Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

Occasionally there are reports heard that one hopes are untrue. Such is my attitude toward a report made by Leroy Garrett concerning a discussion that he had a few months ago with Bill Wallace, Editor of the Gospel Guardian. In the September, 1972 issue of Restoration Review which Leroy Garrett edits, Brother Garrett told of a visit to Lufkin, Texas for one of his “mini-meetings” (that’s what Garrett calls them) on his favorite theme, “Fellowship.”

Garrett stated that “Lufkin is the only city of any size in Texas, I think, where the ‘antis’ (conservatives) are in the majority.” I am not familiar enough with Texas to know whether Garretts analysis of conditions in Texas is correct or not. Leroy then proceeds to explain why the conservative influence is so strong in Lufkin. There is only one “mainline” (thats Garretts definition of “liberal”) church in Lufkin, while there are four or five other congregations “of substantial size” which are conservative.

Garrett explains the reasons for these conditions in Lufkin: “Leading figures of the anti persuasion have been associated with Lufkin: Yater Tant, Roy Cogdill, Charles Holt, William Wallace, and in an earlier day Cled and Foy Wallace. For some 20 years it was the home of the Gospel Guardian and the cradle of the Guardian angels.’ ” Garrett assures us that he loves “all our angels, anti as well as pro, and no longer allows folk to draw lines of fellowship for me ”

Then Brother Garrett details incidents concerning “a delightful and brotherly visit with Bill Wallace, editor of the Guardian, who related to me the story of the paper’s move to Athens, Alabama. He also told me that he is reexamining his own position of fellowship, suggesting that he finds it too difficult to live with his present position. He is not likely to go as far as to embrace Carl Ketchersides and my position, he observed, but he is moving in our direction.” (My emphasis-CW).

Garrett then states: “I wished that our brotherhood could see the Bill Wallace I then saw, not an ‘anti’ but a brother beloved who needs God’s grace just as we all do. Well, we are all changing and growing, and that’s what happens when Jesus comes into our lives. So Bill Wallace is changing, and the Guardian, and Lufkin. And from what I know that reaches me far beyond Lufkin, much of the ‘anti’ brotherhood is changing.”

As many of you know, Bill Wallace and I worked very closely together in the publishing of Truth Magazine, beginning in 1962. After several years, Bill was employed to manage the business affairs of the Gospel Guardian and soon thereafter purchased the Gospel Guardian from Brother Yater Tant. Leroy Garrett categorically states that “Bill Wallace is changing,” and so is the Guardian and that Wallace is moving in the direction of Ketcherside and Garret on the fellowship question.

Shortly after Bill purchased the Guardian, he traveled around the nation a good deal, and while doing so, was feeling “the pulse” of the brotherhood, as he expressed it. After he had felt the pulse of a good many brethren, he then proceeded in some articles to tell us what the brotherhood thought. During the time he was “feeling the pulse” of the brotherhood, Bill spent a night at my house. He and I spent most of the night in discussion. From his published reports, I could not detect any registration at all of my pulse, if indeed he even took it!

However, Bill said enough then to cause quite a few brethren to be apprehensive about where the Guardian might go, with Bill at the helm. Without exception, those whom I heard express apprehension considered themselves to be friends both to Bill Wallace and of the Gospel Guardian. Bill’s “pulse of the brotherhood” articles seemed to shake the confidence of a good many brethren in where the Guardian would stand, under Bill’s direction.

A little over two years ago, during the Florida College Lecture Program, I asked Bill to walk down by the Hillsborough River to talk with me. I confess that I too was one of those very apprehensive about what Bill had said, and told him so, in our discussion that (Jay. Finally, Bill summarized the situation in these words: “Truth Magazine takes the hardline approach on fellowship, while I we’ would take the more liberal approach.” At that time, I interpreted the “we” in Bill’s remark to mean just “Bill Wallace.” I did not then think there was anyone else connected with the Gospel Guardian who would take anything like a liberal stand on fellowship.

But with the passing of time, the personnel of the Guardian staff have undergone a drastic change. Excepting Yater Tant, gone, for the most part, from its pages are the names and writings of the men who made the reputation for faithfulness which so rightly had been attributed to the contents of the Gospel Guardian. Instead, in the places on the staff of the older stalwarts are two younger men. Each one of these men has somehow created a reputation for himself as having at least some sympathy toward the Ketcherside position on fellowship. I do not charge that either of them agrees with Ketcherside’s position 100% but as Garrett expressed it concerning Wallace, they seem to be “moving in our direction.”

It is evident that I am not alone in my apprehension about where the Guardian is going to end up standing on the fellowship question. Gordon Wilson, Associate Editor of Gospel Guardian, after receiving many requests that lie do so, recently wrote an article stating somewhat wherein he disagreed with Brother Ketcherside’s position on fellowship. Yet there are those who have left the St. Louis congregation where he preaches, charging that he has been sympathetic with the Ketcherside position on fellowship. Edward Fudge, also an Associate Editor of the Gospel Guardian, for ten years or so has been defensive of Brother Ketcherside and his efforts. In fact, the very first conversation I ever remember having with Edward Fudge was one in which he was defending Brother Ketcherside, while I was opposing him.

With there appearing to be considerable evidence that both Associate Editors of the Gospel Guardian have some sympathy for and affinity to the compromising position on fellowship, and now with the categorical charge by Leroy Garrett that Bill Wallace told him be “is reexamining his own position of fellowship, suggesting that be finds it too difficult to live with his present position. . . . (and) he is moving in our direction . . .” it appears that it is time that these brethren state in no uncertain terms where they stand on this important issue.

Recently there have been articles in the Guardian by both Yater and David Tant on fellowship, which articles I was glad to see. There has been no suspicion as to where these brethren stood on this issue, so far as I know. However, there have been grave doubts in the minds of many brethren for years about where Edward Fudge would end up. It is only recently that questions have begun to be raised about Gordon Wilson’s stance. It is going to take a more complete disclosure than the re-printing of an old article, in tract form, to remove the brethren’s doubts about where Ed Fudge stands. Gordon’s recently published article told some points wherein he disagrees with Ketcherside, but it said nothing about wherein he is in agreement with the Ketcherside position.

The Guardian has sought to clear the air by quoting some old editorials. Bill has repeated what he said a couple of years or so ago. But it seems to me that some comment would be in order about the Garrett claim that Wallace is uncomfortable with the position that he has heretofore held on fellowship, and that he definitely is moving in the Garrett-Ketcherside direction. Bill, if this does not correctly represent what you told Leroy, you should clarify the matter.

For at least five years, I have been very concerned about what appeared to be an inevitable battle among us on the question of fellowship. Somehow I had hoped the problem would go away, but it has not. Consequently, James Adams is even now in the midst of a thorough and extensive examination of the subject of fellowship in his series of articles now being carried in this paper. I sincerely hope that we do not find that our allies in battles past are now our foes on this present important subject. I know of no way to find out exactly where the Guardian stands on this issue than to publicly ask that the Editor and Associate Editors make their position known, loud and clear.

The Gospel Guardian has meant much to me as an instrument through which badly needed truth was propagated, and error of every description was exposed. That is the kind of paper I would like to see the Gospel Guardian continue to be, and that is the kind of paper we intend to strive diligently to make Truth Magazine continue to be. We have no competitive disposition toward the Gospel Guardian. Searching the Scriptures, and the Preceptor, but it is very important that we all strive diligently to hew to the line, and let the chips fall where they may. As I see it, the Gospel Guardian has not yet hewed quite up to the mark on the fellowship question, and I am simply asking that they speak out loud and clear.

Bill Wallace has long been a very close personal friend. My friendship with Gordon Wilson has not been as intimate, but it always has been cordial. My relationship with Edward Fudge has been one in which we have often differed, but on a friendly basis. This article no doubt will stir up a little dust. But an article I was reading just a few moments ago exactly expresses my sentiment. Said one writer: “We detest clandestine consorting with unbelievers while pretending to be loyal preachers of the ancient Gospel. The honest man would rather speak the truth than save a friendship.” Though spoken by a Christian Church preacher as he opposed involvement in the “Key 73” program (about which we will have more to say later), these remarks express my feelings exactly.

I do not charge Wallace, Wilson, or Fudge with consorting with an “unbeliever,” but I must confess that each one has left me a little hazy about where he stands on the Garrett-Ketcherside-Fellowship issue, and I would like to have that cleared up once and for all, and the sooner the better. And if an article that might bring me a few kicks in the shins will accomplish that purpose, it will have been worthwhile.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 25, pp. 3-5
April 26, 1973

By Ferrell Jenkins

The proper study of any book begins with survey of its background. A consideration of the author, the date of composition, and the people addressed, and the purpose of the book is of utmost importance if one expects to understand it properly.

In addition to these general areas of investigation, some books have special areas that need examination. Such is true of the last book of the Bible, the book of Revelation. The nature of apocalyptic literature, the use of symbolism and the consideration of various theories of interpretation become vital in the study of this book.

Revelation has been almost universally regarded as the most difficult book of the New Testament. It has been disregarded by the masses, skipped over by many Christians, and made a happy hunting ground for those who desire to show some special insight into difficult matters or to “prove” some hypothetical speculation.

Within the past one hundred years and especially since the turn of the century. Biblical scholarship seems to have found the key to Revelation. “What still remains dark in the book consists of ‘puzzles rather than problems.’ ” 1 Hunter suggests that all of this is due to the discovery of two important truths: (1) Revelation is not sui generis, 2 and (2) the book was written for its own time. 3

The book under consideration is usually called “The Revelation of John,” but it actually is the “revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him” and which was communicated by His angel “to His bond-servant John.” (Rev. 1: 1). The word “revelation” is from the Greek word apokaluptis which means “revelation” or “disclosure.” 4 This book is the uncovering, or unveiling of certain things of God, which He wanted His servants to know. This concluding book of the canon is also commonly called the Apocalypse.

Apocalyptic Literature

The Revelation comes under the classification of apocalyptic literature. 5 It is unique in the New Testament scriptures, but it shares a common classification with three canonical books of the Old Testament, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah, and with a “kind of literature which was the commonest of all literatures between the Old and the New Testaments.”6 The book of Enoch, Assumption of Moses, Baruch, and Fourth Ezra are apocalyptic literature that, among others, form that group of non-canonical writings commonly referred to as the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. 7 It should be noted that not all books in this group are apocalyptic in their nature. One should recognize that there has always been the conflict between the true and the false. The Prophets presented Jehovah as the true God over against the idols of their day. In the apocalyptic literature we have the same type of situation. While not all of the books are considered as inspired, they are all of some benefit in coming to an understanding of a book, such as the Revelation, which partakes of the same general characteristics.

Apocalyptic literature was occasioned by certain discernible conditions. Summers describes these conditions.

“It is readily seen that troublous times gave birth to apocalyptic literature. Trial, suffering, sorrow, and near-despair furnished the soil in which this type of writing grew. Written in the days of adversity, this form of expression always set forth the present as a time of great persecution and suffering, but, in glorious contrast, the future as a time of deliverance and triumph.” 8

These were dangerous times in which one might lose his life by describing the opposing forces in literal terms. The authorship of apocalyptic literature was generally pseudonymous. Such is not true, however, of any of the canonical books. The writer of Revelation was presently enduring persecution and could hardly be described as being fearful of more (Rev. 1:9).

This literature was highly relevant to the historical situations of the day. Daniel and Ezekiel wrote during the Babylonian exile to comfort the chosen people in their faithfulness, and to prepare them for trials even down to the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, and finally to the Roman Empire. The book of Revelation was written when God’s saints were being severely tried in the crucible that was called Rome. It served to reveal God’s power to overcome all enemies and His disposition toward His afflicted ones. This book should serve as an encouragement to God’s people, whenever they are persecuted, down to the end of time.

In literature like the Apocalypse, one expects to find a great use of visions and symbols. These will be discussed subsequently.

The Author

The authorship of the Apocalypse has been much discussed through the years. The human penman identifies himself as John in four places. He is variously identified as the “bondservant” (Rev. 1:1) Of Christ, one who is a “brother and fellow-partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus” with the seven churches that are in Asia, (Rev. 1: 9, 4) and the one who “heard and saw” the things he wrote (Rev. 22:8). It is interesting to note that this John did not at any time claim apostleship. It will be remembered, however, that Paul did not always claim such, but like John identified himself as a “bond-servant” of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1: 1). When there was no questioning of apostolic authority it was not necessary to assert it. The simple way in which the writer identifies himself seems as though lie was so well known that no other leader among the Christians of the area could be confused with him.

It is evident that the writer was familiar with the topography of Asia where the seven churches were located, that he was acquainted with the churches, and was thoroughly versed in the Old Testament. 9 In this connection Tenney stated that he was probably “one of the earlier disciples of Jesus, since the Aramaic influence did not last long in the church.” 10

As early as the first half of the second century there is evidence that John the Apostle was the writer of the book of Revelation. Justin Martyr, about 140 A.D., said that “there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him. . . .” 11.

Eusebius repeatedly ascribes the book to John, 12 as does Tertullian. 13 Clement of Alexandria, after quoting either Revelation 4: 4 or 11:16 says “as John says in the Apocalypse.” 14

Dionysius was one of the first to record information denying that the book was written by John the Apostle. He stated that some before him had rejected the book altogether. Critical of it they pronounced it without sense or argument, maintaining that the title was fraudulent. They did not consider it the work of John, or a revelation; it was too obscure to be so called. They denied that anyone of the apostles or even any one in the church had written the book. The real author was considered to be one Cerinthus, founder of the Certinthian sect which had been named after him. According to them, Cerinthus desired reputable authority for his fiction and prefixed the name of John. Dionysius did not reject the book, but gave reasons for not thinking that the Apostle John was the writer. In closing he said: “But that he who wrote these things was called John must be believed, as he says it; but who he was does not appear.” 15 He suggests that there were others by the name of John in Ephesus and records a tradition he had heard to the effect that there are two tombs bearing the name of John in Ephesus. 16

Papias also commented on the two tombs in Ephesus, which are both called John’s. There was John the Apostle and John the Presbyter. Eusebius concludes that if the Apostle was not the one who saw the revelation, perhaps it was the Presbyter. 17

The preponderance of evidence indicates that John the Apostle wrote the Revelation. There seems to be no good reason to look elsewhere for a writer. Thiessen gives a brief, but thorough evaluation of the evidence for the authorship and concludes: ” We take it, then, as fully proved that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse.”

Footnotes

1. Archibald M. Hunter, Interpreting the New Testament, 1900-1950 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1951), p. 97.

2. One of its kind.

3. Ibid.

4. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 91.

5. For a more detailed study of apocalyptic literature and its relationship to the book of Revelation see my The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation (Marion, Ind.: The Cogdill Foundation, 1972).

William Barclay, The Revelation of John (Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1962), Vol. 1, p. 2.

7. For a study of these one should consult the monumental work by R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books (2 vols., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913).

8. Ray Summers, Worthy is the Lamb (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1951), p. 5.

9. Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), P. 15.

10. Ibid.

11. Justin Martyr, “Dialogue With Trypho the Jew,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956), 1, p. 240. Hereafter this set of books will be designated by the initials, ANF.

12. Eusebius Pamphilus, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus,Lrans. C. F. Cruse (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958), III, xxiv; xxxix. Hereafter this work will be designated by the name Eusebius.

13. Tertullian, “Contra Marcion,” 3: 14, 24, ANF.

14. Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromator or Miscellanies,” ANF, II, 505.

15. Dionysius, “Dionysius on the Apocalypse,” A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), 1, p. 309.

M. Eusebius, VIII, xxv.

17. Ibid., III, xxxix.

18. Henry C. Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955), p. 320.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 24, pp. 10-12
April 19, 1973

By Lindy McDaniel

Trying to harmonize the concepts of “law” and “grace” has been a difficult task for Bible students for hundreds of years. The difficulty primarily centers on the writings of Paul, and especially as students grapple with the problem of harmonizing Paul’s writings with those of James. Paul wrote: “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Rom. 3:28). However, James said: “You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). Some have concluded that salvation by God’s grace excludes obedience. Others maintain that one must obey God in order to be saved.

It is a dangerous practice to attempt to interpret some of the difficult writings of Paul apart from other scripture that hear on the same subjects. Peter warns: “Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote, to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard lest, being carried away by the error of unprincipled men, you fall from your own steadfastness” (2 Pet. 3:14-17). Paul’s writings have been perverted, resulting in great harm.

Salvation By Grace

Paul taught that salvation is by grace and not by works of law. He wrote: “Now to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteous” (Rom. 4:4-5). Again, “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under’ law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! ” (Rom. 6:14-15). “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (Rom. 11:6). “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9).

Salvation By Works

Salvation is also attributed to works in the following passages: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36). “And the word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7). Paul even emphasizes obedience in his great epistle on salvation by grace through faith written to the Romans: “. . . through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, for His name’s sake” (Rom. 1:5). “For the report of your obedience has reached to all; therefore I am rejoicing over you, but I want you to be wise in what is good, and innocent in what is evil…. but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith” (Rom. 16:19,26). Evidently, Paul had no trouble reconciling “faith” and “obedience.” Also study carefully James 2:14-26, 2 Cor. 10:5; Gal. 5:7; Gal. 6:4; Phil. 2:12-13; 2 Thess. 1:6-8; 1 Tim. 6:17-19; 2 Thess. 3:14-15, etc.

Not Under Law

Paul wrote that the Christians in Rome were not under law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). Does this mean that Christians are not under any law whatsoever, or that obedience has nothing to do with justification?

Paul wrote much about “the law” or “law” and it is important to understand that he almost always had in mind the “law of Moses.” John wrote: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ” (John 1: 17). Those addressed by Paul were familiar with the “law of Moses,” but they did not have access to all of the New Testament writings, which contain “the faith” revealed through Christ. The great controversy of apostolic days was whether or not the “law of Moses” was to be bound upon the Gentiles in order for them to be saved (see Acts 15:1, 6-11; Gal. 2:16-2 1; 3:1-3; 5:14). It is quite obvious that Christians are not under the Law of Moses; but this does not mean that Christians are without Law.

Furthermore, we are not under any law system that demands perfect obedience in order to be saved. The Mosaical Code was that kind of law system. Paul wrote: “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘cursed is every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.’ Now that no one is justified by the law before God is evident; for, the righteous man shall live by faith.’ However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, ‘he who practices them shall live by them!’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us-for it is written, I cursed is every one who hangs on a tree’ ” (Gal. 3: 1013). Law condemns every man who has sinned, and all men are convicted as lawbreakers; but Jesus Christ has delivered us from the curse of the law.

Even though Christians are not under the Mosaical Code, or any law system that demands human perfection, we are under law to Jesus Christ. Paul wrote: “And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are under the Law” G Cor. 9:20-21). Paul, even though lie was a Jew, did not consider himself to be tinder the law of Moses, but he was under law to Christ. Paul brought himself under the first, not as being necessary to salvation, but as a custom. However, he was bound by the law of Christ, which is also called “the law of liberty” (James 1:25).

The scriptures teach that all men are tinder the rule of Jesus Christ. Jesus said: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). Paul wrote of Jesus Christ: “And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Col. 1: 15-17). “. . . who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to him” (1 Pet. 3:22). The whole world is under the authority of Jesus Christ.

If grace has released us from the obligation of law, as some contend, then it would be impossible for a Christian to sin, for “where there is no law, neither is there violation” (Rom. 4:15). “Every one who practices sin also practices lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness” (I John 3:4); but there can be no lawlessness unless there is a law. But all men have been pronounced guilty before God (Rom. 3:23), and besides all of this, even Christians do sin: “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Christians are not free from law. But they are free from the curse of the law through Jesus Christ. If and when they sin, they may gain forgiveness through the blood and advocacy of Jesus Christ (see 1 John 1:7-10; 2:1-2).

Law And Justification

Some argue, “Yes, the Christian is under law, but he is not under law as a basis of justification.” In answer to this, let us first realize that the principal foundation of justification before God is “Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” God’s grace, and our justification, centers on Jesus Christ, the son of God (see 2 Cor. 5:19; 6: 1; 8:9; Heb. 10: 5-7; 10:10, 14, etc.). This fundamental fact being understood, the important question is simply this: “Must a person obey God in order to be justified by the blood of -Jesus?” To this question, I emphatically say, “Yes!” That obedience to Christ is essential to salvation is abundantly clear in scripture. Peter writes: “Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart” (1 Pet. 1:22). See also Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Rom. 6:17-18; etc.)

If a person is not under law as a condition of salvation, then his violation of law would not affect his salvation; yet the scriptures teach that the “lawless” and “ungodly” cannot inherit eternal life. “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus” (Tit. 2.11-13). “Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying” (Rev. 22:15).

A Christian may be “overtaken in a trespass” and need to be restored (Gal. 6: 1), or he may so sin as to lose his inheritance in Jesus Christ (Gal. 5:4; Heb. 6:4-8; Heb. 10:26-31; 2 Pet. 2:19-22). Thus, obedience has a direct bearing on our relationship with Jesus Christ. No, the Christian is not “free” from law.

Again, God will judge us according to our deeds done in the body. “And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds” (Rev. 20:12). Read also Rom. 2:5-16; 2 Thess. 1:6-8; and I Peter 4:17.

Faith And Obedience

Again, it is argued, “The Bible teaches that we are justified by faith apart from works of the law” (see Rom. 3-28; Rom. 4:4-5; Eph. 2-89; Tit. 3:5-7, etc.). The “works” under consideration by Paul in these passages are those works which are meritorious in nature. By doing such works, a man may be said to have earned salvation. Since all have sinned (Rom. 3:23) and continue to commit acts of sin 0 John 1:8), earning justification is rendered impossible. Justification is a gift and cannot be earned by human effort (Rom. 11:6). From these facts, some have foolishly concluded that it is not necessary to obey God in order to receive justification; but nothing could be further from the truth.

“Faith And Obedience”

The gifts of God, although never earned by human effort, are frequently conditioned upon human effort. God healed Naaman, the Syrian Commander, of leprosy; but before this was accomplished, Naaman had to dip seven times in the river Jordan (see 2 Kings 5:10-14). God gave Jericho into the hands of the Israelites, but it was required that they march around the walls a total of 13 times as prescribed by God (see Josh. 6). God gives us food and raiment; but these “good gifts” are not obtained apart from human effort. Apart from God’s grace, Naaman could not have been healed of leprosy; the Israelites could not have captured Jericho, and we could not be fed and clothed. These are simple but powerful illustrations of the grace of God. Do not be deceived into thinking that, free gifts” cannot be conditioned upon human effort.

Salvation can be compared to a drowning man who is rescued. His small boat capsizes and sinks, and he is left helpless in the water unable to swim. A rescue boat approaches and a rope is thrown out to him. He grabs the rope and is pulled out of the water into the boat. He has been saved by the rescue men. Yet it was necessary for him to grab hold of the rope. Are you willing to “grab hold of the rope,” or do you foolishly think that God is going to do it all for you?

Our justification is conditioned upon faith. Human works of merit are centered on man, whereas faith is centered on God. Faith is the ground of our complete confidence in the unseen realm based upon the testimony of God (2 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 11:1-2; Rom. 10:17). Faith is expressed in obedience to God (Heb. 11: 4, 7, 8, 17, 24, 27; James 2:14-28). Thus, the Christian “walks by faith” (2 Cor. 5:7).

Again, it is protested, “Justification is based upon faith alone, and not obedience!” “Of course,” they reason, “faith always produces good works.” This is like trying to separate cause and effect or the tree from its fruits. Such distinctions have resulted in much confusion. Faith is perfected through works (James 2:22). The tree is always known by its fruits (Matt. 7:26). How can a man know that he has faith unless he is willing to do what Christ commands? Faith apart from works is dead (James 2:26).

Those who emphasize the necessity of “faith” while denying the necessity of “obedience” are making a serious mistake. Faith apart from works has no more power to save than works apart from faith. Inward perfection is no more possible than outward perfection. The concepts of salvation by “faith only” and salvation by “works only” are both “legalistic” in that attention is centered upon man himself. But genuine faith is centered upon God. This kind of faith does not question God’s grace, purposes, or plan of human redemption. It is a trusting and obedient faith. It never argues around God’s law; it seeks only to obey it. What kind of faith do you have?

Some preachers among us are beginning to accept “denominational” concepts of “grace” and “love.” They are teaching that justification is conditioned upon faith apart from obedience to the laws of Jesus Christ. They admit that baptism is included in the “principle of faith” as a condition of salvation; but they deny that “observing all things whatsoever the Lord has commanded” is embraced by the principle. It is said that obedience to Christ inevitably flows from faith, but it is faith itself that saves. With the exception of baptism being included in the principle of faith, this is what many “denominations” have been teaching for hundreds of years. Are we ready for this?

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 24, pp.5-8
April 19, 1973

By James W. Adams

It has been said, “No wind is favorable to a ship without a destination.” Many times, why a thing is done is quite as important as what is done. There is enough controversy among brethren without my adding to it with a series of articles written for no higher purpose than to be different or to argue. Argument for argument’s sake in the realm of the spiritual, where men’s souls hang in the balance, is obnoxious and destructive. Nor do I throw my hat into the proverbial “ring” of present brotherhood agitation and controversy to enhance my personal reputation as some sort of champion of “orthodoxy.” I am not by nature controversial, although some may find this hard to believe. Most of the controversy in which I have engaged during the past two decades has been pushed upon me, and I did not have any more sense than to assume the responsibility of contributing whatever talent I may have in the field of writing to the defense of principles which I believe to be Divine, hence vital and eternal. With all my faults, which the grace of God and the blood of Jesus are going to have to cover if I am to be saved in heaven, the Lord knows that selfish ambition for notoriety has not been one of them. There are enough real issues and always have been without the necessity for manufacturing any straw men to combat. For the record’s sake, let it also be noted that there exists between me and the brethren who shall figure prominently in this review no personal animosity or personal difference of any kind.

Unusual Forbearance Manifested

There has been manifested by “conservative” brethren an unusual degree of moderation relative to Ketchersidism even when it has seemed to gain some ground among “us.” Men and issues have not been exposed and vigorously attacked as has been true of other error and errorists. It could he that we have been criminally negligent in this regard. The time has come when we can no longer follow this course. Even a tyro in Bible knowledge should recognize the fact that there is an abundance of Scriptural warrant for a forthright attack upon issues, men, and movements, which threaten the interests of Divine truth and Divine institutions. Jesus twice cleansed the temple with consummate zeal when its sacred purposes were corrupted by misguided men (John 2:13-17; Mt. 21:12-16), and scathingly denounced, in language literally vitriolic, the scribes and the Pharisees for their fallacious concepts ‘and perverted practices (Mt. 23:1-33). A great portion of the material in Paul’s letters to churches and individuals was aimed at the corruption in doctrine, worship, and life among them. Paul hesitated not to deal both with issues and with men. John, “the apostle of love,” in his epistles, attacked with vehemence the errors and their teachers among the brethren. The “gospel according to John” was written to provide apostolic Christians with evidence of the deity of Jesus with which to combat gnostic heretics. The seven letters to the churches of Asia in “The Revelation” which were written by John deal forthrightly (with one exception) with doctrinal and practical error, the teachers of that error, and those who were seduced by them. James addressed a letter to Christians, which was largely designed to expose, refute, and eradicate gnosticism among the brethren. Peter, in his general epistles, deals pungently with error and its teachers. Jude likewise exposes and seeks the eradication of error and its teachers among the brethren. Need I say more?

The Existing Situation

In articles one through five of this series, I have taken a great deal of time and used much space to set forth in minute detail the existing situation as I see it. Many hours were spent in seeking to present this matter in exactly the right manner in order that “all the bases may be touched.” There has been altogether too much ambiguity leading to accusations of being “misunderstood” and “misrepresented.” I desire above all to be right, and second only to that, to be understood. While it will not be my intention to be offensive, neither will I be deterred from a clear discussion of these matters by a desire to be non-offensive. In few words, I will not pamper the aversion of some spuriously pious brethren to forthright, face to face confrontation and head to head encounter with men whom I conceive to be false teachers who are leading brethren down the “broad road ” to ruin.

The Objectives of this Series

(1) I propose a thorough examination and review of W. Carl Ketcherside, his fallacious theories relative to unity and fellowship among the children of God, and his underground unity movement, which is fast maturing into a unity cult. Just as the best politics is to make one’s fundamental plank in his platform absolute opposition to all politicians, so the most effective party shibboleth in our day of acute division is to make the fundamental plank in one’s spiritual platform absolute opposition to and renunciation of all parties. Jehovah’s Witnesses, so-called, seek to advance the interests of their religion by affirming, “all religion is of the devil.” Ketcherside, among other things, is an astute politician. I know of no better among the brethren. To put it simply, Ketcherside’s movement is a cult to end all cults. This I propose to demonstrate in the course of this series of articles.

(2) I propose a thorough exposure of the error being circulated on the subjects of “salvation by grace through faith,” the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit upon the Christian, and certain views and practices relative to unity and fellowship which are refinements of Ketcherside’s position. Actually, these three are but different facets of the same issue.

(3) I propose to cite names, document statements, and identify places. While I regret the necessity for doing this, it must be done. This is not a hypothetical situation with which we are dealing; hence it cannot be dealt with theoretically. It is real and actual and will be dealt with specifically and practically. I will not knowingly misrepresent any person, and will be governed always by what I conceive to be true, New Testament love (agape) or brotherly love (philadelphos) or both as the situation may require, but I will not tolerate equivocation which seems to be the forte of current neophytes to whom reference has been made previously.

A Word to the Neophytes

Brother Connie W. Adams (no relation of this scribe, but I would be most happy to acknowledge it if it were so) stated my sentiments exactly in his recent article, “Old Song, New Singers,” Truth Magazine, Vol. XVII, No. 13, p. 202, Feb. 1, 1973. If you have not read this article, by all means do so. You young preachers are no longer boys. When you begin to tamper with matters that materially and adversely affect the faith of Christians and the practice, purity, and unity of the Lord’s churches, you are functioning in a man’s world. Therefore, you need to grow up spiritually, clear up what you say, shut up until you do, or be prepared to accept the consequences of your position!

My Respects to Anticipated Emotional Sympathizers

I have been in controversy in the papers before and am not unacquainted with the temper of some of the brethren, hence I anticipate that there will be some Casper Milquetoasts and some emotionally indulgent sympathizers who will decry my exposure of our neophytes by reason of their age and shed maudlin tears over my unvarnished attack upon Ketcherside by reason of his carefully polished urbanity and folksy, political backslapping. If any of our readers belong to either or both of these categories, get out your crying towels, for you are going to need them.

There has been too much “double talk.” Statements have been ambiguous and reasoning circuitous. The time for such is past. Let us get down to the “nitty gritty” of this matter. If Ketcherside has the truth and our neophytes who are dancing to his siren song are correct, now is the time to find out. This we shall attempt to do. To the accomplishment of this task, let us address ourselves.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 24, pp. 3-4
April 19, 1973