Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

In an article published last week, we were discussing Brother William Wallace’s Gospel Guardian article entitled “Turning Off Second Generation Preachers” (published March 15, 1973), and “An Open Letter to the Gospel Guardian,” written by four young men at Florida College. If you have access to those articles, I suggest that you read them before proceeding further with this article, if you have not already read them.

You will notice in the “Open Letter” article (published in Truth Magazine last week) that these four young men asked Brother Wallace his opinion regarding Randall Trainer’s declaration that there was no theological liberalism at Abilene Christian College, which statement was published in the Gospel Guardian last year, and to which I made reply in Truth Magazine last Fall. In a letter to these young men, Brother Wallace stated again (April 30, 1973) that he had seen no evidence in print showing conclusively that there was theological liberalism at Abilene Christian College.

Wallace said: “Was Trainer’s article absolutely true? I do not know whether or not it was absolutely true, but I would say that I haven’t seen anything in print to prove it was absolutely false. Is there any theological liberalism at ACC? I suspect so, but I would think it has gone ‘underground.’ I doubt very seriously that theological liberalism is an open problem at Abilene. There are elements in liberal ranks fighting theological liberalism in a most effective way and it appears that ACC is trying to keep its house clean.”

I beg to differ with my friend, William Wallace, in his assessment of whether there is any liberalism at Abilene Christian College. In my articles last Fall, I showed that three ACC Bible faculty members persisted in remaining on the Board of Trustees of Mission, which is the most liberal magazine published by brethren, and they persisted in remaining on the Board of Trustees even after a good deal of public pressure had been brought to bear upon them by Roy Lanier through the Firm Foundation and James D. Bales through the Gospel Advocate. One ACC faculty member recently told me that two of these Board of Trustee members remained upon the Board of Mission because of their liberalism, and the other because of his hard-headedness. The present editor of Mission, who certainly has so far shown no disposition to correct the course of that paper, was chosen on the recommendation of the Head of the Graduate Division of Bible at ACC. Furthermore there are plenty other evidences of liberalism on the Bible faculty of ACC, whether Brother Wallace wants to admit it or not. In fact, even Bill “suspects” there might be some “underground” liberalism on the ACC Bible faculty, even though he permitted Brother Trainer to assure us categorically that there was none. And I might repeat: Brother Trainer had himself joined a liberal congregation the last I knew of him.

Brother Wallace assured the “second generation” preachers from Florida College that “We do not intend to ride one theme or to be abusive to our brethren .One reason we have not said more on the Ketcherside error than we have is the prominence other journals have given to the problem. We see no reason to echo what others are saying.” Yet the charge that consistently has been made against the Guardian for twenty years or more is that they have ridden “one theme” (institutionalism), and I have often defended them for so doing. Yet while Searching the Scriptures, Preceptor, Torch, and Truth Magazine have also been plugging away at institutionalism, the Gospel Guardian did not hesitate to “echo what others are saying.” It might more correctly be said, in that instance, that the other papers just mentioned did not hesitate to “echo” what the Gospel Guardian had been saying with great power and effectiveness for a score or more years.

They tell us now that they are going to turn the Gospel Guardian more into a “family-type” magazine and to leave the battlefields to papers more disposed to occupy these battlefields. It is precisely this reluctance to join battle, as they once did with errorists of every kind that has shaken the confidence of many brethren in the Gospel Guardian.

I would not for one moment deny that Truth Magazine has “turned off” a goodly number of “second generation” preachers, but I can tell you precisely which ones we have turned off. There are a host of “second generation” preachers who are constantly on my back because they do not think we are hitting error hard enough. These are not the ones whom we have “turned off,” nor are they the ones to whom Brother Wallace had reference in his “second generation” preachers article.

There are a goodly number of young men among us who already have swallowed the Ketcherside line on “fellowship.” Without exception, Truth Magazine is “turning off” these second generation preachers. Their peers often are telling me of the aversion of these “second generation” preachers to our efforts in Truth Magazine. These “second generation” preachers who are in sympathy with Brother Ketcherside and his “Unity Cult” have their own communication system going among themselves, but some of their material has been sent to me, by, several of the “second generation preachers who are not “turned off” by Truth Magazine. Let me show you a little of what is being taught by some of these “second generation” preachers whom Truth Magazine is turning off.

In one of their pieces entitled “Establishing Bible Authority,” published by the “underground” means of these “second generation” preachers, we find them completely denying the binding authority of apostolic example. The article from which I am going to quote is signed by Ronnie Compton and Phillip Kight, both of whom now are studying at Abilene Christian College, but who formerly studied at Florida College. I might add that I have spent several hours discussing this matter with these two young preachers whom Truth Magazine has “turned off.” In fact, in January, 1973 brethren James W. Adams, Harry Pickup, Jr. Melvin Curry, Lindy McDaniel, Larry Hafley, and I spent several hours trying to help these young men get back on the right track, but apparently we were not successful in doing so.

In the “Bible Authority” article which was mimeographed and distributed rather widely, these young men state: “It is the belief of many members of the church that Bible examples are of equal weight with Bible commands and direct statements … However, we feel that it is only honest to remind our brethren that such a conviction is open to question and may not be imposed on others without the unmistakable authority of our Father in heaven … We fail to find a basis here for placing apostolic deeds apart from inspired commentary on a par with the clear and forthright commandments issued by the power of the Holy Spirit … Our Saviour never said ‘Thou shalt keep all the apostolic examples that you find in the New Testament.’ It also holds true that no apostle of His ever said this either … We are firmly convinced that God requires only that His children believe and obey His commandments, not the hay and stubble of human opinion about unexplained New Testament examples. It is evident to us that a misunderstanding of this principle has been and will continue to be a chief source of the bloodthirsty division in the body of Christ … Once it dawned on us that we could conceivably be wrong about the significance of New Testament examples, we developed a healthy respect for this new-found capability. The very likelihood of our misconstruing such historical data became so apparent that we purposed never again to bind our own conclusions on another brother as a condition of his fellowship with God and us. Finally realizing that, if we should live to be a thousand, we would never arrive at moral, ethical, or doctrinal perfection, the need for and value of God’s saving grace broke upon us like a tidal wave . . . We were surprised to learn that we really don’t deserve God’s mercy more than any other man who has come to the cross for grace and pardon. We have found the writings of brother Edward Fudge to be very helpful in this area (C. E. 1. Pub. Co., Box 858, Athens, Ala. 35611). We also recommend the writings of Thomas and Alexander Campbell on the subject of faith and opinion as it relates to salvation and fellowship.”

These are the “second generation” preachers whom Truth Magazine has “turned off,” hut somebody needs to turn them off until they learn more than they have expressed about establishing scriptural authority. When Brother James Adams made some reference to the fact that these young men are citing Brother Edward Fudge as having been “very helpful in this area,” Brother Fudge did not correct these voting men, or publically repudiate what they attributed to him. Instead, he simply said, “A brother recently asserted in another paper that someone had quoted my writings in support of what he deemed false doctrine. (My emphasis CW) It is regrettable that such should ever occur.” (Gospel Guardian, May 3, 1973).

You will notice that Brother Fudge said that the brother “deemed false doctrine” that which was being attributed to him. Did Brother Fudge it to be false doctrine? He did not say. He simply used it as another opportunity to recommend his books. No doubt we are “turning off” some “second generation” preachers, and we will have more to say about this next week.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 33, pp. 3-6
June 21, 1973

By Mason Harris

As the ancient Israelites were making their way from Egypt to Canaan, God gave them a law to regulate their conduct. Then he added: “Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; A blessing if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God . . . and a curse if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God” (Dent. 11:26-28). Their destiny, whether a blessing or a curse, a success or a failure, would be determined by their action resulting from their choice as to whether to obey or not to obey. Choice determines action; action determines destiny.

To every man is given the power of choice. From infancy to old age, this process of choosing, with acceptance on one hand and denial on the other, continues. With a limited amount of time, we cannot be, or do, everything. We are constantly faced with a decision as to how we will use our time. Every day we have to make a choice of what is offered on the market. We cannot have the whole world, no more than a youngster with his dime can buy all the candy in the store. This is one of life’s great lessons. The ability therefore to make wise decisions is of the utmost importance.

It will always be helpful to us if we can determine in advance what the ultimate result of our decision will be. For example, the Israelites knew that the ultimate result of disobedience would be a curse. So the real question was: Will the immediate benefits and pleasures of disobedience be great enough to offset or justify the end result?

In making this more realistic to us, the apostle Paul shows that we have a choice of sowing to the flesh or to the spirit. Now in reaching a decision as to which we will do, let us see if we can determine the end result of each. The further states that he who sows to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption, but lie that sows to the spirit shall of the spirit reap life everlasting. So the real question is: Will the immediate pleasures of sowing to the flesh be worth the corruption which will be suffered as an end result? And what of the end result of sowing to the spirit? Will life everlasting be worth depriving ourselves of fleeting earthly pleasures for a little while? Is there any question about what a wise choice would be in this case?

British or French?

When liberal-minded brethren indict lovers of the truth for exposing digression, I am reminded of the German officer who declared that the British are gentlemen but the French are not. Asked what he meant, he explained: “During the military occupation of Germany, some soldiers led by a British and a French officer came to the barracks of which I had charge. They said they had reason to believe that I had violated the terms of the peace treaty by concealing some rifles behind a brick wall. I denied this, saying, ‘I give you my word of honor as a German officer that there are no rifles concealed there.’ The British officer was a gentleman. He accepted my word and went away. But the French officer was not a gentleman. He would not accept my word of honor. He pulled down the wall and took away my rifles.”

Some brethren become incensed because for the scripturalness of their practices. When the practices are examined and exposed as digressions, the lovers of truth are accused of jealousy, viciousness, meddling and, to say the least, of not being gentlemen. Some have been deterred from contending for the faith by these tactics. However, we need to be more concerned with the welfare of the church and pleasing God than we are with our reputation among those who “go onward and abide not in the teaching of Christ” (2 John

9). David Harkrider

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 33, p. 2
June 21, 1973

By James W. Adams

An Explanation

Brother Willis has called attention to the fact that there has been and will be breaks in the continuity of appearance of these articles in Truth Magazine. Since beginning the series, I have been engaged in meetings, which have taken me from the Pacific Coast to the Atlantic Seaboard-in California, Arizona, New Jersey, and South Carolina. On these trips, circumstances were such that I could do little more than read and make notes on background material and do some thinking on accumulated data. Jet travel is wonderful, but it does not permit one to transport necessary books and other materials, which are essential to the preparation of such articles as are involved in our current series. We shall do our utmost to keep these breaks at an absolute minimum.

Recapitulation

In our last article, attention was directed to the fact that Brother Ketcherside predicates New Testament fellowship on the belief of one fact and the obedience of one act.

“The proper response to the Good News introduces us to the fellowship of the Father and Son by the power of the indwelling Spirit. And that response is made by the belief of one fact and the obedience of one act. That fact is the noblest proposition ever affirmed in a universe defiled by sin, that Jesus is the Anointed One, the Son of God. The act, validating his lordship over the whole scope of surrendered existence is immersion in water” (Restoration Review, article on “Fellowship; ” February 1973, p. 23).

We have discussed at some length “the belief of one fact.” We should like now to direct attention to Ketcherside’s “obedience of one act.”

The Obedience of One Act

Immersion in water-baptism-gives both Ketcherside and many of those who have been influenced by his teaching considerable trouble. Accepting, as they have, a neo-Calvinistic concept of salvation by grace through faith – “sola gratia, sola fide,” baptism constitutes a proverbial “thorn in their sides.” Brother Randall Mark Trainer of “Theological Liberalism at Abilene Christian College” notoriety and author of a number of other literary gems which has been circulated in mimeographed form rather widely by other precocious neo-phytes have favored the brethren generally with his mature (?) and scholarly reflections on the subject of salvation by grace versus current legalism among conservative brethren. He admits in private discussions with friends “baptism gives him trouble.”

Brother Edward Fudge, a somewhat older and more experienced young man, associate editor of the Gospel Guardian, was probably the first person to introduce, in a favorable way, the views of W. Carl Ketcberside to the student preachers at Florida College. I have it on good authority from a reliable young man, who was a schoolmate at Florida College of Brother Fudge, that Fudge sold Bibles in St. Louis one summer between sessions at the college and returned enamored of and excited by Ketcherside’s views and that he circulated the Mission Messenger and pressed its teaching among his fellow-students resulting in a number of these young men adopting Ketcherside’s views in one degree or another.

Brother Fudge has written a tract, which he has entitled, “The Grace of God,” and which he recommends highly as a source of enlightenment and correction for legalistic conservatism among the brethren. Incidentally, how well do we remember others such as Roy Key who made the same discovery which Brother Fudge has concerning the brethren, legalism, and the grace of God and who finally “went out from us because they were not of us”. Fudge’s tract, in addition to featuring a quasi-Calvinistic concept of the imputation of Christ’s personal righteousness to the believer (a pernicious fallacy), is noteworthy for its mistreatment of New Testament baptism.

The tract is five and one-half inches by seven and one-half inches and consists of twenty-six pages. Much that it says, I can heartily endorse. With its conclusion that salvation is not “merited” by “perfect obedience to law,” I am and always have been in perfect accord, as have all other faithful gospel preachers known to me. However, its treatment of baptism is temporizing, compromising, and misleading. Can you imagine a tract written on the general subject of salvation of this size and by a professed preacher of the gospel, which does not mention baptism until the last two sentences, of the last small paragraph, on the last page? Can you imagine a statement such as that which follows constituting that reference?

“If you do believe that Jesus Christ is God’s son; if you do trust His perfect life and atoning death for your salvation; if you do rely on Him and intend to please Him as long as you live and as best you are able in all things–then you will want to be ‘buried with Him in baptism’ and ‘raised with Him’ to ‘newness of life’ (Rom. 6:3-4). You will want to be baptized ‘into Christ’ and ‘put on Christ’ ” (Gal. 3:27). (The Grace of God, p. 26.)

The capitals within the sentences and the words emphasized are Fudge’s. Please note that Brother Fudge does not present baptism as an appropriating condition of the personal enjoyment of the saving grace of God and the atoning blood of Jesus as is commonly done when faithful gospel preachers write on this theme. If it were insisted that such is implicit in his scripture citations, I categorically deny it. Millions do not place the construction upon these scriptures that a faithful member of the Lord’s church would. They can accept Fudge’s statements as written completely and yet deny the essentiality of baptism and do!

I have personally participated either as disputant or moderator in eleven debates with representative Baptists. I have heard equally as many as those in which I have participated. I have read probably twice as many as I have participated in or attended. My library shelves are well stocked with the works of the leading Baptist scholars of the ages, and I have studiously examined these volumes for many years. With this background and on its basis, I affirm without fear of successful contradiction that there is not a representative Baptist scholar or preacher on earth who will not endorse Fudge’s statements concerning baptism as written one hundred percent, or as concerning the grace of God for that matter. As concrete evidence of my contention, a recent, very prominent convert from among the Baptists was sent a copy of Fudge’s tract by the man who converted him. After reading it, he remarked to a mutual acquaintance of his and mine, “I wonder why-sent me this tract, I left the Baptists to get away from this stuff.”

Ben M. Bogard, though he could not correctly be classed a scholar, was eminently representative of Baptist doctrine. He defended it in over three hundred debates, more than one hundred of them with our brethren in the Lord. Hear him concerning baptism:

“Crossing the Red Sea was typical of baptism. 1 Cor. 10: 4. Those who claim to be led by the Spirit and refuse to be baptized show that it is not the Spirit of God who is leading. If the Spirit leads, He will lead to obedience. The cloud led them to the water, and one who is led by the Spirit will want to be baptized” (The Golden Key, p. 39).

Brother Fudge says: “If you do believe … if you do trust … then you will want to be buried with Him in baptism.”

Ben M. Bogard says: “One who is led by the Spirit will want to he baptized … to refuse to be baptized is to show that it is not the Spirit of God who is leading.” Bogard had previously quoted: “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” What is the essential difference in Fudge’s statement and Bogard’s? Absolutely none! But, did Bogard believe baptism to be essential to salvation? No, indeed! Hear him: “First, we are saved by the blood and then led by the spirit and after that baptism” (op. cit., p. 40). 1 repeat: any Baptist on earth can accept Fudge’s tract on “The Grace of God” and not bat an eye or change a single item of his faith. An old debate has been on the proposition: “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” I wonder which came first, Fudge’s views on grace, which made Ketcherside’s views attractive to him, or Ketcherside’s views influencing Fudge to embrace his current view of salvation by grace?

Another example from Baptists corroborative of my contention in this matter involves a scholar, Edward T. Hiscox, D.D. In his J “Standard Manual for Baptist Churches”, which was published by The American Baptist Publication Society, he says:

“Baptism is not essential to salvation, for our churches utterly repudiate the dogma of ‘baptismal regeneration’; but it is essential to obedience, since Christ has commanded it. It is also essential to a public confession of Christ before the world, and to membership in the church, which is his body. And no true lover of his Lord will refuse these acts of obedience and tokens of affection” (pp. 20, 21). (Emphasis mine JWA.)

Under “Articles of Faith,” Mr. Hiscox further says:

“We believe the Scriptures teach that Christian baptism is the immersion in water of a believer in Christ, into the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost; to show forth in a solemn and beautiful emblem his faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, with its effect, in his death to sin and resurrection to a new life; that it is prerequisite to the privileges of a church relation, and to the Lord’s Supper.” (Article XIV, Christian Baptism, pp. 69, 70.)

Incidentally, Mr. Hiscox gives as Scripture references under this article the same passages which Brother Fudge quotes in his tract; namely, Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12; and Gal. 3:26,27. Ketcherside and Fudge both profess to believe that baptism is essential to salvation and to fellowship as Christians, yet what they say and write about salvation by grace differs little, at all, from what a pure Calvinist would say d write. Well did our Lord say, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” Paul expressed a worthwhile consideration also when he said, “Happy is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves” (Rom. 14:22 RSV).

Conclusion

The major part of this article has been spent discussing those who have come under the influence of Ketcherside. In the next article, I shall be discussing Ketcherside’s predicament relative to New Testament baptism under the title: “The Achilles Heel of The New Unity Cult.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 32, pp. 9-11
June 14, 1973

(Written by four Florida College Students)

One of the rich benefits which a Florida College student may share in is access to the Chatlos Memorial Library on campus. The shelves are stocked with hundreds of useful volumes of Biblical and religious studies that delight the conscientious student. Of particular value are the bound volumes of religious journals, which brethren have edited throughout the past decades. Even a quick perusal of such volumes yields the fact that in a very real sense these journals chronicle the history of the Lord’s people in this nation with the entire attendant issues, trends, and personalities involved. Thus, there is no escaping the fact that these journals have wielded considerable influence in the thinking of brethren. One of the journals that come to our mind at this time is The Gospel Guardian.

The Gospel Guardian, originated in 1935 by Foy Wallace, Jr., and then discontinued for a time, was reborn on May 5, 1949 under the editorship of Fanning Yater Tant. Amid the flurry of battle in the institutional question, The Guardian stood at the forefront defending the truth against all comers. The Guardian did not mince words nor worry about whose feelings would he hurt; listen to the words of Brother Tant in the first issue of the “reborn” Guardian as he sets forth its policy:

“As the threatening clouds of an approaching apostasy have grown blacker and blacker, the alarm of Christians has grown apace. Their alarm has been justified. Unless valiant endeavor and resolute action are forthcoming, the church almost certainly faces another tragic digression…

“We shall seek to guard against ill constructed sentences which can honestly be mistaken to mean the opposite of what we intend. When such mistakes occur (as they probably will) we will not hesitate to withdraw and apologize for whatever blame may attach to us for any lack of clarity in expression…

“But for the doctrinal teachings which may give offense to innovators and errorists we shall make neither apology nor excuse. It is our intention and our desire to wage an unrelenting offensive warfare against all such perverters of truth. The teachings of God’s Word are ‘most surely believed’ by us. For these teachings we will never apologize. .

“We recognize the principle, amply demonstrated in the late war, that ‘the best defense is offense.’ With that in mind we shall be vigilant and careful in our ‘guarding’ against what many may consider as small and insignificant departures from the truth. And once an error, or tendency toward error, is detected, we shall oppose it with all the strength we can muster. The best defense against error always is to wage an all-out offensive against it before it gains a foothold. Let those who will call this ‘heresy-hunting;’ we call it guarding the Gospel of Christ.”

What noble ambitions The Guardian held! An uncompromising stand for the truth! And surely through more than two decades The Guardian “propagated and defended New Testament Christianity.” Such men as W. Curtis Porter, R. L. Whiteside, Roy Cogdill, and a host of others time and time again wrote vital, to-the-point defenses of the revealed Truth. Yet in observing the present status of The Guardian we have become somewhat disturbed. There seems to be a definite “pattern of influence” established within her pages. Beginning with the so-called “peace-offensive” of the late 60’s, there appears to be a decided propensity of The Guardian to evolve from “militant defender” to “passive spectator.” It seems between Lufkin and Athens, The Guardian has lost a lot of steam!

Despite token appearances of militant articles by such men as Ron Halbrook, there is an observable drift toward softer, more compromising themes. We have been fed a steady diet of pabulum, and not enough spiritual meat. Even when The Guardian sees fit to publish material, which may be termed militant, it seems to apologize for having done so. In this time of digression we do not need “funny preacher stories,” “teachings in tune,” or discussions upon the “ecumenical beat.” What we need is an uncompromising, all -out battle against the fellowship heresy now among us. “Let those who will call it ‘heresy-hunting;’ we call it guarding the gospel of Christ.”

The current editor, William Wallace, saw fit to ignore the discharge of his editorial duty with the appearance of Randall Trainer’s article, “Theological Liberalism at ACC,” void of rebuttal. Brother Wallace. was Trainer’s article absolutely true? Is there any theological liberalism at ACC? Or was your silence part of The Guardian’s policy to “wage an unrelenting warfare against all such perversions of truth”? In the current issue of The Guardian (April 12, 1973), the editor pats John R. Rice, a Baptist preacher, on the back for his article in the publication, The Sword of the Lord, “Be a Fundamentalist, Not a Nut.” He suggests we heed the advice of Rice who reprimands the “shocking fact that everywhere there is a tendency to downgrade among Christians and they emphasize incidentals instead of fundamentals, they tend to follow after false teachers and make arguments and divisions and strife about vain or incidental things.” Rice concludes, “If you do not want to be an irresponsible nut and extremist, then seek to have a peaceful, compassionate and happy mind.” Pray tell, Brother Wallace, who are the “nuts and extremists” among us who should heed Rice’s advice? Perhaps it is those of us who oppose the blurring of the lines of fellowship to accommodate the “Neo-Calvinist” cult among us, or perhaps those of us who oppose, in militant terms, “the umbrella of grace” which some of your “staff writers” seem to embrace, though contending the Guardian stance has not changed.

Yes, there is concern about the status of The Guardian in view of the coming battle against the Ketchersidian forces. But let The Guardian re-establish the noble goals which it set for itself at its inception (which apply to our times as well) and not acquiesce to the times of digression. We need the Truth, the Truth more than “love” or “compassion” or “understanding.”

Yours in Christ,

Bruce Edwards, Jr.

Patrick A. Jones

Jon Quinn

Mark Venable

Florida College students

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 32, pp. 7-8
June 14, 1973