Truth Magazine

By Donald P. Ames

Most of us are pretty well familiar with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and the judgment God sent against them. In Jude 7 they are held up as an example of God’s displeasure with sin. Likewise, we are also familiar with the story of Lot and the part he had in living in these cities. But, I wonder how many of us have stopped to take a good look at the influence these cities had on Lot and his family.

Certainly the Bible presents Lot as being a righteous man and zealous to do right. He had been traveling with his uncle, Abraham, from the land of his fathers into the land of Canaan and been richly blessed by God, as had Abraham. Were he not a righteous man, he would have found no pleasure in the company of Abraham. In fact, the Bible even goes so far as to commend Lot as being a righteous man whose heart was vexed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men about him (2 Pet. 2:6-8). We do not need the statement in Gen. 13:13 to conclude these cities were filled with men who were “wicked exceedingly and sinners against the Lord.” Yet, in spite of these men, we still find Lot willing to invite strangers into his home in Gen. 19, unaware that they were angels sent there to rescue him from the impending destruction. He was so concerned for their safety as his guests that when the men of the city surrounded his home, he even went so far as to offer his daughters to them in exchange for the welfare of his guests. With this type background, Lot no doubt felt he could dwell in the city of Sodom and not really be affected by it. Like a lot of us, he felt he could mix and be sociable, without really doing anything wrong. But Lot was affected by these cities in more ways than he realized.

They Destroyed His Influence

Being a righteous man in a city full of wickedness did not enhance the reputation of Lot. Rather than winning their respect, his way of living became a mockery to them. In Gen. 19:9 the men of the city say, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” Even his own potential sons-in-law did not respect him, but rather he seemed to them as one making a jest (v. 14) when he was pleading with them. He was mocked because he was now different; he did not fit in the mold characteristic of the city. We too can lose our influence if we associate only with those of the world. We will be mocked for not running in the same excess of dissipation (1 Pet. 4:3-5). We will become marked according to the type company we keep. Certainly this does not mean we are to withdraw ourselves from society (1 Cor. 5: 10), but it does mean that we must also seek out and associate with those who love the truth. Too many who obey the gospel do not seek such friendships, but continue to associate solely with their former associates and wonder why the road is so hard. Although Matthew tried to bring his associates into the fold of Christ (Luke 5:27-32), he also sought to draw closer to the Lord and his disciples as well.

They Had Created An Attachment To Him

When Lot originally entered the city of Sodom, he no doubt was repulsed by many of the things he saw (2 Pet. 2:6-8). But time had built up a bit of tolerance for some of them. He was now willing to address them as “my brothers” (Gen. 19:7), and his two daughters were now engaged to two men of the city (19:14). Unlike Abraham (Gen. 24:1-4), he had not sought out from among his own people men who would be more acceptable to God. In fact, Gen. 19:31 would seem to imply that his daughters were not even familiar with the fact there were other men available than those of the wicked cities in this valley.

Now he was being told to get out of the city, take his family and flee, lest he too be affected by the impending judgment from God. And the bible tells us, “But he hesitated” (Gen. 19:16). This was his home. This was where all his friends were. This was where all that he owned was located. He was not quite ready to leave it all. Finally, we are told, the angels seized them and brought them out and put them outside the city. In spite of their corruption, these cities had created an attachment Lot was not yet quite willing to leave behind.

Sin often creates attachments we are not always aware of. At first we may be repulsed, but as our senses grow numb to these things viewed day after day we find our objections also tend to subside, and little by little we begin to accept certain aspects of them. We are made to wonder what might have happened to Lot had the impending judgment not come until after his daughters were married and partaking of even more of these cities. Paul tells us, “Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals” (1 Cor. 15:33). The longer we run with those who enjoy the pleasures of sin, the harder it is to break free of its influence.

They Had Warped His Judgment

A righteous man is one who fears God and keeps his commandments. Lot was now being told to get out of these cities and flee to the mountains. Not only does he hesitate, but he then implores God to let him go only part of the way and dwell in the small town in the distance (19:20). He seemed to feel, in spite of the statement of God that all the cities were corrupt, that a little sin would not be as bad as a whole lot. Since there were not as many sinners there, God would overlook their sins and that would make it okay. Later on, however, as he meditated on it, even the sin within this small town scared him and he abandoned it to go on tip into the mountains (19:30).

Sin has a way of appearing okay to us if we can regard it by degrees, or some as less dangerous as others. Thus we tend to justify social drinking as against drunkenness, petting as against fornication, etc. Gradually we become less concerned about “abhorring that which is evil and cleaving to that which is good” (Rom. 12:9). Rather than to “flee immorality” (1 Cor. 6:18), we try to merely hold it at bay. But, if we would back off and really take a good look, we too, like Lot would fear even the .1 smaller sins” and seek refuge on up into the mountains, as God has instructed.

They Destroyed His Joy in The Lord’s Work

Certainly we cannot expect all work to be f tin, but there is a certain feeling of satisfaction that grows out of being active in the Lord’s work, and certain benefits, we all reap from such (Phil. 4:17). These, Lot never got to enjoy. His heart was vexed because of the evil he saw about him – evil he seemed to be unable to alter. He had to be on his guard constantly lest its influence seep even deeper into his own family, and even when he sought to do a good deed here, he was placed in a position of having to offer his own daughters up in exchange, for the welfare of the visitors. Sin had deprived Lot of many of the joys he could have had in better circumstances.

We too can deprive ourselves of many of the joys of growing in the Lord’s work if we choose to associate with the wicked ways of sin instead. In the end, when all is lost, we will have nothing to show (1 Jn. 2:15-17), because we did not choose to change that which was about us, but rather let it destroy even that which we had.

He Too Suffered Loss

Although Lot was not destroyed with the wicked cities of the valley (though he came close), he did not escape from the effects they had upon his life. He had to leave behind all that he had. Later, as his own wife looked back, she too was lost when she became a pillar of salt (19:26). Even on into the future the results went, as his own daughters got him drunk and had children by him, only to see them grow up to become the enemies of those with whom he formerly associated (19:37-38). Yes, Lot bore a great deal of loss as a result of his close association with these wicked cities.

Many times we may feel we are not being personally affected by the influences of evil about us, but are we? What about our loved ones? What about our children? And their children? If we are not setting forth principles and guidance to preserve them from these evils, what will be our ultimate loss?

Conclusion

The pull of sin is strong and so very real. Today we also have the consequences pointed out for it, (2 Pet. 3:11-13, 17). The stakes are high, and no doubt costly. The effort to break free from our surroundings may be hard, but break free we must if we are to survive. God has sent his only begotten Son into the world of sin to warn and assist its through His word (Jan. 3:16-18). The decision is now it up to us – will we break free and flee from the – ways of sin, or regard such a warning as “one who jested” and be destroyed instead? The Jews, in Acts, 2:38, saw the consequences and cried out, “Brethren, what shall we do?” And Peter replied, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” That is not the final ending, but it is the leaving of the city itself. Paul adds “we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end” (Heb. 3:14). We must not look back to the pleasures of sin, but flee to the mountains of God’s refuge and do His will. Which choice will you make?

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 44, pp. 11-13
September 13, 1973

By Larry Ray Hafley

Baptist “Dr.” John R. Rice recently sought to “note” the errors “of the teachings of the Church Of Christ,” because it is “a false cult (that) disturbs many people on the plan of salvation.” (Sword Of The Lord, John R. Rice, editor, June 8, 1973, Pp. 1, 8, 9). Mr. Rice became so disturbed and perturbed by the teachings of this “false cult” that he made a number of false statements. It is a sad day for Baptist doctrine when “a false cult” can shake a New Testament at a Baptist literary luminary and cause him to step into unscriptural holes.

The Same Plan

”  people in all ages have been saved exactly the same. In Acts 10: 43 this is expressly stated: ‘To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.’ This Scripture says that every prophet in the Old Testament and in the New Testament alike taught the same plan of salvation-that is, salvation by faith in Christ. Now it is foolish and wicked to contradict that plain statement and try to make different plans of salvation for different times.”

If Acts 10:43 says what Baptist Rice says it says, then I do not know how to read. The Old Testament prophets witness in the Old Testament Scriptures that through the name of Christ “whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” They said nothing about one plan of salvation for all ages. They said nothing about the necessity of faith in Christ in their own age. “Now it is foolish and wicked to” say a passage says what it does not say (Rev. 22:18, 19), hence, Dr. Rice is foolish and wicked.

There has not been one plan of salvation for all ages. (1) “But now,” not earlier, says Paul, God’s plan of making men righteous by the faith of Jesus Christ “is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the Prophets.” The Old Testament prophets wrote of a system of making men righteous. “Now,” not before, but “now” it is revealed. (2) Repentance and remission of sins through the authority of Christ had never been preached prior to Pentecost in Acts 2 (Cf. Lk. 24:47; Acts 2:38; 19:1-5). This plan of salvation was to be preached “beginning at Jerusalem.” (3) We draw near unto God today, not by the “same” way, but “by a new and living way” (Heb. 10:20). Editor Rice speaks of “the same plan of salvation.” The Hebrew writer speaks of “a new and living way.”

“By Faith Only”

Twice our Baptist Rice refers to “salvation by faith alone.” Remember that Mr. Rice is the one who says it is “foolish and wicked to contradict” a “plain statement.” The only time the word of God ever speaks of salvation by faith only, it says it is not so. “Ye see then bow that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (Jas. 2:24). “So we can see that a man is justified in the sight of God by faith alone” (John R. Rice).

Mr. Rice uses and abuses Romans 4 and James 2 to establish “salvation by faith alone.” He avers that Abraham is our example of “salvation by faith alone.” This fails to account for obedient faith. Abraham’s faith was indeed counted to him for righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). This, however, was stated of him after he had lived for years in an obedient faith. “By faith Abraham . . . obeyed and he went out” (Gen. 12; Heb. 11:8). Seeing this obedient faith, God accounted it unto him for righteousness. Yes, Abraham is the father of the faithful, but he is only the father of those who -walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham” (Rom. 4:12). Baptist Rice’s faith alone has no steps in it, so it is not the faith of Abraham.

No one is saved by works, by perfect keeping of law. Paul denied salvation by works of law without especial reference to works or commands of faith. James showed salvation is by works of faith without reference to the keeping of law for justification. One should not array God’s commands against God’s grace. Paul said works of law cannot save because no one keeps the law perfectly. James says one’s faith will not justify if faith is not obedient.

Observe this classic statement by disturbed Rice, “It is true that faith that is without works is dead. But it is equally true that salvation, justification in the sight of God, comes by faith, without works.” In other words, salvation in the sight of God comes by a dead faith! Can you believe it?!

Obedience

“In John 3:18 Jesus says, ‘He that believeth on the Son is not condemned.’ One who has trusted in Christ is not condemned, whether he has obeyed the Lord about baptism or not” (John R. Rice). John 3: 18 refers to the obedient believer. If it does not contemplate the obedient believer; (1) It means those disobedient believers in John 8:30; 12:42,43 were saved; (2) It contradicts such passages as Matt. 7:21 and Heb. 5:9. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of MY Father.” Jesus is “the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Cf. Acts 10: 34, 35); (3) It contradicts Jas. 2:24-“not by faith only.”

Let us serve up some Baptist Rice. Baptist doctrine says repentance precedes faith, that a man repents before he believes. The Bible teaches that the penitent “shall not perish” (Lk. 13:3; 2 Pet. 3:9). Thus, “One who has repented is not condemned, whether he has obeyed the Lord about faith or not.” Will Rice accept his own logical dish? No, he reasons that the penitent ones contemplate the obedient, believing penitents who do all God says. Just so with baptism. But yet another side order is on the menu. Baptists teach that once one is saved he is forever saved. Therefore, he can believe, be saved by faith alone, and then stick his tong-tie out at God and at every passage commanding baptism, for according to Baptist doctrine, he is “not condemned, whether he has obeyed the Lord about baptism or not.” It does not matter that Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” One can live all of his life and mock and sneer at the Lord’s command to be baptized and go to heaven at last “whether lie has obeyed the Lord about baptism or not.” “Foolish and wicked,” indeed! Excuse me while I throw out this serving of Baptist Rice.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 44, pp. 9-10
September 13, 1973

By O.C. Birdwell

Much has been written about the Holy Spirit being given as an “earnest” of our inheritance. Theories are many. Some hold the position that reference is to a personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit today. Others say the “earnest” amounts to the promises made by the Holy Spirit to the obedient.

A careful study of Ephesians chapter one will shed a great deal of light on the subject. And it might be added that the light is much needed. Turn in your New Testament and read Ephesians one as you consider this article.

In my office there are thirteen commentaries on the book of Ephesians. All except one (Karl Braune, in Lange’s Commentary) take the position that Paul, in this chapter, discusses two groups. They are the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. He refers to the first group with the words “we” and “us,” and to the latter with “ye” and “you.” This is clearly shown in verses 12 and 13. Note the “we” and “ye” in these verses as follows: “To the end that we should be unto the praise of His glory, we who had before hoped in Christ: in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance.”

“We who had before hoped in Christ” are the Jews. They had received the Old Testament promise of a Messiah; walked with him in Galilee; and had been in the kingdom since the Pentecost following the resurrection. The Gentile Christians are identified and separated (v. 13) from the Jews by the statement “in whom ye also.” The Gentiles also received what the Jews had received. But it came a few years later. They heard, believed, and received the Holy Spirit of promise. This was at the house of Cornelius as recorded in Acts chapter ten. Read carefully the last few verses of Acts ten. There is a clear reference by Paul in Ephesians 1:13 to what happened in Acts ten at the house of Cornelius.

Paul said the Gentiles also heard, believed, and were “sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance. The account of this by Luke says, “while Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. An~ they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 10:44,45). Peter was speaking (see the preceding verses in Acts 10) about Jesus as the anointed of God. The Gentiles heard and were obviously believers. The Holy Spirit was poured out on them. The Jews had received a like outpouring on Pentecost.

Now, let us consider the statement, “ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance.” We have already shown that the “ye also” of verse 13 are the Gentiles (now Christians) in contrast to the “we” (Jews) in verse 12. Therefore, the statement “ye were sealed” points again to the Gentiles. The “seal” is a stamp or mark. The Gentiles were marked and authenticated as God’s heritage (See Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 4, p. 519).

Concerning the statement, “with the Holy Spirit of promise,” Robertson has this to say: “Here ‘of promise’ is added to the Holy Spirit to show that Gentiles are also included in God’s promise of salvation.” Robertson is exactly right. However, few, if any, writers go on to show that the Holy Spirit came on the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius in keeping with God’s promise. And that the coming of the Holy Spirit on that occasion was the pledge or earnest of the inheritance of the Gentiles. this was a demonstration by the Father to the Gentiles as well as the Jews that God had not overlooked them in redemption.

Presently, therefore, Jews and Gentiles have already received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as a pledge or earnest from the Father that they have an inheritance. The Jews received it at Pentecost; the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius.

This teaching on Ephesians 1: 12,13 is in keeping with the context of the first part of Ephesians. The writer speaks of “the Gentiles in the flesh,” called “tin circumcision” and formerly alienated (2:11,12). But they are now “no more strangers and sojourners,” but “fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (2:19). They are “fellow heirs and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (3:6). Paul further affirms that he was made a minister to preach unto the Gentiles and make all men see this mystery which had before not been revealed. It is clear, and then, that the point of Paul’s lesson is that the Gentiles also had received the Holy Spirit as a pledge of God’s having made them a part of his heritage.

In conclusion, may we, in a simple statement, set forth what Paul is teaching in Ephesians one. The Gentiles have also received the Holy Spirit of promise. His coming was a pledge or earnest of their inheritance. Therefore, since both Jew and Gentile have now received the like outpouring, they are both heirs and reconciled together in one body unto God. Every Gentile today, as well as every Jew, may be assured of his right to the gospel by this pledge or earnest made by God when he poured out His spirit on all flesh. On the Jew at Pentecost and the Gentile at the house of Cornelius.

This may be, for some, too simple an explanation for such (to them) a complex subject. Yet, it is obviously what Paul teaches on the matter.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 44, pp. 8-9
September 13, 1973

By James W. Adams

Down Memory’s Lane

Memory is a fascinating quality of the human mind. Though often the subject of metaphysical and philosophical controversy, its indestructibility seems all but axiomatic. The August issue of Mission Messenger, W. Carl Ketcherside paper, came in yesterday’s mail. As I scanned its pages, memory suddenly and inexplicably produced from its storehouse a statement made to me, almost thirty years ago, by venerable C. R. Nichol. He had asked me if I was familiar with the manner in which “The House of David” cultists interpret (1Cor. 11:1-16). Because I was young and inordinately anxious to make a good impression, I manifested considerable embarrassment in acknowledging my ignorance. Noting this fact, Brother Nichol, with understanding and grace so characteristic of him, dismissed my embarrassment and ignorance with a smile saying, “Don’t let it bother you, for I have often wondered what good it has done me to know so many things that aren’t so.”

Often Wrong But Never Dull

The Mission Messenger is often wrong, but it is never dull. It is always full of interesting information. In the August issue, not the least in this respect is a short news item provoked by a statement from the pen of the able but self-confessed beleaguered (“We Are Under Attack”) editor of the Gospel Guardian-my friend and brother in the Lord, William E. Wallace. I regard the things said in it to be peculiarly pertinent to the answer to the question which is the subject of this article; hence I pass it on to our readers:

William Wallace, editor of “Gospel Guardian, ” writes in the June 28 issue, “But we, like most other Christians, are unappreciative of ungracious and unjust journalistic policies, and we think church folks are growing about as weary of hearing ‘Ketchersideism’as a label as most Americans are of ‘Watergate’ as a scandal. ” “Truth Magazine” which is also edited by brethren, who identify with Brother Wallace in his willingness to draw lines of fellowship over support of orphan homes and Herald of Truth, is carrying a weekly article by our brother, James W. Adams, attacking my views on fellowship. It would be tragic if these good brethren became tired of one another.

Ketcherside’s thinly-veiled, sarcastic, but clever take-off on Wallace’s comments in the last sentence of the preceding quotation is duly noted, and I regret to say that it may contain more truth than humor.

The Gospel Guardian and its besieged editor seem to “tire” easily these days of militant, specifically applied opposition to pernicious error and to react testily to any criticism of their stance in the matter of “fellowship.” However, it is only fair to say that the good editor is not at all timid about handing out his criticisms even in areas of purely human judgment. He has been doing this for quite some time with reference to a number of matters. From my point of view, I frankly and without apology confess to being “tired” of the “pussyfooting compromise inherent in the self-styled “soft approach to fellowship with teachers and practitioners of pernicious error. The cost has already been too high and too many of us have been too long silent with reference to it.

The Fellowship Problem is Intellectual, Not Emotional

Love among brethren in Christ is both beautiful and desirable. It is an indispensable grace, and no one needs to extol its virtues to me. However, love alone is not the cure for our divisions or the answer to broken fellowship. Love can provide proper motivation and create a climate free from bitterness, personal animosity, and selfish pride in which reasonable, objective, truth-seeking study and discussion can take place looking toward a meeting of minds relative to our diverse understandings of what the Scriptures do or do not allow in the realm of religious faith and practice. Love cannot resolve our differences. They emanate from points of view relative to the teaching of Scripture, which are intellectually conceived; hence they can only be resolved intellectually.

No person among so-called conservatives has been willing to do more than have I to demonstrate a proper attitude toward resolving current differences and divisions resulting there from relative to church support of human institutions, centralized control and oversight in a “sponsoring church,” and church sponsored recreation. Incidentally but quite apropos is the fact that I have done this with considerable criticism from the current editor of the Gospel Guardian. It is ironic, to say the least, that he should now have the unmitigated audacity to label as “hardnosed” or “ungracious and unjust” my present stance on “fellowship” when so short a time ago he was labeling my efforts in that direction as a “tactical mistake.”

I have participated in four meetings with outstanding and thoroughly representative brethren from whom I am alienated by the issues mentioned above. In these meetings in which I engaged as an active participant, our differences were discussed frankly and candidly from the standpoint of Bible teaching in a spirit of love, good will, and mutual respect. We met and discussed these matters as brethren, yet with the clear understanding that we regarded one another as brethren in error to whom we could not fully extend “the right hand of fellowship.” If I know my heart, and I believe I do, I have nothing but the kindest feelings toward and deepest respect for the ability and sincerity of such men as J. D. Thomas, Reuel Lemmons, Jimmy Allen, Roy Lanier, Alan Highers, Hulen Jackson, Hardeman Nichols, and others. It is my hope that they reciprocate, at least in a measure, these feelings.

The men just mentioned and many others like them are thoroughly convinced that I am wrong concerning the things, which divide us, and I am just as thoroughly convinced they are wrong. Nothing would make me happier than to be in complete accord with these brethren that we might work together in the Lord, but neither my conscience nor theirs will permit. The problem lies not in our love, nor lack of it, for one another, but in our faith. They believe one thing with reference to Bible teaching and I believe another. We cannot believe and teach that which we are convinced is the truth and, at the same time, maintain a state of fellowship in the full import of that term in New Testament usage.

Unless and until our minds undergo intellectual changes relative to the matters which divide us, we are doomed to remain separated, as much as we may dislike the thought or wish the opposite to be true. A pseudo fellowship based on accommodation insults truth, belittles faith, and mocks Divine authority. We have reached an impass which, barring unforeseen and very unlikely contingencies, will remain a permanent situation, and the gulf which now stands between us will grow ever wider as the years pass. God help us! but this seems to be our destiny, and Ketcherside to the contrary notwithstanding, this is not fatalistic, only realistic.

“Label” or Fact, Which?

Brother Wallace, in recent issues of the Gospel Guardian, assumes the role of injured innocency crying, “We are under attack.” The facts will not support his plea of non-aggression. He chooses to overlook the fact that he is the man who first stuck his journalistic nose, and a long one it is, into Truth Magazine policy in the recent controversy over the scriptural right of Florida College to exist and function. Long before this he was airing his judgments concerning The Arlington Meeting in his Belmont Bible Banner even to the point of pontificating relative to the loss of usefulness to the “conservative brotherhood” (sic) of one of the participants in that meeting. Relative to the college question, he conjured up in his mind some sort of unholy combine between Truth Magazine and Florida College dedicated to the destruction of a New Testament congregation. He went so far as to imagine official meetings between representatives of the two human organizations held for the purpose of formulating policy. He went still further and named those participating, including the name of James W. Adams who was not nearer than a thousand miles to the place where said meeting was alleged to have occurred at the time it was alleged to have taken place.

Now that Truth Magazine has occasion to find fault with the stance of Editor Wallace, the Gospel Guardian, and some of its staff relative to the question of Ketchersidean inroads among conservatives, Editor Wallace affects great resentment styling said criticisms an effort to tell him how to operate the Gospel Guardian. If our criticisms may legitimately be regarded as constituting such, we plead for clemency on the group of a clear-cut precedent established more than once by our accuser. Truly, we but follow in his steps. Since Editor Wallace first assumed the prerogative of telling Truth Magazine what her journalistic policy should be, we would be worse than ingrates if we did not do as much for the Gospel Guardian.

Brother Wallace says, “We think church folks (whoever they are JWA) are growing about as weary of hearing ‘Ketchersideism’ as a label as most Americans are of ‘Watergate’ as a scandal.” Does our brother mean to say that most Americans do not regard Watergate as a scandal, and is he among that number? Are theft, perjury, bribery and such like not scandalous in Brother Wallace’s judgment? If his perception is no better than this, it is no wonder that he “tires” of hearing about “Ketchersideism.” Americans may be tired of many aspects of the Watergate investigation, but God help this country if they are tired of the investigation, exposure, and prosecution of corruption and crime in the highest levels of American government whether it be among Republicans or Democrats. I have more faith in the fundamental good sense of Americans as well as in their integrity to believe such to be true. I also have too much confidence in the good sense and integrity of conservatives to believe that they are tired of the investigation, exposure, and refutation of Ketchersidean error. Methinks Brother Bill was caught nodding at this point.

By this kind of comparison, Brother Wallace implies that conservatives are unconcerned about Ketchersideism among them. Wallace characterizes it as a “label.” In so doing, he implies that there is in reality no threat from this source that the danger exists wholly in the minds of a “vocal minority,” meaning Truth Magazine scribes. Question: Is this a fact-IS Ketchersideism just a “label” and not a fact among conservatives? Brother Wallace is covering the truth in this matter. I do not profess to know why. Your guess is as good as mine. About fifty preachers by actual count among conservatives have been adversely affected by Ketcherside’s concepts in one degree or another. Churches in a number of places have experienced trouble: Dayton, Ohio; Tullahoma, Tennessee; Tampa, Florida; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Tuscaloosa, Alabama, to mention a few. Others have had rumblings and have escaped open trouble only because the agitators were not able to muster sufficient following. One third of the preacher students in one graduating class at Florida College were corrupted by Ketchersidean views. Efforts have been made by the college to correct this situation but even last school year, a large number of preachers and other student-, adopted. promoted, and defended Ketcherside’s views. Need I say more?

Conclusion

This is about all I shall say in this or my next article concerning Brother Wallace, unless something new arises. Since most of his statements have been directed to the editor of Truth Magazine, I shall turn him over to Brother Willis’s tender mercies. In my next article, which is a continuation of this one, I shall be noting statements that have been directed to my criticisms of Brother Edward Fudge by Wallace and Fudge and also to an article by Brother Randal Mark Trainer, which will appear in Truth Magazine. Let it be noted that both Brethren Fudge and Trainer have been invited to reply to criticisms of them (which have been made in Truth Magazine) in the columns of this paper. My next article will be entitled: How Successful Is Ketchersidean Subversion?-No. II.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 44, p. 4-7
September 13, 1973