Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

POINT 5: Our brother’s statement in the Aug. 3, 1972, Guardian is confusing, bewildering, and capable of leading souls into error. If anything ever needed clarifying, this does. Referring to an “Elder” S. N. McCann, our brother wrote, “The author worshipped with people known as German Baptist Brethren. He preached the gospel, the same gospel we hold forth today.” We are not anxious to charge our brother with anything; but we are anxious to learn what in all the world is meant by such a statement from the pen of one devoted to New Testament Christianity. Our brother having put such a statement in print, we plead with him to clarify in print whether he maintains the old gospel-doctrine distinction (or some modified form of it) and whether he really believes it is possible to embrace sectarianism and still preach, “the same gospel we hold forth today.”

REVIEW: Gospel-Doctrine Fallacy? Our brother and many readers are aware that some have taught that men receive saving grace through faith when they are baptized-this being “the gospel.” Then, men study the Bible and reach the conclusions which shape their practices-this being the realm of “doctrine.” The doctrine is not the gospel and the gospel is not the doctrine.

For instance, Carl Ketcherside says, “Not one apostolic letter is a part of the gospel” (Mission Messenger, Vol. 35, No. 6, p. 86; No. 2, p. 20). Within this realm of doctrine, men may embrace and teach premillennialism, use of instruments in worship, sectarian names, social gospel practices, centralization of churches, etc. This does not disturb fellowship with God and so should not disturb fellowship among brethren who accept and brethren who reject such things-unless one group charges sin because of innovation or the other group forces the innovation on brethren. Those following this view deny they are compromisers, because by their definition of “gospel” they have not compromised “the gospel.”

On the basis of this alleged distinction, “Elder” McCann preached “the gospel.” He understood that grace is received through faith as it moves one to baptism. Whatever he believed or taught about sectarian names and practices would not violate this “gospel.” If this distinction is behind our brother’s statement, then doubtless he had the same fallacy in mind in Vol. 21, No. 45 (p. 712); there he referred to 14 the gospel” which declares “God’s grace” and the “doctrine” which strengthens in faith and hope. At times, our brother seems to recognize that the term “doctrine” may refer to the “gospel,” but in such cases he seems to limit the meaning of both terms to that part of the gospel which involves primary obedience (Vol. 2 1, No. 44). Apparently-we purposely -use a word of doubt till he clears it up-our brother thinks the word “gospel” always refers to matters of primary obedience as distinguished from “the epistles” which are “another sort of apostolic teaching” (Ibid.).

The Bible does not teach either the strict “gospel-doctrine” distinction of Ketcherside, nor does it consistently limit the word “gospel” to matters of primary obedience. The Bible speaks of the Lord’s will (Matt. 7), his covenant (Heb.), the gospel (Acts, Gal.), the truth Jn. 8), the faith (Gal., Jude), and the doctrine or teaching (Matt. 7, Acts 2, Rom. 6, 2 Jn. 9, 1, 2 Tim.). Each word has a distinct emphasis (as gospel emphasizes good news and doctrine, a thing taught); yet, all refer to the same scheme of redemption, the same resulting body of material, and the same inspired revelation. Since the gospel is taught, it is doctrine. Since the teaching is good and wonderful in its source, nature, and meaning, it is gospel. There is no more difference between gospel and doctrine than between gospel and truth, the truth and the faith, His covenant and teaching, His will and the faith, etc., etc. The word “doctrine” is definitely used in reference to primary obedience (Acts 13:5-12). When a Christian violates the teaching of “the epistles,” he definitely violates “the gospel” (Gal. 2: 11-14).

We can show the all-sufficiency of scripture by showing (1) Matt.- Jn. emphasizes faith in Christ, (2) Acts emphasizes conversion, and (3) the epistles” emphasize how to grow daily and set the church in order. But, there is no strict division here, and thus no Bible term to indicate an absolute distinction. Each of the three divisions teaches something needed for daily growth and setting churches in order, teaching conversion, and building faith in Christ. No one division is written only for the world as distinguished from another written only for benefit of Christians. Luke and Acts are written from one Christian to another. Every Christian needs repeated study in Matt.-Jn.; this “strengthens him in faith and hope.” Writing to saints, Peter recounted some primary points of the gospel, stirred up the brethren, and told them they would always need such study (2 Pet. 1, 3).

1 Cor. 15 with 1, 2 Thess. link Christ’s resurrection to our glorification; though first written to saints, this material can be very powerful in converting the lost. If a lost man claims allegiance to the Old Law, what is better than Gal., Rom., and Heb. to convert him. Eph. I will help a man confused on predestination, and I Pet. 3 on baptism. To show allegiance to the Pope isn’t allegiance to Christ, Acts 14:23, Phil. 1: 1, 1 Pet. 5:2, and Eph. 1: 22-23 will help. 1 Cor. I and Gal. 5 show joining a denomination can’t please God, can’t be true conversion.

If it were objected that one must correctly enter God’s family, and then needs time to grow in understanding further instruction, we agree. But limiting the meaning of the word “gospel” is not the way to make that point, as the Bible does not so limit the word. Furthermore, those who practice things without a thus-saith-the Lord, or assert the liberty to go beyond the written things, or interpret divine silence as license, are not growing in God’s family, they are going out of it. They are not growing toward Christ, whether the liberalism they promote concerns baptism, worship, or organization; they are going onward and outward from Christ Un. 10: 4-5; Eph. 1: 22-23; 1 Cor. 4-6; 2 Jn. 9). They need to be told so in love; if they persist without repentance and reformation, they sever fellowship with God and brethren. They are wrapped in a blanket of false security if told they have not violated “the gospel” since it is a very limited term.

If our brother has grown into an understanding of “gospel” that is overlooked in this review, may we respectfully request that he assert and clarify for our benefit.

(* This is a correction instead of Ed’s response; it was made possible by my reading the July, 1973, issue of Carl Ketcherside’s Mission Messenger. I wrote the above paragraphs with the understanding that C. K. thought the term doctrine never refers to “the gospel” and that the term gospel does not include all the Lord’s doctrine. Since I knew E. F. did sometimes allow the term doctrine to refer to “the gospel,” I thought he had somewhat modified C. K.’s view. Instead, I have learned today, -Aug. 23, 1973, that Ketcherside and Fudge hold identical views on this matter. I have been misunderstanding Ketcherside, but Ed has not! Here is what they both believe, from pg. 106 of the M.M. of July, “While all gospel may be correctly classified as doctrine, all doctrine cannot be correctly classified as gospel.” That is exactly how Ed uses the terms in the G.G.s referred to above–exactly!)

Preach Gospel, Embrace Sectarianism? As earlier noted, McCann understood faith and baptism. Notice further, be supported sectarianism and led others to embrace a sectarian name; but, our brother says, “he preached the same gospel we hold forth today.” If so, the following is also true. He could have accepted instruments and incense in worship, centralization in organization, and socialization in the mission of the church, but “he preached the same gospel.” Whether he kept the Sabbath or the Lord’s Day, whether he wore religious titles or not, regardless of anything else that falls in the doctrine department, “he preached the same gospel.”

Can we be members of sectarian bodies today and “preach the same gospel?” (* His answer was, “What about our sectarian use of the name Church of Christ?”) The truth is that sectarians do not preach the gospel, regardless of what they say on baptism. They may preach part of the faith, covenant, will, gospel, truth, doctrine, but they are not preaching it. If they were, they would be just what the Ethiopian of Acts 8 or the Philippian of Acts 16 was a Christian only without a thought of sectarian names. It still takes sectarian seed to produce a sectarian name. It still takes gospel seed to make a Christian only,

While on the subject, our brother might clarify this. Are sectarian names in the realm of lawful expedients or of unlawful opinions? Faith, or merely opinion? If opinion, which kind? In what realm did brother Paul place the very beginnings of sectarianism (1 Cor. 1, 3; Gal. 5)?

Pride Vs. Weakness?

POINT 6. Our brother published in the Firm Foundation (Vol. 89, No. 22, 23) some studies on Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10). Along with some fine points, he presented a distinction, which is not borne out by scripture. Nadab and Abibu were punished because of irreverent pride, but their brothers sinned later in the chapter and weren’t punished because their sin was simply born of human weakness. Concerning Eleazar and Ithamar, we have this explanation, “But their sin grew out of human weakness, not out of haughty will. It involved a false piety, not a flagrant pride.” Thus, those who sinned by pride in worship were not forgiven, but punished; those who sinned by human weakness were forgiven.

REVIEW: Apply this concept to our times. If one worships with the instrument that believes it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, and he does it out of pride, he won’t be forgiven in the end, but punished. He is really the only one directly rebuked by Lev. 10. One who thinks the instrument is his liberty, who thinks silence is license, who worships with it because of its beautiful and pious tones, will be forgiven. He might multiply such pious vanities, take a pious sectarian name, and steep himself in the pious traditions of the fathers, but all will be forgiven.

If the Bible teaches such, Lev. 10 is not the place. Moses was angry at first in the case of Eleazar and Ithamar. After hearing the explanation, “he was content” (v. 20). If Moses was content, then God’s law wasn’t broken in the first place. Where was Moses ever content with a bonafide case of sin-regardless of excuses and explanations. Christ did not sin by healing on the Sabbath; it seemed to some that he did, but they were put to silence by his explanation. On Lev. 10: 12-20, Pulpit Commentary says, “It was true that the letter of the Law bad been broken, but there was a sufficient cause for it (see Hos. 6:6; Matt. 12:7).” An inspired man like Moses could determine whether an apparent violation was actually allowable in God’s sight or not. (This is wholly unlike the “situation ethics” idea of turning every man loose to set aside any and every law of God which blocks some desire he is determined to fulfill.)

In Matt. 12, Christ does not argue that David and the priests actually sinned in what they did, though misguided men might think so. David and the priests are placed by Christ exactly where Moses saw Eleazar and Ithamar to be: among “the guiltless” (Matt. 12:5). In each case, through Moses and Christ, we see no law was broken in God’s sight. If law had been broken through misguided piety or pious misunderstanding, a sin offering would have been in order (Lev. 4).

Furthermore, there is no consistent application of the supposed distinction in the rest of the Old Testament. For instance, when David piously moved the ark on a cart and Uzzah piously tried to stabilize it, Uzzah died and David didn’t (2 Sam. 6).

The Lev. 10 argument hinges on separating “human weakness” (in the form of false or misguided piety) from “pride.” Actually, pride is a human weakness to which we all are subject, just as we’re subject to other human weaknesses. See 1 Jn. 2:15-17 for the distinction the Lord does not make in this matter. King Hezekiah showed off his treasures to Babyon’s messengers; he fell victim to the weakness of pride, but lived to repent (Isa. 39).

Has our esteemed brother made a distinction God doesnt make? Or, can be clarify?

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 49, pp. 8-10
October 18, 1973

By Cecil Willis

In Truth Magazine (April 26, 1973), I wrote an article entitled “Tell Us It Is Not So.” This article was not summarily written, nor was it precipitously published. It was written only after several years of deliberation. It was not published until several other brethren of great knowledge and experience, and to whose wisdom I often resort for editorial advice, had read the article and unanimously recommended it be immediately published.

What was so momentous about the article? Simply the fact that I publicly asked brethren William Wallace, Gordon Wilson, and Edward Fudge to state unequivocally where they stand on the “Fellowship” question. I was not so naive as to think the article was going to be everywhere enthusiastically received, or universally appreciated. Reactions, understandably, have been varied, but by far the response, which I have received toward these efforts, has been favorable. Brother William Wallace wrote that he wondered if I was “playing politics . . . or if perhaps the issue was raised “for business reasons.” One California brother wrote me and said that some brethren out there thought we were raising the “Fellowship” issue in an effort to steal away some of the subscribers to the Gospel Guardian.

For several weeks, Brother James W. Adams has been handling the discussion of the “Fellowship” issue in his usual outstanding and thorough way. I might add, however, that Brother Adams is going to have to undergo 6urgery and there will be an interruption of about six weeks in the continuation of his series of articles. Presently a very revealing series of articles by Brother Ron Halbrook is being carried. Brother Halbrook and Brother Fudge have been bosom friends, since their college days. It certainly has required tremendous courage and moral fortitude for Brother Halbrook to write what he has written, and in the manner which he has handled the articles before submitting them to us for publication. This article will relate only to the Halbrook series, and will serve as an introduction to some things I want to say in response to what brethren Wallace and Fudge have said.

Next week’s issue largely will be consumed by an Index to Volume XVII of Truth Magazine. Perhaps the first issue of the enlarged paper will contain some information regarding our intentions in the usage of an enlarged paper.

Perhaps I also should explain why I have written so little of late. It is an editor’s duty, in my judgment, to keep up with what is going on, and to keep his reader’s informed. In keeping our readers informed regarding recent occurrences among the liberals over the Herald of Truth, I have not done what I would like to have done. But to put it bluntly: I accepted too many time-consuming assignments, and have been having to “pound the books” in preparation for some speaking engagements on special subjects, and in preparation for a debate, which was held here in Marion last week. Even though I already had a rather full schedule, I agreed to go to Florida College and to teach a twelve-day class. This assignment entailed considerable preparation. Then a good bit of time was spent in preparing for a debate with a Pentecostal preacher. Hence, my time for writing recently has been almost nil. But I hope that circumstance is behind me, and that I can get on to the discussion of some important issues.

Early Reaction

When my April 26th article appeared, The Guardian staff appeared to intend to deal with my request for information by a lofty silence, somewhat like that of Editor Reuel Ummons. Lemmons has the policy of not making any reference to anything said about him or what he teaches. Such a policy can be the part of a certain kind of wisdom, especially when the corners are apt to become rather tight. One can avoid such impingements just by saying nothing. The Guardian brethren at first appeared to intend to react only with a dignified silence.

Then, as the heat began to be felt by them a little more, they decided to say just a little. So Editor William Wallace wrote his little “It isnt so ” article, and his denial was about all there was to it. In exactly seven lines, he simply said that he was being misrepresented. Artfully, you will notice by consulting your May 24th Guardian, Bill did not say be had been if misquoted. By June 7th, the editors of the Guardian had decided they were too nice to reply to such inquiries. Keep in mind that I only bad asked them to tell us where they stand on the “Fellowship” question. If you doubt my word, go back and read again my April 26th article.

In the June 7th issue of the Guardian, Brother Wallace said: “We will not be needled or goaded into reactionary journalism, nor into abusive contention, nor into excessive and divisive responses to detraction. But we will stop and fight when we must fight.’ We feel keenly the need of avoiding recklessness, irresponsibility, injustice, bitterness, indiscretion, and presumption.” Some not-so-nice labels are implied for one who merely asked the Editor and Associate Editors to state unequivocally where they stand on the “Fellowship” question.

It was my opinion that Edward Fudge had revealed only the “tip of the iceberg” concerning the error that he really believed. Brother Ron Halbrook stated in his September 20th article that he knew personally that Brother Edward Fudge had a “9 year history of unsoundness.” And Brother Halbrook is exactly right. I have known of some of Brother Edward Fudge’s unsoundness since his Florida College days, while he was exuberantly distributing Mission Messenger. Through the years I have had occasion to write him regarding some of his loose statements contained in articles. Like so many others, I thought that given time, Brother Fudge would study his way out of his error. But when a gospel preacher is still befuddled after ten years of study, I must confess that my hope for his being salvaged for truth has waned.

Later Reaction

Finally, the Guardian editors came down off their journalistic ethereal high horse, and began to grapple with the issues we raised. Brother Fudge used his typical double-talk, so that one knows little more about where he stands now than he did before he wrote. Brother Fudge affected not to know what Brother Ketcherside stood for. In substance, Fudge said, “If Brother Ketcherside means that,” then I am 100% opposed to it. But “if he means this, ” then I am 100% for it. But he conveniently neglected to tell us what Brother Ketcherside has taught. Edward Fudge is no dummy. He can read, and he can understand. He knows what Brother Ketcherside teaches, and he knows whether he agrees with it or not. Frankly, I have told several people it might take five years to “smoke out” Edward Fudge so that all the brethren may know what he believes and where he stands.

Meanwhile, Brother Bill Wallace has been assuring everybody that everything is “shipshape,” and would have us all to believe that if anyone thinks anything is amiss regarding the doctrinal soundness of Brother Fudge, it is only in the eye of the beholder. In one article, he writes of “Neo-McCarthyism.” He did not tell us who this modern-day McCarthy is. It seems the Guardian has gotten too nice to call names, and let us know whom they are talking about. They seem to think we would be given some undeserved dignification, if the Guardian were to call our names. Once or twice they have mentioned Brother Adams and me. My mother gave me a name, and it is by that name I prefer to be called. I would much prefer a fellow call my name, if he is talking about me, than to use some cowardly word-picture, the application of which he can deny if someone calls his hand. I much prefer my own name to that of McCarthy, Caesar, or some of the opprobrious labels used to describe me, Brother Adams, or Truth Magazine. Truth Magazine was accused of a “Neo-Quarantine-ism,” and a good many other uncomplimentary epithets were applied. What great crime had we committed? We had asked, pled, and begged the Guardian Editor and two of the Associate Editors to tell us where they stood on the “Fellowship” question.

Truth Coming Out

Sooner than I had expected, the truth about what Brother Fudge believes has begun to come out. From the time Brother Fudge wrote his series of articles in the 1969-1970 volume of the Guardian, there no longer was any doubt in my mind where he stood. By the time he got done with his “Unity in Diversity,” “Faith or Opinion… Is Restoration Over?” “Truth, Error, and the Grace of God” articles, there was no doubt in my mind about what he believed and where he stood. The problem then became: “How do you go about making him get specific and spell out in detail what he believes?” But Brother Wallace is assuring us all the time that we are, “barking up the wrong tree,” and like Joe McCarthy, sighting Communists when none is around. If my history remembrance were accurate, I think Joe McCarthy did locate a few full-fledged Communists. Brother Wallace stated it was his opinion that this issue was another “Watergate” incident, and that the public was tired hearing about it. And I might add, there were some valid comparisons to the criminal “Watergate” incident.

The Big “Cover up”

In Brother Halbrook’s September 20th article, he says: “all through these years since school, Ed has believed that whereas it is better not to use the instrument in worship, it is not a sin to use it. He told me himself that all through the summer of 1965, brother Leonard Tyler tried to get him to say that the instrument was sinful, but Ed told me be never would say that. Ed feels, and has felt during this time period since school, the same way about institutionalism. He thinks we do not have the right to label institutionalism ‘sin,’ and that if we do, we are guilty of creating our own little sect.”

Brother Fudge seemed to be pleased with the fact that he could weasel here and there for an entire summer, and never tell Leonard Tyler whether be thinks instrumental music is sinful or not. You see now why I said I thought it might take as long as five years to “smoke him out”???

Brother Halbrook relates how he took the series of articles now in process of being printed to Brother Fudge, and asked his comments regarding these articles. In private discussion, several different ways Brother Halbrook asked Brother Edward Fudge if he believed the practice of mechanical instrumental music in worship was sinful or not- in private discussion, Brother Fudge answered. Brother Halbrook stated: “I asked Ed if he believes the instrument is sinful. He answered plainly. ‘No.’ “

In the Sept. 27th article Brother Halbrook said he asked Brother Fudge, “could our brother in good conscience preach that the instrument is wrong’ and sinful in the absence of authority?” Brother Fudge answered, “No, I could not.” Brother Halbrook then asked Brother Fudge if he scripturally could show that “the other brother’s” use of it was forbidden. Again, Brother Fudge answered, “No.” Do you think that its use will “interfere with … salvation”? Again, Fudge says “No.” Could you preach “repentance and reformation” to those who use it? Again Fudge says, “No.”

“How much evidence does it take to convince some brethren that a very dangerous man is Associate Editor of the Guardian? Brother Edward Fudge’s family now owns the Gospel

Guardian. A great tragedy occurred when Edward Fudge came into an editorial and perhaps a managerial relationship to the Gospel Guardian.

Brother William Wallace and I have been very close friends for many years. Until Bill began his “pulse of the brotherhood” articles a few years ago, I think he enjoyed the unanimous respect of brethren as a man sound in the faith. Bill and I have spent many hundreds of hours in travel, preaching, and journalistic work together. We have always had a very cordial relationship, and still do, as far as I am concerned.

What I am about to say, I regret immensely having to say. I do not like a brother to double deal with me, and Bill Wallace has been double-dealing in his effort to “cover-up” (shades of Watergate!) for the false teaching of Edward Fudge. In the Guardian, Bill would have you believe that those of us who had expressed concern about Edward’s soundness, and publicly had asked some questions, were on a witch-hunt of some kind. We were barking up the wrong tree, and like Joe McCarthy, saw a Communist behind every tree.

Privately, what was Brother Wallace saying? He was as upset and as concerned about Brother Fudge’s unsoundness as we were. You never would have known that from Brother Wallace’s “cover-up” articles. The most revealing information to appear publicly yet regarding Edward Fudge’s unsoundness is to be found in Ron Halbrook’s series of articles. Brother Bill Wallace saw and read these articles twice before I ever even knew they existed, or were being contemplated. Though I knew Brother Halbrook, Yater Tant, Irvin Lee, and some others had appeared to be putting in strong articles to try to off-set the articles of Brother Fudge, I did not know when this effort was initiated last Spring that Brother Halbrook had any question about Edward’s soundness. I can recollect no communication in previous years with Brother Halbrook about Brother Fudge’s unsoundness.

Brother Wallace said something a few weeks ago that indicated he thought it was unethical to publish personal correspondence. I do not like the practice. But neither do I like to be called a liar, and especially by a man who knows I am not lying! I do not like to be publicly labeled as misrepresenting, when the person who so labels me uses virtually the same terminology to describe Edward Fudge’s unsoundness, as I have used.

When Brother Halbrook last spring finished his first-draft of the articles now being published, he sent them to Editor Wallace for consideration for publication in the Gospel Guardian. Before me at this moment is a photocopy of William Wallace’s handwritten letter to Brother Halbrook about these articles. Brother Halbrook, with whose permission I publish this letter, penned in this note: “Spring of 1973 note from brother Wallace after he read 1st typed draft.-RH.” Here is the letter:

“Ron-This presentation might have the effect of ‘smoking him out’ in the open, and perhaps that is what is needed. However, you leave him plenty of room to move about in ambiguity because you lack sufficient documentation. I would suggest you use direct quotations to substantiate your assertions and conclusions. His reaction to this paper, and to your efforts for clarification may reveal something interesting! Perhaps this effort on your part will help him. I’ll be anxious to hear of his reaction. Good luck, or rather God be with you. I made some notations in your text. WEW.”

What Now, Brethren?

If Brother Fudge believes that mechanical instrumental music in worship and institutionalism are not sinful, let him begin the presentation of his proof in the Gospel Guardian. Some of us connected with Truth Magazine, I promise, will reply.

Mission magazine, published now out of Dallas, Texas and edited by Victor Hunter, has some men upon its Board of Trustees who are thought not to be in agreement with the rank modernism taught in that journal. Such men as J. W. Roberts (now deceased), Tom Olbricht, Everett Ferguson (of the Abilene Christian College Bible faculty) and others on other liberal college faculties have been pressured through the Firm Foundation by Roy H. Lanier, Sr., and through the Gospel Advocate by James D. Bales either to affirm or disavow the editorial position and the overall thrust of Mission.

Is not a similar impetus now in order in regard to the Gospel Guardian? It now is out in the open (indeed, he has been “smoked out,” as Editor Wallace expressed it) and we now all know what Associate Editor Edward Fudge really believes. It will be interesting now to see whether Editor Bill Wallace forthrightly repudiates the position and teachings of Associate Editor Fudge, or if the Fudge family who now own the Gospel Guardian depose Brother Wallace as Editor. Or, if they both shall try to sleep in the same bed? It must make for real editorial fun when the Editor (but not the owner) is trying to “smoke out” an Associate Editor (but in the family that owns the paper).

It certainly gives me no pleasure to continue to expose this unhealthy situation, but it either needs to be corrected immediately, or brethren everywhere need to be apprised of just what the true stance of Associate Editor (and perhaps part-owner) Edward Fudge really believes and covertly teaches. It is my fervent desire that Edward Fudge might repudiate the error heretofore taught by him, or that the Gospel Guardian somehow might be rescued from the hands of such a doctrinally dangerous man.

When this issue was brought up last Spring, I expected it to take at least several years to extract as much information from Brother Fudge as is now before the public. Let him now either defend it, or repudiate it. And it certainly is in order for hard-hitting preachers who write for the Gospel Guardian either to blast this error into oblivion, or to disassociate their good names from a paper, which either is going to avow such palpable error, or at least to “cover up” for one who teaches it. Which shall it be, good brethren?

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 49, pp. 3-7
October 18, 1973

By Joe Neil Clayton

When Paul wanted to define the faith that saves, he resorted to illustration. He said, “. . . Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Know therefore that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In Thee shall all the nations be blessed. So then they that are of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham.” (Galatians 3:6-9). The fact that Abraham had faith in a promise that seemed impossible to fulfill marks him as an excellent example for believers in every age.

In order to bless all the nations through his seed, Abraham first needed seed. He was old, and his wife was barren. To believe in contradiction to such circumstances must have seemed futile, but faith leaps over circumstances, because it trusts in the power of God.

However, Abraham had to make some progress before he could believe so readily. His faith had to grow. At his first contact with the promises of God (Genesis 12), he did not accept fully the conditions connected with the receiving of the promise. God said, “Get thee out of thy country and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house . . .” One condition was not fully obeyed. Abraham left his country, and his father’s house, but not all of his kindred. He took Lot with him to Canaan. Until he was separated even from his nephew, God did not begin to fulfill his promises, and nothing happened to alter the state of Abraham.

God had also promised security to Abraham. He said, “I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse.” But, we learn that there was a famine in the land of Canaan, and Abraham removed his household to Egypt. While there, he fell into fear for his life, and planned to lie about his relationship with his wife. This would secure him against being murdered by someone who coveted his wife for her beauty. The Pharaoh of Egypt was infatuated with Sarah, and took her into his house, thinking she was free to be claimed. Abraham did nothing, but God sent plagues on the house of Pharaoh, because of this abomination. Pharaoh came to realize his mistake, and sent Abraham away. God fulfilled his promise of security. Even though the lie was known, Abraham did not lose his life. He must have realized more than ever that the power of God would protect him.

After Lot left Abraham, God renewed his promises to Abraham in detail (Genesis 13:14-15), except for the promise that his seed would bless all nations. As yet, however, Abraham had no heir. Later, still, God heard Abraham say, “0 Lord Jehovah, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and he that shall be possessor of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” (Gen. 15:2) In His sympathy for the anxiety of Abraham, God showed him the numberless stars, and promised that his seed should be as numberless. Then, the scripture says, “And he believed in Jehovah; and He reckoned it to him for righteousness.” Abraham, from this point on, had no doubt in his ability to father children, but he stumbled again by accepting from faithless Sarah her handmaid, Hagar, as his wife. When Ishmael was born to this union, Abraham offered him as the “seed” of the promise. He said, “Oh that Ishmael might live before thee!”

God rejected Ishmael. Had he not made his promise to Abraham, when he only had Sarah as his wife? God said, “Nay, but Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son, and … In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” (Genesis 17:19, 21:12). With this rebuke, God finally disciplined the faith of Abraham, so that he patiently waited for the faith of Sarah to be aroused, so that Isaac could be conceived and born. When the boy was growing up, even God’s command to sacrifice the boy could not shake the faith of Abraham in the promises of God, because he ” accounted that God was able to raise up (Isaac), even from the dead.” (Hebrews 11: 19).

God would have us to develop the faith of Abraham. Apparently, that faith cannot be instantaneous, it must grow. It must grow in the light of seeing God’s power to fulfill, as Abraham’s did.

We will be inclined to make the same mistakes that Abraham did. We will accept the command, but will not quite obey it to the letter. We will hear God’s promise to secure us against our enemies, but we will resort to human devices to hedge against the failure of that promise. We will believe God, but we will try to help him out by shortcuts. Until we are disciplined in our faith, as Abraham was, and until we have the patience to know that the “Lord is not slack concerning His promises,” we will go on making these mistakes. But, once true faith is established in our hearts, God will be able to command nothing that will dismay us, or disillusion us. His power will be manifest, His will supreme. We cannot be satisfied with partial faith. We must not simply be satisfied to identify with the faith of Abraham in Egypt. That would be as disastrous to us as it was to him. If we have not yet identified with the faith of Abraham at the offering of Isaac, we must strive to reach that goal, and to serve God unflinchingly in every detail.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 48, pp. 12-13
October 11, 1973

By Jack Gibbert

I confess to moments when I wonder what possible good advertising on the back pages of Truth Magazine and other papers does. I find myself mumbling to myself, “who reads them?” or for that matter, who cares?”

In more enjoyable moments I find myself reflecting on the numerous blessings the Haygood congregation in Virginia Beach has received as a direct result of them. We have had many visitors in the summer months because of them. We have had young Christians sent to its by preachers who were concerned enough about them when they left home to take time to direct them to us. Last month a sister in Christ whom I had never met, called me and told me of a young couple coming our way that very day. Seems they were new converts and knew nothing about the issues. We had to locate them before they began at a liberal church or we would lose them. Many are the letters from concerned parents whose children have moved into this area. All of these attest to the good these ads do.

However, it’s a sad commentary, but non-the less true, that many of our preaching brethren make no effort to steer Christians to faithful churches when they leave their areas. I would hate to recount all the cases of brethren in this area from “faithful” churches who are attending with the liberals because they did not receive any instruction on institutionalism when at home, or they did not get any information about faithful churches in this area when they left home.

Brethren, do you read these ads? Do you have a copy of Brother Wallace’s “Directory?” If not, why not? Do not tell me you are sending out well-taught people who have too much conviction to go to a liberal church. I see the fruit of many a “big name” (conservative type) preacher in & liberal churches of Tidewater. If you cannot give them conviction, at least give them an address.

Let us look at just two cases that indicate that for some, these ads do no good. Just this month I received a call from a preacher at the other end of the state. Seems he got a letter from a well-known preacher asking him to get in touch with the nearest sound church to Norfolk, as there was a lady in that area who should be contacted. Well, I contacted her and she and her husband came out to services the next night. But.. . Why did this brother have to contact a preacher at the other end of the state? Does anyone not understand that a town with the name of Virginia Beach will not be located in the mountains of Western Virginia? Are preachers who can read Bible maps and find such places as Corinth and Ephesus unable to find Norfolk on a map? It’s a port city, on the coast, and even if one did not know that Norfolk and Virginia Beach are adjoining cities and part of the same metropolitian area, surely they would conclude that Virginia Beach is closer to Norfolk than Richmond or Martinsville. Hence the question, “What good is advertising?”

The other case relates back to last summer when an article was printed in Truth Magazine. It was written from a town where I had preached and the brethren know me (at least I thought they did). The article named every congregation in the state standing for the truth except two, and here is what it said about the area where those two churches are, “One of the most neglected areas is Tidewater containing such major cities as Norfolk, Newport News, Hampton and Portsmouth, an area with well over one million people.” Now I do not believe for one minute this brother was being unkind toward me or toward brother Milton Smotherman who preaches for the New Port News congregation, but I do believe it was a careless oversight on his part. The “Haygood” congregation was formed over five years ago and we believe it is holding forth the truth faithfully as well as boldly. These two examples go to show why I ask the question, what good is advertising?” We have at times grown and been blessed by ads, but I truly believe there are far too many examples of this not being the case simply because preachers have failed to take a little time to research them and direct Christians to faithful churches when they leave their area.

What good is advertising? For me, it’s a vital part of my ministry. No one leaves “Haygood” without being directed to the nearest sound church. In some cases, where special handling is necessary, I will call ahead and prepare the other end. It you are the type whose responsibility to Christians ends when they walk out of your door, advertising is a waste of time and money, but if you feel responsible for where folks go when they leave you, it’s a vital part of your ministry.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 48, pp.11-12
October 11, 1973