Truth Magazine

By Huey P. Hartsell

While upon this earth Jesus was misunderstood, slandered, persecuted and crucified. The masses viewed him as an impostor and fanatic. The Jews accused him of blasphemy, gluttony, and winebibbing. They charged him with having a devil and said that he wrought miracles by the power of Belzebub. After living among men for about 33 years he was betrayed by one of his own into the hands of a mob. His arrest was followed by a speedy “trial” in which the principles of justice were flouted. After suffering cruel mocking and scourging, he was compelled to bear his own cross. Finally, to the delight of a jeering crowd, he was subjected to the shameful, painful, humiliating death of a criminal.

Jesus suffered “such contradiction of sinners against himself . . .” even though he lived a perfect life. While the world looked upon him as a radical fanatic, he was “faithful to him that appointed him . . .” and God was well pleased.

From the life of Christ we learn that persecutions are the lot of those who obey God. We also see in him a perfect example of what our reaction ought to be to such trials. The apostle Peter writes, “For hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously” (1 Peter 2:21-23).

In New Testament times devout Christians were considered to be strange and they were reproached by the evil-speaking worldlings. They were generally looked upon as extremists. The true church was counted a sect and everywhere was spoken against. (Acts 28:22). Paul and Silas were accused of turning the world upside down. Festus charged Paul with being out of his mind. This peerless apostle to the Gentiles suffered all kinds of perils, abuse, and ridicule for the name of Christ.

Those today who are totally committed to the Lord’s way in all things are scorned, despised, and misrepresented. It is a sad fact that some of this opposition comes from brethren who are no longer content to do the Lord’s work in his way. Whatever the source, faithful Christians should not be dismayed or intimidated by the cries of “radical,” “fanatic,” “anti,” etc. They should rather as the servants of Christ gladly endure, to a small degree, what their Master suffered, in the hope of finally being glorified with him. Paul said, “. . . if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him” (Romans 8:17).

The evaluation that God makes of our lives is the thing that counts for eternity. To hear him say “well done” will be worth whatever price faithfulness demands. Let us study to show ourselves approved unto God. (2 Timothy 2: 15). Let us determine to be faithful to him no matter what men may say or do. And “if ye are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are ye -, because the Spirit of glory and the Spirit of God resteth upon you.” (1 Peter 4:14). When persecuted for righteousness’ sake, think of the reward in heaven and press on for the crown of glory. Jesus said, “Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you.” (Matthew 5:11,12).

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 37, pp. 11
July 26, 1973

By James W. Adams

Borrowing a line of approach from Brother W. Carl Ketcherside’s polished propaganda, let it be noted that the New Testament kerux (herald) was not a self-proclaimed specialist nor a self-sanctified sacrificial offering to any one element or aspect of Divine truth or human obligation to King Jesus and his benevolent rule of grace, love, and mercy. New Testament heralds (kerux) abdicated this field to the cultmongers of time and history. As our propagandizing brother has so often and so correctly noted, a sect (heresy) or party may emanate from and be based upon a single element of Divine truth inordinately emphasized. I charge as kindly as I know how, yet firmly and confidently, that none is guiltier of this than Ketcherside himself. Note his own statements:

“I am traveling, speaking, and writing, and otherwise seeking to promote the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. I regard every child of God as my brother or sister, since I am a child of the Father. Wherever God has a son I have a brother” (Mission Messenger, Vol. 35; No. 5; May, 1973; p. 65).

For the past fifteen years, Ketcherside has devoted most of his time, energy, and effort in promoting his concepts on fellowship and unity in his “traveling, speaking, and writing.” I would not detract from the importance of fellowship and unity, but these blessed conditions with the instruction, which they entail and the obligations, which they impose, are not the summum bonum of Christianity. Ketcherside’s inordinate emphasis of and preoccupation with these themes stamp him indelibly with the mark of a true cult-monger (sectarian).

If personal testimony proves anything, I too travel, speak, and write. However, despite the fact that I have done considerable writing and speaking in the past two decades against innovations in church organization, worship, and work, those who know me best in local work and protracted meetings can testify that I speak the truth when I say in a take-off on Ketcherside’s statement: Wherever God has a Son (and that is in every relationship and experience of human life) I have a prophet, priest, and king, hence that His instruction, His saving mediation, and His practical lordship over the hearts and lives of eternity-bound, immortal souls have been my concern, not simply the fellowship and unity of professed believers. Yet, Brother Ketcherside with his endless protestations of love identifies me and others like me among churches of Christ as sectarian defenders of contemptible “Church of Christ partyism and exclusiveness.” Coming from a source so pregnant with sectarian attributes, such a charge plumbs the depths of absurdity. Oh yes, I love (agape) Brother Ketcherside, but his false doctrine and divisive activities under the guise of seeking unity make it impossible for me to love (philadelphos) him as a faithful brother in the Lord and to extend to him “the right hand of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9).

 

 

Baptism, the Heel of Achilles

In my article just preceding this one, it was observed that the views of Ketcherside and the devotees of his unity cult concerning New Testament baptism, the baptism of the “Great Commission” (Mt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15), constitute for them a veritable heel of Achilles. Ketcherside’s evaluation of the relative importance of the form of the act as contrasted with the design of the act constitutes one of the most vulnerable aspects of his views on the subject. While Ketcherside would deny such as being his view, the logical consequence of his teaching is that form is more important than design in gospel obedience.

Ketcherside insists that baptism is immersion in water and that sprinkling is not in fact baptism at all. Hear him:

“My position now is, and always has been, that obedience to the gospel, that is, acquiescence in the truth and credibility of the seven great historical facts related to Jesus of Nazareth, and immersion in water as a recognition of his lordship over life, introduces one into the fellowship to which we are called by the wonderful grace of God. . . . Sprinkling is not baptism. It cannot be equated with baptism philologically, philosophically, or scripturally. It is a different action altogether. One who has been sprinkled has not been baptized in the scriptural usage of that term” (Op. Cit. pp. 66, 73).

In reference to this subject, Ketcherside demonstrates the fine art of “hedging” at its best, or should I say, its worst? He manages to write on all sides of the issue with equal assurance. He contrives to express himself so that, from whatever angle he is attacked, he can cry, “Misrepresentation, or false report! ” When he is quoted on any side of the matter, he can always point to some statement of his disavowing that position.

He affirms that “immersion in water” is essential to one’s “introduction into the fellowship to which we are called by the wonderful grace of God.” The fellowship to which he refers is fellowship with Christ (1Cor. 1: 9) and with the Holy Spirit (Phil. 2: 1; 2 Cor. 13:14). See the Restoration Review, February, 1973, p. 22. Yet, in his discussion of baptism, Ketcherside finds hope or the possibility of hope for the unimmersed believer (the sprinkled) in what has been called in times past “the uncovenanted mercy of God.” He projects such on the bases of God’s acceptance of “the intent for the deed” or “any man who sincerely seeks to obey God” being “saved in spite of his mistakes” (the mistake under consideration being the wrong form or action of baptism). Recognizing the weakness of his contention and the suspicion to which it would give rise, Ketcherside hedged saying:

“This in no sense argues that God will save any person who has not been immersed…. I do not know whether God will save any person who has not been immersed. My only contention is that, if he chooses to do so, it will not be a violation of his declared will and purpose” (Mission Messenger, May, 1973, p. 7-9).

Brethren, mark this and remember that any religious theory which necessitates seconiguessing God relative to His saving men apart from clearly revealed and unequivocally expressed conditions upon which that salvation is predicated is worse than merely suspect; it is palpably false! Ketcherside spends a major part of the article to which I am referring seeking to vindicate God’s right to do this. Such unquestionably indicates that, despite Ketcherside’s protestations to the contrary, deep in his heart, this is actually what he believes God will do, hence his “brother in prospect” concept, concerning which more will be said later.

The only sound and, therefore, right course to follow in this matter is to teach, press, and defend the clear expression of the Divine will in the Scriptures; namely, that the immersion of a penitent believer is for (in order to) the remission of past or alien sins (Acts 2:38) and to recognize only such people who have thus complied with the Divine will as properly belonging to the fellowship of the redeemed. To do otherwise is gross presumption and unmitigated arrogance emanating from pure human conceit and delusions of grandeur. Well did Moses say in his farewell address to Israel, “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:291. It is not my duty nor Ketcherside’s duty, it is not my right nor Ketcherside’s right to speculate concerning what God may or may not do about the salvation of “honestly mistaken,” unimmersed, professed believers outside the express declarations of revealed truth much less to seek to vindicate God’s rights in this area.

“Brothers in Prospect”

Ketcherside believes that sincere believers who are unimmersed, by reason of their being “honestly mistaken or ignorant” concerning the essentiality of immersion in water, are “brothers and sisters in prospect,” and says he, “I love them! ” This statement has been literally wrung from Ketcherside by those who have pressed him concerning his arbitrary selection of baptism as the “one act” upon which “fellowship” depends. Probably, no one talks about love more than this man or practices real New Testament love less. I also love these people, but I do not consider myself unique in this respect, nor do I suppose that other people who do not regard themselves as being in fellowship with these persons thereby demonstrate they do not love them. Is love to be equated with fellowship? Certainly, fellowship demands love, but love can exist where fellowship cannot, hence is not to be equated with it. I have many dear friends and close relatives who, I have every reason to believe love me sincerely and devotedly, yet they are not in fellowship with me in religion nor do they or I regard ourselves as being in fellowship.

I love unimmersed believers, but not as children of God. That they are closer (“not far from the kingdom of God”-Mk. 12:34) to becoming children of God than rank unbelievers is unquestionably true, yet they are not in fellowship with God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, they should not be regarded nor treated as being in the fellowship of the redeemed ones. What does one’s love for an unimmersed believer have to do with unity, fellowship, or participation with such people in Divine service? As far as I am able to determine, not a single thing. This being true, to what purpose is Ketcherside’s lengthy dissertation (in the article on baptism under consideration) on the new birth, begettal versus being born, and the nuances of the Greek term gennao?” Should we grant everything Ketcherside says in this regard, it would settle nothing relative to the question of fellowship. All agree that some unimmersed believers may very probably be closer to the kingdom than rank unbelievers, hence that the Christians responsibility relative to teaching them may be greater in degree than his responsibility to rank unbelievers on the basis of superior opportunity. However, by no stretch of the imagination can this be regarded as establishing any degree of Christian fellowship between the Christian and the unimmersed believer.

It should also be noted that Ketcherside literally brutalizes the “birth” figure used by Jesus in his conversion with Nicodemus. This is a common error. It is assumed that there is an exact parallel between a physical birth and the “birth of water and spirit” (John 3:5). This is a fallacy that should be obvious. Men are free moral beings both before and after conversion, both before and after the new birth. They choose to become children of God or children of the Devil. Even after entering a state of covenant relationship with God by free and willing choice, they can choose to reject this relationship with God and become children of the Devil (John 8:36-44; Josh. 24:19-24; Rev. 22:17). In the physical realm, a child does not choose to be conceived or born, and after being born, he cannot change physically the fact of his paternity. He may legally change his status, but physically, he ever remains the child of his father. In the spiritual realm, he chooses to become or not to become a child of God, to remain or not to remain a child of God. Therefore, any person who builds a religious theory by pressing the scriptural analogy between the new birth and the birth of the flesh beyond the contextual limits in each passage where the figure occurs perverts the word of God. Ketcherside perverts the word of God for this is precisely what he does.

Another striking example of Ketcherside’s sophistry is seen in his use of Acts 18: 10, also in relation to his “brothers in prospect” concept. Note his observations:

“I am astounded at the wounded ‘howl’ raised by some of the guardians of orthodoxy

and the keepers of the gate over the position that I occupy. When Paul was in Corinth, the center of lasciviousness, the Lord spoke to him at night in a vision and told him not to be afraid. He said, “For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city” (Acts 18: 10). McGarvey says, “He called them his merely because he foresaw that under Paul’s preaching they would yet believe.” Evidently, then, they were children of God in prospect. They were also brothers and sisters of Paul in prospect” (Mission Messenger, May 1973, p. 67).

Does Ketcherside suppose himself to be God? I wonder. He arrogates to himself the prerogative of regarding certain persons as “brothers and sisters in prospect.” Will he deny that any of those persons to whom God referred as “his people” failed to become such through obedience to the gospel? I think not. This being true, will he take the position that all of the unimmersed believers whom he styles “brothers and sisters in prospect” will obey the gospel be immersed in water? I think not. To what purpose then does he introduce this text? God is omniscient; He sees the end from the beginning. He knows who will and who will not accept Christ in obedience to the gospel. Ketcherside is finite and fallible; he does not know who will or will not obey the gospel whether it is unimmersed believers or unimmersed unbelievers. God, therefore, can accurately and correctly speak of those yet disobedient as “his people,” or as Ketcherside prefers to express it, “Children of God in prospect.” Ketcherside cannot so designate “children of God in prospect” unless he has lately come to regard himself as God. After reading some of his pronouncements, I wonder. I do, indeed! There will be more coming on “The Achilles’ Heel of the New Unity Cult.” Watch for it.

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 37, pp. 3-6
July 26, 1973

By Mason Harris

Growth is a natural law of life. When things stop growing, they begin to die. Someone summed it up by saying in reference to fruit, “It is either ripe and rotting, or green and growing.” And so it is with reference to man.

Growth means progress and development, and one of the greatest responsibilities placed upon man is that of his personal development. The Bible says, “Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Lk 2:52). As His faculties expanded and His opportunities of manifesting character were multiplied, Jesus developed all that was admirable in the sight of man and of God. His development was as natural as it was perfect.

It is said that He kept on increasing in wisdom-that is, He developed mentally. He also continued to increase in stature-that is’ an increase in age and physical development. But more than this, He increased in favor with God and with men. Here are spiritual and social development. No person can consider himself a well developed individual unless he has shown proper growth in these four areas of his life: that is, mental, physical, spiritual, and social.

Research discloses that the average person never discovers more than 25-35 percent of his potential. If these figures are even close to being correct, they reveal a frightening difference between the average man’s growth potential and his present performance level.

In Texas, years ago, almost all the oil came from surface operations. Then someone decided there were greater sources of oil deeper down. A deeper well was dug-down to five thousand feet. The result? A gusher! Toc, many of us are operating on the surface of our human potential, and the result is this: We never operate at our best.

We need to dig deep within ourselves, find our unused abilities, and then begin a well-balanced program for personal growth and development. Then, when at last we have reached full growth and maturity, our soul will be prepared for immortality and eternal life.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 37, p. 2
July 26, 1973

By James W. Adams

According to Greek mythology, Achilles, hero of the Trojan War, had been dipped at birth in the river Styx that he might thus be rendered safe from injury in battle. His mother Thetis, the sea goddess, held him by his heel to perform the operation; hence his whole body was covered by the water of the river except the heel by which he was held. This proved to be his undoing, for later in battle he was struck in that very heel by an arrow from the bow of Paris, son of Priam, inflicting upon him a mortal wound.

Ketcherside’s unity-fellowship theory, unlike Achilles, has, not one, but many vulnerable spots, however none is so exposed to view nor so susceptible of refutation as his concept concerning baptism. It is a veritable “heel of Achilles.” Not only does baptism give Ketcherside himself serious difficulties, but also it is a source of trouble and embarrassment to those who attempt to adopt and follow the Ketchersidean line. Attention has been called to the fact in a previous article. Recently, Brother Ketcherside has begun a series of articles in his propaganda medium, Mission Messenger, designed to explain his position and answer questions, which he says were posed in a taped interview with a group of young college students. In the May, 1973, issue, he has an article entitled, “Baptism and Brethren.” In this article, as in most of what he writes, like so many other false teachers, he complains bitterly of being misunderstood and misrepresented. Why is it that a false teacher is never understood and invariably misrepresented? This effort to explain his views is a masterpiece of double-talk. Never have I encountered more hedging, equivocation, and temporizing, and downright self-contradiction than did I in the reading of this article.

The Background of Ketcherside’s Dilemma

Ketcherside makes much in his speaking and writing of the fact that we are all sinners saved by grace, and that no one has perfect knowledge of the Divine will or is characterized by flawless execution of that will. He insists that all of us “are brethren in error,” that “he has no other kind of brethren.” From these premises, he concludes that “fellowship” obtains despite these errors on the basis of Divine grace and not on the basis of conformity to Divine truth in faith and practice.”

Yet, our apostle of sweetness, our ambassador of “brotherhood,” is unwilling to accept his own conclusion in its ultimate application. He hedges and equivocates, He insists there must be proper views of the deity and lordship of Jesus, proper moral practice, proper attitude toward the unity of God’s people (antipartyism), and proper practice relative to the action of baptism-the individual must be “immersed as a confirmation of his belief” in the deity and lordship of Jesus. In other places, he says one must be baptized “as an act of obedience to God” without regard to any other design or purpose. In our next article, this shall be dealt with at some length.

Participation in Saving, Divine Grace Not Unconditional

Ketcherside recognizes that participation in the saving grace of God is not unconditional in the following statements:

False Reports

“2. You are aware, are you not, that a number of brethren are saying that you claim to be in fellowship with anyone who is a believer in Christ, regardless of whether such a person has been baptized or not?” (Question purportedly posed by college students JWA.)

“I am probably more aware of it than you are, but it does not bother me except as I feel compassion for those who prefer to engage in falsehood rather than reporting the truth. But I am older than you and I have long since learned that a lot of preaching brethren are not too trustworthy in repeating the views of another, especially if they tend to differ with him and would like to see him wiped out. I am glad that I will be judged by the Lord instead of by preachers, for if they get control of the judgment we are all sunk.”

“My position now is, and always has been, that obedience to the gospel, that is acquiescence in the truth and credibility of the seven great historical facts related to Jesus of Nazareth, and immersion in water as a recognition of His Lordship over life, introduces one into that fellowship to which we are called by the wonderful grace of God. My position is identical with that of Alexander Campbell, that the belief of one fact, and the obedience of one act as a confirmation of that belief, is all that is required for entrance into the glorious family of the Father of spirits” (Mission Messenger, May, 1973, pp. 65, 66).

One of the favorite devices of the cagey editor of the Mission Messenger in speaking and writing is the diverting of the minds of those he addresses from the real issue by dragging “red herrings” into the discussion. Nothing illustrates this better than his constant emphasis of the fact that salvation is a matter of Divine grace. No informed preacher or teacher of New Testament truth would think of denying that Divine grace, mercy, and love constitute the basis of the procurement of the sinner’s salvation through the sacrificial death of Jesus. None known to me among the brethren believes or teaches that the sinner procures his own salvation through the merit of fleshly birth and subsequent fleshly circumcision, the merit of natural religion or human morality, or even the merit of perfect compliance with Divine law. However, all faithful brethren of my acquaintance believe and teach that the enjoyment of personal salvation (remission of sins and acceptance with God now and eternal life with God hereafter) is conditioned upon obedience to the gospel which brings one into the realm of saving grace and faithfulness not sinless perfection-to Christ in doctrine and life which keeps one in the realm of saving grace.

Ketcherside constantly ridicules the idea that a clear understanding of the teaching of Christ through his apostles concerning worship, organization and work of the Lord’s disciples plus a faithful practicing of the Lord’s will in these realms have anything whatsoever to do with the fellowship and unity of those disciples in the one body of Christ. He is almost, but not quite, like our Baptist friends who insist that becoming a Christian is conditional, but remaining a Christian is unconditional entering the realm of saving grace conditional, but remaining in the realm of saving grace unconditional. Our erring brother enters a two-point demurrer to the latter of these two concepts. He insists that entrance into the “fellowship of Christ” is conditional and remaining in that fellowship unconditional with two exceptions: (1) immorality; (2) partyism.

The Inconsistency of this Position

In developing his thesis, Ketcherside has much to say about those who use the mechanical instrument of music in Christian worship believing in “the lordship of Jesus,” the idea being that their use of the instrument is no denial of His lordship because they profess to honor it. On this ground, he enjoys complete fellowship with members of the Christian Churches and is often featured as a speaker in their gatherings. On the other hand, as the quotation from Mission Messenger demonstrates, Ketcherside teaches immersion to be essential to a complete surrender of one’s life to the lordship of Jesus.

I know thousands of people who are as sincere as Ketcherside or any member of a Christian Church on earth who verily believe sprinkling to be scriptural baptism and, on that basis, practice it religiously. These people profess to honor the lordship of Jesus as fervently and sincerely as do members of Christian Churches, hence were I to accept Ketcherside’s point of view relative to the use of mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship, I would have to concede that sprinkling is no bar to Christian fellowship, and so must Ketcherside if he is to be consistent. He must accept the pious unimmersed. In such case, the report concerning him who he so decries would be abundantly correct. His lack of consistency is the only thing that keeps the report from being wholly accurate. Our crusading ecumenist needs to recognize that a practical denial of the lordship of Jesus is quite as reprehensible as a theoretical denial. Paul said, “They profess they know God; but in works they deny him (Tit. 2:16).

Ketcherside Acknowledges the Difficulty

Our brother recognizes the force of this objection to his theory and spends more than half of the article to which reference has been made addressing himself to the removal of the difficulty. As usual, he drags every “red herring” he can think of across the path of the discussion to throw his pursuers off the trail. He pictures those who oppose him by raising objections to his concepts as “Church of Christ” querists asking “typical Church of Christ questions” which emanate from their “legalistic approach to God’s grace.” Having unburdened his loving (?) heart of his thinly-veiled contempt for those who have been his brethren, he proceeds to charge these spiritually-warped individuals with attempting to “forge a set of handcuffs for God” making it impossible for Him to extend mercy beyond law to take care of the salvation of sincere practitioners of sprinkling. (Has our friend forgotten that there are some things God cannot do? Heb. 6:18.) Yet, at the same time, he says, “Sprinkling is not baptism.” Furthermore, he makes baptism essential to the new birth, son ship, covenant relation, saving grace, and surrender to the Lordship of Jesus. All of this is to me a species of spiritual schizophrenia.

After making the usual completely inconclusive and presumptuously speculative arguments on what others have called “the uncovenanted mercies of God,” designed to extend hope to the sincerely disobedient, Ketcherside disclaims at great length any intention on his part to decide whom God will save. He then makes a distinction between those whom Ketcherside will ‘ fellowship on earth and those whom God may see fit to permit to enter heaven (Op. cit., pp. 66-75).

Conclusion

As I said in the beginning, Ketcherside’s article takes first prize for temporizing, hedging, equivocation, and self-contradiction. None of what is said actually deals forthrightly with the point of inconsistency involved in Ketcherside’s recognizing a state of fellowship as existing between him and members of Christian Churches and refusing to recognize such a state as existing between him and sincere practitioners of sprinkling for baptism. If the use of mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship without scriptural authority is no bar to fellowship because it does not antagonize the Lordship of Jesus by reason of the fact that its users profess to honor His Lordship, why should the practice of sprinkling for baptism be a bar to fellowship when its practitioners profess to honor the Lordship of Jesus and sincerely believe that in being sprinkled they are in fact doing the will of Christ from the heart? This is the question, and Ketcherside touches it not, top, side, nor bottom!

For the record, I do not sit in judgment on the eternal destiny of the soul of any member of a Christian Church because of his use of mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship, nor do I sit in judgment on the eternal destiny of the soul of any paedobaptist who sincerely practices sprinkling for baptism on the ground of that practice. This is not the point. The point is: I believe both practices to be contrary to the revealed will of Christ-one corrupting an appropriating condition of salvation, the other an act of Divine worship. I believe both of these practices constitute practical denials of the Lordship of Jesus; hence I cannot regard those who use them as being faithful and in a state of fellowship with Christ. I must regard both as being in a state of disobedience to Christ. Therefore, I cannot regard myself as being in fellowship with either of these classes of people as faithful children of God, hence cannot engage in any religious activity with them which would in my judgment constitute a recognition of them as such. To do so would involve me in a compromise of the principles of truth that are involved in our divergent beliefs and practices. In my sincere judgment, this is precisely what is involved in 2 John 9, 10 where fellowship is forbidden, Ketcherside’s exegesis to the contrary notwithstanding. I shall deal in a later article with this passage of Scripture when I discuss the kerygnia and the didache in the light of Ketcherside’s views concerning them.

I am by no means through with Ketcherside and baptism, but further discussion must wait until my next article, “The Achilles’ Heel of the New Unity Cult No. 2.” In the meantime, I recommend that our readers obtain and read Mission Messenger, “Baptism and Brethren,” May 1973. The writer of this article reminds me of the cavalryman who upon being advised that the enemy was approaching “jumped on his horse and rode off in all directions at the same time.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 36, pp. 3-6
July 19, 1973