Truth Magazine

By Fred C. Melton

While in conversation with a local English merchant, I received the pointed comment, “You Christians are a dying race” to which sadly replied, “Only in England, Sir, only in England.” I then assured him that although the world community did not reflect it, the number of fundamental Bible believing people were on the increase while the traditional or “orthodox” groups were indeed waning badly. This brought him rather skeptically to the subject of why “fundamentalism” was so much stronger in southern America than in southern England (the English know much more about America than Americans know about England).

Irreligious Atmosphere

Comparatively speaking, the whole religious atmosphere throughout Europe is non-religious, even anti-religious, except where Catholicism is predominate. Children being raised in such a community learn quickly to either be apathetic or cynical toward all religions. In any country where a -state religion” prevails, zeal, individualism and leadership are stifled. State religions are simply an effort to emulate such closed communities as Old Testament Israel or Catholicism, but fail completely because precious few of their citizens are the slightest bit inclined to be obedient believers, nor do they ever intend to become so. Men should have learned by now that God does not wish anyone to be a Christian against his will.

Compulsory Religious Education

A pathetic effort to force “orthodox” religious views upon English school children through the state educational systems has been disastrous from the very start. Conventional attitudes might be seen in a simulated teacher’s meeting to select a “religious instruction” teacher. Headmaster: “Well, who is going to teach the R.I. class this year?” -(silence)- Headmaster to English Teacher: “What about you taking it this time, Mr._______? English Teacher: “Sir, I’m just too busy this year, I’m terribly sorry but could you get someone else?” Headmaster to the Science Teacher: “How about you, Mr._________? Science Teacher:

Wel-l-l, Oh, very well, I suppose we must be fair about this matter.” Many such teachers neither understand nor believe the Bible.

My own son’s teacher at the moment believes and teaches both modern miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit and the millennial reign of Christ on earth. Consequently, students are presented with Bible truths intermingled with error in such a way that they neither believe nor respect the Word of God. The common complaint about religion in England is that it is boring and hypocritical. The former arrogance and the modern apathy of the clergy have taken a terrible toll upon the potentially religious. The average Englishman sincerely believes that he knows just about all there is to know about religion and often ridicules the “gullibility of the naive Americans.”

Attitude of Brethren Toward Children

I’m afraid that our own brethren in England have adopted much of the traditional sectarian attitude toward the teaching of children. It is widely held by religious groups in England today that Sunday Bible classes are only for children while the assemblies are only for adults. The “closed communion” concept among the churches of Christ here has tended to further isolate the children from the morning assemblies. I recall that one visiting child at a morning worship service was seen putting a “tupence” into the collection plate. Some of the brethren were quite alarmed at this because as they reasoned, “these children are not vet Christians and only Christians are permitted to contribute to the Lord’s church.”

When Bible classes are held for children, it is usually in the afternoon, while the mother often stays home Sunday evening “because of the children.” Consequently, our own brethren are losing their children to the world at an alarming rate. If such attitudes and influences continue in the Lord’s church, we shall indeed become a “dead race.” The age of the average member of the Lord’s church in England is now well over 50 years old with a few voting people hanging on for dear life.

What is the Answer?

The answer is, of course, to thoroughly Indoctrinate our children in the teachings of Christ, both in the church and at home. Parents must set an example of belief and faithfulness for their children to follow. The Lord’s church in America should heed the warning of their English brethren’s plight and-watch out for your children! Even as God has said to Israel, who were His people at that time, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou has forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” (Hosea 4:6) Dear God, don’t forget our children.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 42, pp. 6-7
August 30, 1973

By Cecil Willis

Though many problems confront the church today, one of the most acute is the shortage of trained men to preach the gospel. Timothy was told to transmit that which had been committed to him “to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). The perpetual need for the dissemination of the gospel assures the continuing need for a supply of gospel preachers.

Any church that recently has gone through the ordeal of trying to locate an experienced, able, and faithful preacher to work with them is aware of the shortage of preachers. A few years ago, some of the liberal brethren tried to warn young preachers that if they did not “line-up” with the liberal clan, they would be without a place to preach. But our liberal brethren have proved to be very poor prophets. Apparently there are considerably more faithful churches than there are faithful preachers.

This shortage of faithful preachers has caused a number of churches to begin giving more attention to the need for training men to preach. A few years ago, some “sage” (?) concocted the aphorism, “If you can keep from preaching, don’t preach.” Certainly every gospel preacher must have a strong commitment to his duty as a preacher. But many competent young men never become preachers simply because they never get the encouragement to prepare themselves to preach. Quite frankly, I was not having, any trouble at all keeping from preaching. But some brethren encouraged me to consider devoting my life to gospel preaching. I now am very much appreciative to those who were not passive about whether I preached or not.

Preaching Schools

Every church should be a preaching school. 111indreds of churches which have used the fulltime services of a gospel preacher for a score or more years never have produced one gospel preacher. Why is this true? Frequently the reason why young men do not devote themselves to preaching is because they do not get the encouragement and the necessary training at home. Hannah planned from his birth that Samuel should be the Lord’s servant (1 Samuel, Ch. 1). Timothy was trained by his mother and grandmother from his childhood (2 Tim. 1: 35). The initial encouragement for young men to preach the gospel should come from godly and consecrated parents whose greatest delight would be to see their son devote his life to faithful preaching.

Recently I read where 35 gospel preachers have come out of one congregation. Yet there are many other churches, which have not produced a single gospel preacher. Why the difference? Some churches deliberately try to prepare competent young men to preach. Just as one does not accidentally become a child of God, neither are gospel preachers produced by accident. Someone must devote attention to encouraging and training young men to preach.

Several churches, in recent years, have really begun to concentrate on trying to qualify men to preach the gospel. Some are doing an outstandingly good job in their effort. The Expressway church in Louisville has devoted considerable time for several years to classes especially designed to qualify men to preach the gospel. As a result, at least three men are now preaching the gospel full-time, and a host of others regularly preach on weekends. The Brown Street church in Akron, Ohio has conducted some special classes that would be helpful to young men who aspire to preach. At least three or four men who studied in these classes now are preaching full-time.

The Valley congregation in Phoenix, Arizona recently has announced some special preacher training classes, which will begin in October. Teachers in these classes will be Tom Baker, Maurice Barnett, John Coffman and Homer Hailey. These special classes will last two or three weeks each. Classes will meet daily for four hours, and then four to six hours will be spent daily in the library. Students will take only one course at a time, but will complete 40 to 60 class hours in two or three weeks. Each course will be followed immediately by another. The complete series planned will be covered in two eight-month sessions.

Perhaps the most concentrated effort to train preachers being made by any faithful church known to me is that of the Kirkland, Washington church. This church employs two men on a full-time basis. These men, Lowell Williams and Jim Puterbaugh, constantly are conducting classes to edify the members and to train preachers. I am not referring to just a class or two a week. These men teach several hours every day. Another brother or two share in this teaching program of the Kirkland church in classes especially designed to qualify men to preach the gospel. There are nine men now preaching the gospel full-time who have been schooled by the Kirkland church. Last Spring when I was in a meeting at Tacoma, Washington, I learned that nine additional men were at that time engaged in a two, three, or four-year training program designed to prepare them to preach the gospel.

Recently the Nacogdoches, Texas church (Mound and Starr) has announced its intention to try to devote more time to preacher training type classes. W. R. Jones, the regular preacher for the Mound and Starr congregation, will assist in this teaching program. For several years Harold Tabor has been supported by the Mound and Starr church just to teach special classes for those interested in such studies. James W. Adams, a former Mound and Starr preacher, and who now lives at near-by San Augustine, also is going to assist in this special training effort.

Using Young Preachers

Another very encouraging practice has become fairly prevalent among faithful churches. This is the scriptural practice of using a young man in a training program as he works along side a more experienced preacher. Some of the churches known to me which have been using a young preacher to work with an older, more experienced one, are South Johnson Street in El Cajon, California; Manslick Road in Louisville, Kentucky. Floral Heights in Wichita Falls, Texas; Bellaire in Houston, Texas; and East Florence church in Florence, Alabama. Certainly there are a good many other churches engaging in this same excellent procedure.

Usually these young men are supported for a year or two to help in various ways in the local work. Then when they leave that congregation, they usually go to some beginning work, and the church that helped to train them then helps to support them until the church with which they are working is able to support a man on its own.

A part of the assignments given to the young preacher is one of special study in connection with the local preacher. Wayne Timmons of El Cajon church devotes three or four hours a day to study with a young preacher working with the congregation. That church is just now finishing work with a second young preacher, and intends to support him as he begins full-time work. Already they have begun looking around for another young man to work with them.

The young preacher is not looked upon just as a congregational “flunky.” He is expected to be at work in the congregation’s program of work. Such young men get experience at writing and preparing a bulletin, usually they get some beginning experience in radio work, they have the opportunity to engage in some gospel meeting work, they have the opportunity to participate in various aspects of the program of work of an active congregation including home Bible classes, and they have the experience of working with elders and mature preachers. Such young men are very fortunate indeed, and surely will make -less blunders and do more effective work, as a result of this experience and training.

The purpose in this article is to encourage other congregations, which are able to do so, to use more young preachers in their work. Unfortunately, churches sometimes think only in terms of what a preacher can do for them, rather than in terms of what they can do to help prepare a young preacher. Without doubt, having a young preacher to assist in the local work will be a benefit to any congregation. But perhaps the most important phase of work will be the preparation and experience gained by the young preacher.

In the section of East Texas where I grew up, there were very few full-time preachers. The smaller congregations out in the country were dad to get someone to preach for them. Luther Blackmon has said they would accept anybody who could even “mock a preacher.” That’s how I got in. I have often thought back on about six years of part-time preaching, which I did as a student. Probably I did not contribute much toward the edification of those churches, but they contributed wonderfully toward my edification and preparation. For all those beginning opportunities, I am very grateful.

Many young preachers would be delighted to have the opportunity to work with a congregation, if only during the summer months. Some small congregations, which I know, cannot support a preacher on a full-time basis. So they have employed student preachers, just for the summer months. Such a practice can be very helpful to a struggling work, and to a struggling young preacher.

A young man cannot learn to preach without opportunities to preach. Many of the young men, who are yet pursuing their college educational work, have virtually no opportunities to preach. The little congregations which used student preachers when I was a college student often have full-time preachers now. While a student for four years at Florida College, I had the opportunity to preach nearly every Sunday. Some of the young men there now who plan to preach get very few opportunities to preach. This circumstance is unfortunate for these young preachers.

In some instances, young men have begun full-time work with congregations when they have not preached more than 25-50 sermons in their lives. How can brethren expect young brethren with such meager experience to do a first-class job of preaching? I propose to churches, who can possibly afford to do so, to consider employing these beginning preachers in order that they might get the experience they need really to be qualified to preach the gospel. For about $1500, imagine a church could get one of these young preachers to work with them during the summer months. Such an opportunity would do wonders for these young preachers. Perhaps men who hold a good many gospel meetings then could concentrate them in the summer months, and the availability of the young preachers would be helpful in the ongoing of the local church’s work.

This idea of the proper training and use of young preachers has been upon my mind for many months. I now toss out the idea for the consideration of brethren, hoping that it will lead to the development of more and abler young men who might continue to preach the gospel after the “old-timers” among us are long dead and gone. Think not only of what a young preacher may do for you, but think of what you may do to help encourage and prepare young preachers.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 42, pp. 3-6
August 30, 1973

By Robin Peiser (13 years of age)

In the beginning of what was to be, 
God created you and me. 
First He made the heaven, earth and light, 
He let it shine for a while,
Then created He night. 
God said he liked it that way, 
and it all became the first day.
Next, God gave a few other orders; 
He divided the firmament from the waters. 
God called the firmament heaven, to say, 
I have made the second day.
Now God created the earth and seas, 
He also created grass, seeds and trees. 
God said he liked it that way, 
and it all became the third day.
God now made two great lights, 
The greater light to rule the day,
The lesser light to rule the night. 
Now God had created the sun, moon and stars, 
He did all this so it could be ours. 
God said he liked it that way, 
And it all became the fourth day.
God created the fish and fowl, 
He also created the whale and the wise old owl, 
God said he liked it that way, 
And it all became the fifth day.
God made the cattle and creeping things,
He also made the bird that sings. 
Now, He had one more duty to do, 
He had to create me and you. God said he liked it that way, 
And it all became the sixth say.
Now that I have done my best, 
I think I’ll take this day to rest, 
This was all God had to say,
For He had created the seventh day.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 41, p. 13
August 23, 1973

By Dorris V. Rader

In recent years this spirit of ecumenism has broken loose among some in the “restoration movement” and they have proclaimed a new movement known as “The Fellowship of The Concerned Ones.” There is a definite and undeniable affinity between the denominational ecumenical movement and this new movement. This is virtually admitted by Carl Ketcherside in the Mission Messenger, July 1967. “We are wholly sympathetic to ‘the call of renewal’ as voiced by our religious neighbors in ecumenical circles. We congratulate and commend them for their recognition that our present state is abnormal and for their concern, which prompts them to want to do something tangible to remedy it. What they have said and written has affected a great many of us who would not like to credit them for an impact upon our thinking, but they have dragged and pulled some of us into the twentieth century quite against our wills.” (p. 98) In addition to Ketcherside, some of the other leaders in the movement include Leroy Garrett, Robert Myers, and Roy Key. These men, with others, are constantly in “unity forums” with Disciples of Christ, Christian Churches and churches of Christ. Others are included – but these are given special attention. We are certainly not opposed to discussing matters with others with the idea of eliciting truth, and upholding it. And if this were the real nature of such gatherings, it would make our hearts glad. But as evidence of the compromise characteristic of such meetings, I quote from an article by Ketcherside concerning a meeting of -top-level men in the churches of Christ” and a prominent leader in the Christian church. He says, “It was agreed that these leaders in the non-instrumental ranks would tone down their factional approach in their articles and broadcasts, eliminating such material as would intensify tensions between the two groups. No mention of the meeting ever leaked out to orthodox journals but the effect has been seen from coast to coast.” (Mission Messenger, Nov. 1969). (Emp. mine DVR) He went on to point out that “a front-rank man in the Bible department at Abilene Christian College recently said that if the instrument was being introduced now, the brethren who oppose it would look at it a long time before they would divide over it . . .” He further said that the brethren who oppose the instrument agreed to work for a lessening of tension on the mission field where the question is Dot an issue. They also disclaimed any intention of becoming involved in public partisan debate over the matter. You will notice that the opposers of such unscriptural practices were the ones doing the compromising. It cannot be whitewashed and make it anything but compromise. This is in keeping with the fact that Ketcherside does not believe that division was caused by bringing in the instrument or the missionary society. It was simply a “lack of love” that caused it! So, if one places ham on the Lord’s Table, he does not cause division, but the “lack of love” on the part of the poor old opposer!

It is admitted by Ketcherside that it is a new movement. “The ‘Fellowship of the Concerned Ones’ is growing. The factional defenders of partisan orthodoxy are frightened . . . A New Movement is gathering force . . . a twentieth century restoration movement-linked by kinship to the restoration movement of long ago and yet destined to meet realistically the needs of our contemporary era.” (Mission Messenger, Apr. 1965). Before looking into some of the basic tenets of the movement, a brief look at an historical development should prove interesting.

Back in the early fifties Garrett and Ketcherside were leading the anti-located preacher hobby. It was argued that the “gospel” is only “seed” by which the unsaved are begotten and it cannot and must not be preached to the church. “Doctrine,” it was alleged, is food for the child of God. Hence, a strong and definite distinction was suggested. The first chapter of Romans alone disproves his contention that the gospel cannot be preached unto the church. Paul wrote the letter “unto all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints.” (v. 7) Then, more than a dozen times in the following verses, the pronouns “ye” and “your” appear. Then, Paul declares, “I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.” (v. 15) Paul was ready to preach the Gospel to those Ketcherside said it could not be preached to. Then, to the Corinthians Paul said: “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel (1 Cor. 15: 1). The distinction he sees between “gospel” and “doctrine” is a distinction which does not exist. This can be seen from a statement in first Timothy. Paul talks about things “contrary to sound doctrine; According to the gospel of the blessed God . . .” (1 Tim. 1: 10-11). And in first Timothy six, we find that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ are simply the “doctrine” of Christ. (1 Tim. 6:3)

My point in mentioning the above is simply to show that this false distinction forms the basis (in part) for their willingness to fellowship just about anybody, regardless of “doctrinal” difference. With them “doctrine” is optional. It may be discussed, but never allowed to disrupt fellowship. Hence, this accounts for the willingness to fellowship the users of instruments of music in worship, those who use missionary societies, the Premillennialists, and anything else so long as one does not deny that 1, Jesus is Lord.” By his own admission, Ketcberside will fellowship “every person who has been immersed upon the basis of his sincere faith in Jesus Christ as God’s Son and his Lord.” (Defender Vol. II, No. 11, Jan. 26, 1909) He will fellowship, therefore, any such person currently in the “Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, or some other religious organization.” (Mission Messenger, Feb., 1960, Pg. 3-9) Perhaps this is what one preacher called “great fellowship.” Maybe he thought it is great because it is almost without any limits. It seems that with him the only factor breaking the “great fellowship” would be for an individual or congregation to reach the point of denying the Bible to be the Word of God. Let us now look at some of the positions embraced in the movement. And remember that these are positions being advocated in literature circulated among the churches in Tullahoma and the area. Sometimes it is subtly concealed but nevertheless it is there.

1. It is advocated that there are Christians in all denominations. Listen to Leroy Garrett: “The Church of Christ consists of all those who lovingly obey him in all things according to their understanding, which assumes that they will be baptized believers who are spirit-fillea. These saints of God are scattered throughout the Christian world, belonging to all sort-, of sects and denominations. They are Christians, not because of their affiliation with any particular sect, but because of their relationship to Christ Jesus.” (Restoration Review, Sept. 1964) Garrett says: “If the man who truly loves Jesus happens to be a Baptist, I love him no less than a ‘church of Christ’ member that truly loves Jesus. They are both my brothers in the same way and to the same degree. I have no half brothers in Christ.” (Restoration Review, Dec. 1964) Ketcherside declared that “God’s sheep are a scattered flock, and not yet a gathered one. Some of them are caught in strange sectarian thickets. . .” (Mission Messenger, May, 1963) Further he said, “As an illustration of what we mean, we mention our personal conviction that there may be children of God scattered among the various sects today. Since all children of God are born of the same father whom we claim, we recognize them as our brethren, regardless of the mistakes in reasoning of which they are now guilty.” (Mission Messenger, Feb., 1958, pg. 12) Thus it follows that Ketcherside and those who think as he does, believe that one may choose to “serve God” in a denominational body unknown to God’s Word, and remain in fellowship with God. (See 1 John 1:7.) If one can do this, all can do it! Is our state or condition with the Lord an unconditional matter? Jesus said, “If ye continue in my word then ye are my disciples indeed.” (John 8:31) Thus, even if a person has obeyed the truth, then later goes into denominationalism, the issue is, can lie remain there and continue in fellowship with God? (1 John 1:7; John 8:31)

2. It is argued that there is no unity except “in diversity, ” none in conformity. “We assert that if there is any unity at all, it must be unity in diversity … there is no other kind of unity.” (Mission Messenger, July, 1965) What do they mean by diversity and conformity? Do they mean that unity cannot be had in conformity to human traditions? We would agree! Do they mean that we need not have conformity to or adhere strictly to the Bible in order to have unity? Then, we disagree! That this is precisely what they do mean is seen in the following statement. “What do we envision in the united church? … The Baptist church would not have to close shop, though being ‘Baptists’ would come to mean less and less to them. The Methodist church would probably continue worshiping at the Methodist church, and the Presbyterian and Lutherans would not necessary discard all marks that distinguish them from others. The Christian church and the church of Christ would not be expected to join each other. . . . not at the outset at least. But all these groups could still be as one body in the holy bond of Christian brotherhood. despite external differences and even annoying disagreements. The big difference would be that they would accept each other as brothers and treat each other as children of God in the same heavenly family . . . They would drop creedal barriers, having fellowship on the Lordship of Christ and nothing else. ” (Restoration Review, May, 1964-Emp. mine, DVR) Ketcherside said He can be in a sect without being sectarian. We urge no one to come into anything except those who are out of Christ Jesus. We invite DO one to come into anything except those who are not in the one body. Let us stay where God has called us in that one body and be a part of the concerned ones.” (Mission Messenger, Nov. 1964) (Emp. mine-DVR) Ketcherside is urging the “scattered sheep” to stay caught in those “strange sectarian thickets” and just be a part of the “concerned ones.” Ketcherside admits what we already knew, namely, he has been greatly influenced by the leaders in the protestant ecumenism. Hear him: “What they (religious neighbors in the ecumenical circles DVR) have said and written has affected a great many of us who would not like to credit them for an impact upon our thinking, but they have dragged and pulled some of us into the twentieth century quite against our wills.” (Mission Messenger, July, 1967) told you that there is an undeniable affinity between this movement and the larger denominational ecumenism. There is the admission. This “unity in diversity” was borrowed from them! It is a phrase of the ones who use “good words and fair speeches” and deceive the hearts of the simple. (Rom. 16:17-18) Any position, which allows for many bodies must necessarily allow for many faiths, and many Lords. (Eph. 4:4-6) Paul admonished that there be no divisions among you, and to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1 Cor. 1:10). The denominational leaders have long argued for “unity in diversity” and Brother Ketcherside admits being influenced by them.

3. It is argued that we cannot understand the Bible alike. Faithful brethren have met this and refuted it all along from denominational preachers. Now, Robert Myers has said, “Any honest and perceptive person knows that through every century since the book was written men with equal sincerity and wisdom have been unable to understand some of its crucial issues alike … Perhaps it is time to take a long, hard look at the problem of interpretation. We may want to overhaul our position . . . Unity in diversity is possible, the unity of conformity never has been and never will be . . . It isn’t that God’s revelation speaks with two voices; it is simply that man’s interpretive power is affected by many factors and that one hardly ever finds two men on earth who are anywhere near alike” (Restoration Review, Apr., 1964) Thus, like the denominations, they are ready to excuse every presumptuous sin on the basis of man’s interpretive powers being affected. Suppose the man who denies the virgin birth, miracles, and the deity of Jesus argues that these are merely matters of interpretation, and that his views should not be allowed to keep him out of fellowship with them. Would these men be so “unloving” as to “sit on the judgment seat” and exclude him from fellowship? Do not count on it. They cannot do so and maintain any degree of consistency with the position. For, after all, if we cannot understand the Bible alike, how can they be sure their “interpretation” of such matters is correct? The Bible directs us to “be not unwise but understanding what the will of the Lord is.” (Eph. 5: 17) If two people both understand what the Lord’s will is, they will be alike. God commands its all to “speak as the oracles of God,” (1 Pet. 4: 11) a thing we cannot do unless we can understand the oracles of God. We are admonished to “walk by the same rule,” and to “mind the same thing.” (Phil. 3:161 The very same passages we have always used to answer the denominational contention on this point are sufficient to answer these men who admittedly have been influenced by the denominational leaders.

4. We are told that the Bible is not a pattern or blueprint. One writer challenged the idea that there is a pattern for anything-in Christianity. He thinks such would be “legalism.” Leroy Garrett said, “When we take all the New Testament Scriptures … we can be sure about a few matters regarding the work, worship, and government of the ecclesia. (emp. mine. DVR) . . , This dos not mean, however that the Scriptures provide its with ‘a minute and detailed pattern’ for the church. For the most part the guidelines are in a few broad areas which seem to restrict the areas in which we might move instead of precisely defining them.” (Restoration Review, May, 1964) (Emp. mine DVR). Of course, if the Bible is not a pattern or blueprint, there can be no violation of any pattern. (See Heb. 8:5) Like other modernists, they regard the Bible as simply setting up a few (powerfully few at that) general guidelines and they are so broad and flexible its to allow for just about anything.

5. It is denied that the New Testament churches were alike in doctrine and practice and hence the unity of the apostolic church is denied. Listen to Garrett: “Another characteristic of the true, apostolic church, we are told, is its unity; therefore, the divisiveness apparent in ‘modern denominationalism’ rules out all denominations as the true church of Christ. I am surprised … that my brethren keep making this kind of argument, puerile and naive as it is. First, the primitive churches were anything but united, if that means they were alike in doctrine and practice, or even if it means that they got along well with each other . . .” (Restoration Review Sept., 1964) Wonder how this can be reconciled with the fact that the Bible pictures the multitude in Jerusalem as being of “one mind and of one soul,” (Acts 4:32) and that Paul preached the same thing in every church. (1 Cor. 4: 17) It cannot be shown that the apostolic churches were anything like the denominational picture today. There simply were no denominations in existence. Let him find such in the Bible, and then he will have something to go on. But they have already ruled out the Bible as being any pattern anyway!

6. The “Movement of the Concerned Ones” is s saturated with the theory of the Holy Spirit operating other than through the word of God. It is reported (Gospel Guardian, Vol. 20, No. 4) that in the Dallas Unity Meeting of 1967, Ketcherside in response to questions said that lie did not believe the Holy Spirit would reveal anything in addition to the written word; but that the Holy Spirit does ‘illuminate or reveal to one’s heart the meaning of the scriptures. Myers says we cannot understand the scriptures alike, and Ketcherside says the Holy Spirit reveals the meaning to us. If these men are right, the Holy Spirit is doing a fair job of contradicting himself and confusing everyone. Garrett asserts and implies the presence of the Spirit in the same sense as in Paul and Elijah. “Does God speak to men directly and immediately in our day? … Men no longer believe in God’s living presence. God once did this or that, but he does so no longer. Religion must have been vital and exciting to Elijah or Paul, for the Spirit of God was a living reality in their lives. All lie does these days is through the cold print of a book. Get full of that book and you get full of the Spirit! This is a view all too common. We may be disbelievers without realizing it … If we look to the Bible and to the Lord for answers to the crucial problems facing our world, then we must believe that ‘Jesus is the same yesterday and today and forever!’ (Restoration Review. Nov. 1964  Emp. mine DVR).

Gospel preachers have met and answered these assertions from denominational preachers much longer than any of us has lived. Oral Roberts could do as good a job arguing his miraculous healing today. There is a growing number who have been influenced by this type of teaching, who is claiming a direct guidance of the Holy Spirit. Some claim Holy Spirit Baptism and speaking in tongues. In the Word of God what is attributed to the influence of the Holy Spirit today such as guiding, instructing, leading, comforting, sanctifying and dwelling in us, etc. is also attributed to the Word, which the Holy Spirit gave us. This is not to argue that the Holy Spirit is a book, or cold print or just a word. He is a person. It is simply to affirm that He operates through the word, which is the “sword of the Spirit.” (Eph. 6: 10, Compare also Col. 3:16 with Eph. 5:18) If one has no difficulty seeing that Christ, a person in the Godhead, dwells in us by faith, he should have no difficulty seeing that the third person of the Godhead can dwell in us in like fashion. (see Eph. 3:17). For an excellent refutation of this “Pentecostal Holiness Movement” in the church, consult the book by Foy E. Wallace, Jr., The Mission And Medium Of The Holy Spirit. Any of the debates with denominational preachers of the past on the direct operation of the Holy Spirit will be of assistance.

The restoration plea of the pioneers and the faithful down through the years has been designed to bring men and women out of denominationalism and away from the dogmas of men. The “Fellowship of the Concerned Ones” runs in the other direction. It encourages them to remain where they are regardless of “doctrinal” matters, and presumptuous practices, which render worship as vain.

If our standing for a “thus saith the Lord” makes us “keepers of orthodoxy,” may our tribe increase ten thousand times ten thousand! Our fervent prayer is that our brethren, who have been sitting quiet while these views were propagated, will rise up with the Sword of the Spirit and stand as defenders of the Faith. This movement will not stop! It will continue to progress among people who forsake “the pattern” and follow human wisdom. No doubt it will eventually become blended into the larger and more general denominational ecumenical movement from whence the seeds were borrowed. It definitely has an appeal as all sin does. But you do not have to be swept into the tide of its digression. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 41, pp. 8-12
August 23, 1973