Truth Magazine

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

By J. S. Grinstead

The “graces” of 2 Pet. 1, necessary to an entrance into the everlasting kingdom, are too little known and practiced. Based upon the great truth of verses 1-4, we are instructed to add diligence to the promises of God in exercising faith to develop virtue (moral courage). Each succeeding “grace” is to be exercised to develop another. Possibly a failure to develop the “divine nature” results from not understanding the full meaning of the “grace” and the need of putting each one to work in developing others.

This short article does not allow a discussion of all the “graces.” Let us look at one grace, which I believe lacks practice and appreciation-godliness. This does not mean Godlike (ness) or to be like God. Yes, we are to be holy as he is holy. We seek to perfect the divine attributes in our life. When tempted to steal, lie, commit an immoral act, neglect the assembly, violate God’s authority, etc., we through faith and power of the Word in our life may overcome’. However, all the “graces” add up to Godlikeness. Therefore, godliness alone does not carry that meaning. Believing it does, some fail under fear. After all, what man can be like God? “Godwardness” would be a better translation. Paraphrased it means, relate all things to God. Indeed it takes much developing of faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, and steadfastness to direct every thought, word, and deed toward God. Sufficient diligence however is possible to relate our entire life to God.

Godwardness In Authority

A man desires to use mechanical instruments in worship unto God and seeks to justify his action on human element or benefit. “We like it.” “It makes the singing so much better.” Godward action looks for divine authority. Possibly those who use the instrument with spiritual songs at times other than the assembly lack the grace of godliness. Why? They can sing -How Great Thou Art”… “My God, He Is Alive”… “I Am Thine, “0 Lord,” “Nearer My God To Thee,” and not direct such toward God, or relate the spiritual message to God, but do so for self-pleasure or entertainment. It would seem “godliness” demands songs with such spiritual message be directed toward (related to) God. We should worship (pay reverence to God) when we sing.

Godwardness In Life

When brethren wrong one another and disagree, godliness (Godwardness) exercised supplies brotherly kindness and love. Christians have no problem with modesty when they relate their apparel to God. Godward action results in attendance at all assemblies (even Gospel Meetings). Godly people do not conform to the world, or become worldly (Rom. 12:1-2; 1 John 2:15-17) just because “everybody is doing it,” “it is the popular thing to do… It is socially acceptable,” but they become transformed, and walk in newness of life because Godwardness has been developed. Godliness cures worldliness (Titus 2:11-14).

A godly Bible student does not study and meditate just to have something to tell others, but to learn how to develop the principles of the Sacred Volume in his life, and relate them to God. Having so done, he is able to teach what he has learned to practice. Godwardness purifies the heart. When the heart is pure, all of life will be clean, God-oriented and God-related. Have you developed godliness?

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 32, pp. 6-7
June 14, 1973

By Cecil Willis

In the March 15, 1973 issue of Gospel Guardian, my good friend and brother, William E. Wallace, editorialized under the heading of “Turning Off Second Generation Preachers.” In this article he discussed how some of the “second generation” preachers are “turned off” by what some of its “first generation” preachers teach and write. Interestingly, this editorial appeared on the exact date that James W. Adams began his series in Truth Magazine on the “Unity Cult.” Brother Adams has given considerable attention to those whom he calls “neophytes” among us.

Brother Wallace speaks of those holding to the “old paths” as a “minority fellowship” which he says was “formed in the 1950’s.” Of the second generation preachers,” he says, “It is difficult to instill into a new generation the same espirit de corps for the movement. It is natural for the first generation participants to seek to perpetuate the principles they hold dear and to oppose positions, beliefs, and policies which they consider a threat to first generation accomplishments, and to second generation perpetuity.”

Further Wallace stated, “When new generation personnel seem to depreciate the values of the movement, soften the thrust, and impugn the heritage, they can expect ‘fire’ from the first generation ‘fathers.’ But it is precisely this ‘fire’ that ‘turns off’ many in the new generation.” Being only forty-one years old myself, it is difficult for me to conceive of myself being one of the first generation “fathers.” But perhaps it was persons like me that Brother Wallace had in mind as being responsible for “turning off” these “second generation preachers.”

Brother Wallace also stated in the afore mentioned editorial: “Lacking sensitivity and nostalgia about first generation experiences, the young do not share our keen feelings about the past. The young are seeking and searching for truth and relevancy. They can see both the truth and relevancy of our opposition to church supported institutions and sponsoring churches, when the biblical principles are not obscured by what they judge to be a pontifical establishment or party spirit. It is the apparent disposition to ‘cram-it-down-our-throats’ or ‘line-its-up in the ranks’ that turns off some of the younger men. But they will listen and study when confronted with arguments and positions, if intellectual honesty and good-will are manifested.”

No doubt some of our spiritual “neophytes” are “turned off” by some of what they read in Truth Magazine. One would have to be both blind and deaf not to have learned that. I am told that in some circles of these “second generation” neophytes, not only is there a drastic apathy toward Truth Magazine, but with some there is a definite antipathy toward it. But this could be said of some of the “first generation” preachers too, as has been evidenced in the attitude toward what we have been saying for the past generation or so.

Truth Magazine has never sought to “turn on” either “first generation” or second generation” preachers. We simply have sought to say; in the best way we knew how to say it, what we sincerely thought needed to be said at the time. Some have appreciated what we have said, as could be proved by quotations from scores of letters from both “first generation” and “second generation” preachers, if we were disposed to run a column in our pages bragging on ourselves, as some papers regularly do. However, we could also quote a good many of both “first generation” and “second generation” preachers who have not approved what we have said. But approval or disapproval has never been the criterion that determined what we said or did not say.

Elsewhere in this issue you will find an article entitled “An Open Letter to the Gospel Guardian” written and signed by four of these “second generation” preachers. This article, which the Guardian editor elected not to publish, reveals that the Gospel Guardian has “turned off” some “second generation” preachers too. I might add that it has “turned off” not a few of the “first generation” preachers too, if the mail I receive is any accurate barometer.

In his letter explaining to these concerned “second generation” preachers as to why he had decided not to publish their “Open Letter,” Brother Wallace said: “The Gospel Guardian is not silent on the matters of which you write, nor does it intend to ‘remain free’ from any ‘coming controversy.’ It has never been inclined to keep ‘its mouth shut,’ nor shun the taking of a stand. We have already taken a stand on the issues of which you write. We are opposed to the false doctrine of Carl Ketcherside concerning fellowship, and to the digressive movement surrounding his views.” However, it would be helpful if the Gospel Guardian would undertake a detailed exposure of this “false doctrine of Carl Ketcherside” and the “digressive movement surrounding his views” rather than toss accolades in their direction for their good attitude, and stones in the direction of those who have attempted to say what the Guardian should also be saying.

Brother Wallace explains to these “second generation” preachers, “I may be in disagreement with some as to what is required to be militant. I believe the attitude and deportment of some ‘militant defenders’ do more to kick people into the Ketcherside movement than they do to save souls from it. I do not understand militancy to require ugliness in controversy such as personal abuse, bombastic pomposity, haughty or arrogant spirit, and ‘such like.’ Some leave the impression with me that they aspire to the titular headship of the brotherhood.”

Now that pronouncement in itself is quite a piece of indictment of the efforts and motives of those who have written in defense of the truth. It is just possible that, had I said that, someone would have been disposed to condemn me for “ugliness in controversy,” “personal abuse,” “bombastic pomposity,” “haughty or arrogant spirit,” or “such like.” It is even possible that I might have been accused of aspiring to the “titular headship of the brotherhood.”

Those who have read William Wallace’s writings over the past decade or so are aware of the fact that he has hit as hard as anyone, until the last two or three years, when he began to suggest that we all go back to about 1955 and act like what has happened in that interim had not happened at all. His suggestion of “sweet spirited” and toned-down opposition to innovationism is all too familiar to me, as I reflect upon the literary justification for the establishment of the Christian Standard a century ago. (M Course, the Christian Standard became the for the defense of a host of innovations, of the need for a weekly journal with a better spirit.

That “young prince” of digression a century ago, W. T. Moore, in arguing for the need of a new paper said, “Many, however, began to feel that the reactionary tendency of Mr. Franklin’s paper (the American Christian Review-CW) was not conducive to the best interests of the Disciple movement.” (W. T. Moore, A Comprehensive History of the Disciples of Christ, p. 523) Moore further stated that the Review under Franklin constituted “a very decided force in the development of what a considerable number of Disciples believed was wholly contrary to the spirit and aim of the Disciple movement . . . .” (Loc. Cit.)

A fellow-digressive, J. S. Lamar, asserted: “There were several weeklies, also, among them the ‘Review’ and ‘Gospel Advocate,’ but these were not satisfactory. These were regarded as being narrow in their views in many respects, hurtful rather than helpful to the great cause which they assumed to represent.” (J. S. Lamar, Memoirs of Isaac Errett, Vol. 1, pp. 300, 301) Furthermore, Lamar said of these other papers, which were hammering away at digression, they are “breathing an unwholesome religious atmosphere. They seem to infuse an unlovely and earth-born spirit, which they clothe, nevertheless, in the garb of divine letter, and enforce with cold, legalistic and crushing power. The great truth, for whose defense the Disciples are set, demanded a wiser, sweeter, better advocacy-an advocacy that should exhibit the apostolic spirit as well as the apostolic letter. (Loc. Cit.)

Do not these century-old plaudits sound like those expressions of a superior literary spirit which we now read everywhere in religious journals which either advocate or are sympathetic to the advocacy of digression of various. Actually, there is a decided absence of humility in the “bombastic pomposity” of those sweet-spirits of a century ago, and of today. Their sentiment seems to be, “If only we had been fighting that fight … it would have been so different.” In most instances, there would have been no truth-error combat at all. They would have sought to smother the digressive spirit with their own sweet spirit. Such a “haughty or arrogant spirit” does not reflect favorably upon the Herculean effort of those spiritual giants who waged the warfare a generation ago, many of whom have now gone on to their spiritual reward, or of those who soon must meet their Maker. I speak of men like W. W. Otey, W. Curtis Porter, Cecil Douthitt and a host of other great men whose earthy frames now are mingled with the earth’s dust. I speak of those older men among us like Roy Cogdill, Luther Blackmon, James Adams, W. L. Wharton, Stanley Lovett, H. E. Phillips, and a host of others who now are facing the Sunset. Such derogatory statements of their efforts are repulsive to me, and constitute an effrontery, which it is difficult for me to stomach.

Frankly, I have never been able to oppose digression on any subject in a way that pleased the digressive. When I receive those frequent letters that begin with, “I agree with what you said, but just did not like the way you said it . . .” I nearly always write the brother and tell him: “I do not profess to know perfectly the way a thing should be said, but since you apparently do know just how it should be said, and since you state that you agree with what I said, would you please write an article on the same subject and say what should be said in the way it should be said?” Do you know how many “takers” of this offer I have had to date? Not a single one! But more on this next week.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 32, pp.3-6
June 14, 1973