious error relative to their faith and practice. By reason of this fact, I cannot extend to them the “right hand of fellowship” as faithful brethren in the Lord. I must regard them as brethren who have been “overtaken in a fault” and need to be “restored” (Gal. 6:1). Yes, I am forced to regard them as “brothers who have erred from the truth” and need to be “converted” (Jas. 5:19, 2;). Such being their state in my thinking, I cannot with good conscience call upon them to participate actively in the services of “conservative” congregations, nor can I without considerable qualification announce their meetings and urge faithful brethren to attend them. As I have pointed out in the past when writing upon this subject, however, these decisions have to be made locally and on the basis of circumstances and attitudes. It would be arrogant and presumptuous for me to make some sort of rule to govern all churches and all persons in these matters and insist upon unvarying uniformity of its application everywhere and under all circumstances on the penalty of being unfaithful to the Lord if such is not done. I have no aspirations in the direction of creed making.

My record from the beginning of the controversy(over these matters will substantiate the accuracy of the facts just stated both in my teaching and my practice. My record will also show that no church with which I have labored has been lost to so-called “liberality” while I labored with it. No church, while I labored with it, has been compromised so as to render its stand for truth ineffective. For that matter, no church with which I have labored, after my leaving it, has been lost to cause of truth or compromised as a result of anything I taught or practiced or urged to be practiced while I labored with it. No. Brother Fudge, you do not have my attitude as expressed at the Arlington Meeting with regard to fellowship and unity. By the time this article appears in print, there will have appeared a number of articles by me and others which will abundantly demonstrate this to be a fact.

Conclusion

I have in the past and would again call on brethren for prayer under proper circumstances who would probably classify as “liberal” in certain aspects of their faith and practice. There are all kinds of so-called “liberals” and many and varying degrees of so-called “liberality.” Their degree of “liberality” and their attitude toward truth and toward those of us who differ with them on the issues under consideration would weigh heavily in a judgement decision as to whether they should or should not be called upon for prayer. Too, circumstances vary as widely as persons, hence the prevailing circumstances would weigh heavily also in a judgement decision as to whether such persons should or should not be called upon for prayer. I have the same problem with some so-called “conservative” brethren who are “sound” on these “issues” but suspect in the realm of morality or factionalism. I would never call on any person in either class for prayer in the public services of the church if respectable, faithful members of that church were opposed to its being done on the basis of conscience. To do so would demand that I either cause them to violate their conscience or to forego participation in the particular act of worship under consideration. Our criticisms of Fudge go much deeper than what has just been described. We are concerned with Ketchersideism and its baneful effects upon more than fifty conservative preachers and numbers of churches and the influence Fudge’s attitude and teaching have had in the matter as well as the Gospel Guardian’s stance relative thereto.

Every church I have served since the issues under consideration became issues has had in its membership people who did not accept my views on these matters in every particular. Some of these were even elders or deacons. Yet, as long as these men were content for the congregation to forego the support of the practices in question, did not seek to impose their contrary views upon the congregation, and were willing for the whole truth to be taught relative thereto, there was no breach of fellowship and no discrimination of any kind whatsoever against them. I loved, respected, and fellowshipped such persons as brethren, and I yet act in this manner wherever such a state of affairs obtains.

However, I cannot fellowship brethren who quarantine me, force me and others like me from their midst, and forbid me to teach my convictions relative to these matters. With such brethren, I cannot participate actively in areas of agreement in any manner that could be construed as a recognition on my part of their faithfulness to the Lord. I can endorse as right what they do in these areas. This is true of denominations and denominational people. Many things which they do are right and I endorse their practice in such matters, but at the same time, I cannot fellowship the people because of their error in other vital matters. I am absolutely convinced that Ketcherside, Fudge and others are seeking a middle-ground of some sort, a neutral territory, a no-man’s land in the realm of fellowship and unity which is a mirage born of over-heated imagination and misguided philanthropy.

In writing this article, I have made an unusual number of personal references to my practice and teaching. None of this is done in a spirit of self defense. My position in these matters has been too long and too well known to demand such. I write these things to demonstrate, if possible, to Brother Fudge that his position and my position on unity and fellowship are about as much alike as night and day!

(NOTE: This finds me in Kansas City, Mo. in a meeting, hence this article has been written away from my library and files. It has been written under physical difficulties. Upon my return home, I shall enter Nan Travis Hospital in Jacksonville, Texas for hernia surgery, October 17. If this article falls short of the usual quality of my writing, this is the reason. Also, this will mean that it will be several weeks after this article appears before I can resume the series. JWA)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:1, p. 8-9
November 1, 1973