Truth Magazine

By James W. Adams

“The Youth Revolution”

One of the outstanding phenomena of our time is the “Youth Revolution.” One of its bitter fruits has just this week come to light in the exposure of the horrendous, sex-motivated, torture slayings of more than twenty teenagers – the total may approach thirty, in the city of Houston, four of them in my own county. Like spontaneous combustion, the youth revolt seems to have just happened; nobody seems to know exactly what motivated it. We are probably too close to it for a proper perspective and accurate analysis. Historians and sociologists of the future may be able to trace its origins, explain its aims, and assess its results. Some facts concerning it are self-evident. It is a fact, and it is universal in its scope. Only totalitarian nations have escaped it, and they have escaped only by repressing freedom of expression with force. Every relationship of human existence has been plagued by it-the home, the state, and religion. Was it Bernard Shaw who said, “Youth is a great time of life, but it is too bad that it is wasted on the young?” While I do not share this cynical evaluation ‘ it is not too difficult to understand what provoked it.

Churches of Christ Afflicted

Churches of Christ have not escaped the ravages of the “Youth Revolution.” Rebellion against parents, pornography, sexually provocative dress, illicit sex, abuse of beverage alcohol and drugs, and other facets of the morality of this era have invaded the homes of Christians and have done their work of destruction with its consequent heartbreak. Congregations have also felt the force of this movement. Frightened by the specters of drug abuse, juvenile crime, and illicit sex, churches have chosen to adapt rather than to fight. The pulpit has been mute relative to New Testament morality, social service rather than soul saving has become the thrust of the activities of the churches, doctrinal soundness has yielded to compromise and ecumenism, and orderly collective worship and service under the direction of qualified overseers have abdicated to cell worship and spontaneous inter-action. By the adaptation of a statement from the Bible, it can be said, “Jeshurun waxed fat” and has become lazy and spineless, and the colts have “kicked” over the traces and run off with the wagon.

Conservatives Not Immune

Some of the complacent brethren may be saying, “Yes, I know the ‘liberals’ are doing all these things, but not the ‘conservative’ brethren.” We give ourselves entirely too much credit. The “Youth Revolution” has not passed us by. It works among us. The wolves are among the lambs and a great many would be shepherds are sitting on their hands, or they are asleep at the gate of the sheepfold. While this is evident in many areas of error, I am dealing in this series particularly with Ketchersideism and matters related thereto. That Ketcherside and his views have stolen the hearts of many of our finest young people is not a debatable proposition, it is a demonstrable fact-the evidence to prove it is overwhelming.

I can personally testify to its truth. In one congregation which I served, one of the most excellent young men of my acquaintance intellectual, lovable, devout, sincere, has been all but if not entirely lost to the cause of truth by reason of this influence. He is but one of many. This is what has stirred me up to a sense of responsibility with reference to an all out effort to destroy Ketchersidean influence among conservative brethren, and I shall not be deterred from it, come what may. If some of the Simon Milquetoasts or Bleeding-heart sisters do not like the manner in which I am doing this, perhaps they would like to demonstrate how to do it better! Let any who may be inclined to be critical get off their “stools of do nothing” and exercise some effective influence toward the eradication of every vestige of Ketchersidean error at work among the brethren, particularly the young, with special emphasis on young preachers.

A Vindication of Conservative Youth

Since beginning this series, I have been deluged with encouragement from every section of the country. Not the least among those encouraging me have been a host of young preachers. When I speak of “precocious neophytes” in these articles, I speak only of some young preachers. I rejoice to report that the great majority of the young preachers are humble, sound, devoted, and militant in the interest of truth and in opposition to error. They have asked me to say in no uncertain terms that they are not “turned off ” by the fight Truth Magazine is making against Ketchersidean error. They recognize the need for the fight and endorse a complete exposure of the doctrine, its proponents, and its sympathizers.

In this connection, let it be clearly understood that my references to some young men grow out of no personal animosity on my part toward a single one of them. I love them all and would do anything consistent with righteousness and truth to help any one of them. This is not a case of age resenting youth. I love the young, God bless them! They are the hope of the church and the hope of the world! My regret is that there are not more of them dedicating their lives to the preaching of the gospel. However, when young preachers assume the prerogatives of maturity and become militant in pressing views that affect the interests of truth, the souls of eternity bound persons, and the peace of the Lord’s churches resulting in the destruction of the doctrinal stability of numbers of other young preachers and many not preachers and creating trouble in congregations, they must be dealt with forthrightly and positively.

Anent Edward Fudge

In recent articles, I have mentioned Brother Edward Fudge and the considerable influence he has had, wittingly or unwittingly, in helping to disturb many young preachers. My first reference to Brother Fudge brought an indignant letter from a sister in Christ in St. Louis, Mo. who holds membership in the congregation where Brother Fudge recently preached for four years. She extolled Brother Fudge’s Bible knowledge and suggested that older preachers were “Jealous” of his accomplishments. Should there be others like this zealous sister, may I hasten to say that I take great happiness in whatever may be Brother Edward’s accomplishments and have told him so in a personal letter. I gladly acknowledge his high moral character, his unusual intelligence and ability, and his educational attainments. The more able and literate he is the more pleasure it gives me. In this respect, I devoutly wish his number were legion.

Brother Fudge has the potential, hence the obligation of becoming one of the best and most influential preachers among the brethren. What bothers me is the direction he seems to be traveling, and the ambiguity and equivocation, which characterize his pronouncements. Entirely too many of our young men who are off the right track have too great rapport with his writings. This is a fact, and I have documentation to prove it. As I said in a previous article, one of two things is true, either Fudge is saying things he should not, or he is being misunderstood. In either case, he needs to correct the situation. So far, his efforts along this line leave much to be desired.

I have charged that Brother Fudge bases his views of salvation by grace on at least one quasi-Calvinistic concept; namely, the imputation of Christ’s personal righteousness to the believer. The proof of this is to be found in his tract on the subject. I have charged that his treatment of baptism in this tract is “temporizing, compromising, and misleading.” I sincerely believe this to be true, and I gave a direct quotation from the tract to prove my point. Brother Fudge has written me concerning this and offers Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost as a scriptural precedent noting that baptism was mentioned only once near the close of the sermon. Such a reply undermines my confidence in Fudge’s intellectual honesty, for he admits that “with many other words did he testify and exhort saying. . . ” This admission disproves his contention, and he knows it, or he would not have mentioned it.

Fudge’s contention ignores the fact that Peter was not delivering a learned discourse on the difference between “legal justification ” and ‘justification by grace. ” He was simply preaching “repentance and remission of sins in the name of Jesus” (Lk. 24:46, 47). Besides, Peter clearly announced that his inquiring believers were to “repent and be baptized for (eis-in order to JWA) the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). The Jews to whom Peter spoke were perfectly familiar with “baptism: for the remission of sins,” for John the Baptist preached and practiced such a baptism (Mk. 1:4). Peter’s statement was in response to a direct question that involved baptism in its reply. Fudge’s passages of scripture used in his tract involve baptism only incidentally, and they are associated with figures of speech. I cited statements from Ben M. Bogard and Edward T. Hiscox, representative Baptists, to show that they declare themselves on baptism using the very passages Fudge quotes in almost identical language (and certainly quite as strongly) as that used by our brother in his tract, yet both of these men specifically and unequivocally denied baptism to be essential to salvation.

Using no more space than he employed, Brother Fudge could have unequivocally shown baptism to be essential to salvation and entirely compatible with New Testament teaching on salvation by grace. This he did not do, hence my charge of criminal ambiguity. I stand ready to affirm at any time with any person that Fudge I s tract does not of necessity teach baptism to be essential to salvation, that such has to be inferred from what he says on the basis of prior knowledge of the writer’s religious affiliation from what he is supposed to believe and teach concerning baptism.

Fudge and Ketchersideism

In the Gospel Guardian, July 19, 1973, Brother Fudge, according to Editor Wallace, in a “masterful effort” engages to “set the record straight” concerning “Bible truth . . . on fellowship” and on “where he stands regarding current errors in the fellowship matter.” When I read this, I rejoiced, for nothing would please me more than to see such from the pen of our brother, but I was doomed to disappointment. The strongest statement I have ever seen from him is contained in his article, yet even that is all but nullified by other statements, which he makes. He says, “I am associated by choice and by conviction with brethren who oppose congregational support of institutions of any kind, emphasis on the social rather than the spiritual, and so forth.” I am glad to note the term, “conviction,” but confess I have difficulty appreciating the depths of that “conviction” in view of his other statements in the article and elsewhere and his actions.

Brother Fudge “sets the record straight” by simply reprinting his tract on “Christian Fellowship ” which actually comes to grips with none of the real issues involved in current controversies among brethren. It simply defines words, notes usages, and makes no practical or specific application of them to human responsibility that would lead to proper conduct in reference to matters which now divide professed New Testament Christians. Most of what he says, if charitably construed, is the truth. What he does not say is that which is significant. As Shakespeare’s Hamlet said, “Ay, there’s the rub.”

In his “Few Remarks” which follow the reprint of his tract, Fudge makes some interesting points that are rather revealing. (1) He has an inordinate aversion to what he calls “applying specifies.” He prefers to deal in “exegesis.” I recognize there is a difference between application and exegesis if one means the application of a general principle inherent in a given passage to matters not related to those out of which the principle was developed by that passage. However, there is no true exegesis without application. Any principle developed in a passage of Scripture finds direct and specific application to the subject or circumstances under consideration in that passage. All of us have heard of the person who was an inveterate foe of sin in general and the opponent of none in particular. Brother Fudge calls this to mind by his aversion to specific applications.

(2) Fudge indicts his brethren in the most scathing terms while professing to have such warm. fraternal feelings for them, much as Ketcherside does, in fact, in almost the very language of Ketcherside. Yet, even in this, he lacks the moral courage to say who these people are to whom he refers. Am I one of these? Is Brother Cecil Willis? Is Roy Cogdill? I challenge him to name those whom he indicts. If this condition obtains among conservatives, where is it and who is guilty? Let him be specific and perhaps we can eradicate the situation. Note the particulars of his indictment. He says that a “vocal minority appear to want not simply an honest and honorable application of scriptural principles, but a lining up in terms of persons or papers or groups of preachers, and a renunciation, not simply of false doctrine or unscriptural practice, but of individuals as such.” I have taken the liberty to conserve space by putting Fudge’s statements together without changing their meaning. In making these statements, Fudge is writing in the context of Truth Magazine criticisms. I categorically deny his allegations and call upon him to name those to whom he refers. Innuendo is cowardly. For once, Brother Fudge, let us get specific!

(3) In the last two paragraphs of his “remarks,” when dealing with Ketcherside’s errors, Fudge constructs a straw man and repudiates him and his principles. Ketcherside does not, in the words of Fudge, propose “a spirit of indifference to any doctrine or error among Christians, a sort of umbrella allowance for whatever anybody wants to put off on the churches, a pseudo tolerance that really means compromise and giving in to error of every sort rather than steadfastly resisting it with the sword of the Spirit.” I have never charged Brother Ketcherside with teaching such. It is my sincere conviction that the practical result of Ketcherside’s proposals involve a compromise of Divine truth, but this is a far cry from what Fudge pictures. Ketcherside would repudiate Fudge’s straw man as fervently as does Fudge.

(4) When Fudge deals with Ketcherside’s opposition among conservatives, he is no more candid than when dealing with Ketcherside. He says he resists “ungodly party spirit and sect forming, inappropriate and unscriptural attitudes toward brethren (even those in error). ” I do not know of a single person on any side of any issue who would admit to belonging to either category which Fudge describes. All known to me would denounce both characters as fervently and as positively as does Fudge. So, what actually does our brother say, what do his “few remarks” contribute toward, as Editor Wallace said, “setting the record straight as to where Fudge stands regarding current errors in the fellowship matter?” Fudge’s tract makes no applications to current problems, hence has no relevancy in this regard. His “Few Remarks” only create straw men, which he repudiates, no more, no less. Hence, we stand exactly where we did before Fudge spoke out M. This is what I mean by equivocation.

Conclusion

Space prohibits a continuation of this matter in this article. In my next article I shall be further vindicating Truth Magazine’s concern regarding and criticism of the stance of the Gospel Guardian with a recitation of facts from the past. I shall also pay my respects to Brother Randall Trainer’s disavowal of a statement which I attributed to him in a previous article. The next article will for sake of continuity of thought and material and to avoid confusion, be entitled: How Successful Is Ketchersidean Subversion?-No. III.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 45, pp. 3-7
September 20, 1973

By Cecil Willis

The impelling desire that we have to be held in honor and favor by our associates, to a great extent, regulates our activities. We sometimes ask, “What do others think of me?” We are very concerned about what men think of us. We want those about us to have a good opinion of us, and this desire has often motivated individuals to make pretensions that were not genuine. But we have valued too highly the estimates of men. We have been too concerned about what men think about us. Men’s judgments are fallible. They are not always true judgments, and therefore, there is no guarantee of good character simply because we have the approval of men. Friends and admirers may think of us almost as god. When Paul healed the impotent man in Lystra the people favorable to him said, “the gods are come down to us in the likeness of men” (Acts 14:12). They called Paul, Mercury, and Barnabas, Paul’s companion, Jupiter. On the other hand, those who were unfavorably disposed toward Paul, on another occasion, thought of him quite differently than as a god. Festus, after hearing the sermon of Paul, declared that his much learning had made him mad (Acts 26:24). Paul is here said to be crazy. So, we readily can see that human judgments concerning us may vary. They are often formed because of an already existing disposition toward us. In both the above cases taken from the Scripture, the judgments of men were incorrect. Paul was neither a god, nor crazy. It is futile to become too concerned about what men think of us.

It should be consoling to know that regardless of what men think about us, God’s estimation of us remains the same. God’s feeling toward us is not controlled by man’s, and whether we are in favor or disfavor in the sight of men, is immaterial with God, if we have been true to our responsibilities to Him.

Then, again, we ask, “What do I think of myself?” Am I like the Pharisees who exalted themselves and praised their own righteousness? Paul says to one, “not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think” (Rom. 12:3). It is often characteristic of some men to over-estimate themselves, while others consistently underestimate themselves. Some think they are practically perfect, while others think they are “one talent” men, and can therefore do nothing. Our self-appraisals cannot always be trusted. There are thousands who have examined themselves by their own standards, and have concluded that they are saved from sin, but who actually are still in sin. They only think they are saved. Solomon said “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man; but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12). Even our judgments of ourselves cannot be trusted, for they are also subject to error.

We have asked, “What do others think of me” Then, “What do I think of myself?” Now, “What does God think of me?” Of the questions we have asked, this last one is of greatest importance. It matters little what men think about us; it matters but little more what we think of ourselves. But the question that means more than all of these others combined, is; “What does God think about me?” This counts!

It might seem impossible ever to know just exactly what God’s reactions toward us are, but it is not. Men can know the exact action God will take toward them in the judgment by knowing what His action or feeling toward them is now. To find out God’s feeling toward us now, we must read his Word, for it contains the mind of God. (1 Cor. 2:8-16).

If we can objectively view ourselves in the light of the Bible, we can know very definitely what God thinks of us. After all, this is what counts! (2 Cor. 13:5)

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 45, p. 2
September 20, 1973

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