Truth Magazine

By Earl E. Robertson

Edward T. Hiscox, in his book, Standard Manual For Baptist Churches, says on page 22, under the heading of “Church Membership,” “It is most likely that in the Apostolic age when there was but ‘one Lord, one faith, and one baptism’ and no differing denominations existed, the baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a member of the church, and at once endowed him with all the rights and privileges of full membership. In that sense, ‘baptism was the door into the church.’ Now, it is different. . . .”

So, the “Doctor” affirms that some things in spiritual matters have changed since the days of the apostles. He tells us that in the days of the apostles “there was but one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.” This is true (Eph. 4:5). He tells us that “no differing denominations existed.” This is true also, if he means denominations claiming to follow Christ. There were various sects in Jesus’ day: the Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, et al. But these did not make claim to be followers of Jesus Christ. Further, the “Doctor” tells us that “baptism was the door into the church.” All of this was true in the days of the apostles.

But to our chagrin, he says all this has changed! This raises many questions. If in apostolic days the “very act” of baptism constituted one a member of the church, and that baptism was the door into the church (as we can certainly read such in our New Testaments), we can say without fear of successful contradiction that such was by divine authority. That is, the Lord authorized such; he had Paul to write that baptism puts one into the one body (Cor. 12:13, 20) and that one body is the church (Col. 1:18). But if such were true in apostolic days, when did this authority change? What assembly changed it? By what or whom did this change come? Why did it change? Is God pleased with the change?

As one searches his New Testament to find where such a change was to take place or where such did take place, he is surprised to find no change either contemplated or having taken place! What the New Testament says at its beginning about baptism putting one into the Lord’s church (body of Christ) is exactly what it says about the same subject at its close. The doctrine had not changed. So, this leads us to conclude that some people were dissatisfied that what the Lord says about baptism “being the door into the church,” and have created their own way about the matter. But we must emphasize that baptism is still the act of obedience that puts one into Lord’s church. We do, however, admit that the baptism Christ commanded will not put one into a denominational church-it puts one into the church of Christ only. When the truth of Jesus is preached, believed, and obeyed, his baptism been submitted to, that individual is then in the Lord’s church (Acts 2:37-47). So if baptism today does not put one into the church of Christ it is because it is not the baptism Christ commanded. Dr. Hiscox is wrong in contending that baptism is no longer the way into the church of Christ. The Baptist church has no legislative power to direct the Lord’s Church. It might be a legislative body, but its legislation is directed to the Baptist church and not the Lord’s church. The Lord Jesus Christ is head over his church (Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22-23)-not the Baptist church. The Baptist church exists contrary to Christ’s teaching, not because of it. Jesus’ word is the seed of the kingdom (Luke 8: 11), and the kingdom is the kingdom of Christ (Col. 1: 13). If he is king over his kingdom (and he is), then the citizens are his subjects and his word rules them. Therefore only those who subject themselves unto his authority are granted citizenship in his kingdom (church), and baptism into his church is within this authority (Matt. 28:18-20; 1 Cor. 12:13).

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 24, p.2
April 19, 1973

By Larry Ray Hafley

In an Associated Press article we hear the Pope denouncing fads and defending tradition. “Pope Paul VI denounced what he called ‘fads’ against tradition in the Roman Catholic Church … He restated his belief that progress for the church comes along the path of tradition.” (St. Louis Globe-Democrat, Sept. 28, 1972, p. 17).

Could it be that the Pope is unaware of the fact that traditions are nothing but senile fads? Traditions of Catholicism are just fads that got old. If “the progress for the church comes along the path of tradition,” how “comes along” the Pope to denounce the source of, said tradition? Can he not see that the “path of tradition” is worn and marked out by the footprints of fads? Infant baptism, mechanical music, and the counting of beads were once “fads.” They are now traditions. Fermented fads become the wine of tradition. Even the Pope’s office was once an ambitious fad, which was renounced more strongly than any modern fad in Romanism, but now it is an ancient tradition. Why, if all fads had been summarily expelled, Pope Paul VI would never have had his job! Our friend, the Pope, had better be careful not to name a specific fad of the day and, denounce” it, for in a hundred years it may be one of those hallowed traditions in “the path” of progress.

Well, did not Paul say, “hold the traditions?” Yes, but which traditions? The ones “which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). Unless a thing can be heard from the lips or read from the epistles of the apostles, it is not that which is to be held. The “progress for the church” indeed “comes along the path of tradition,” apostolic tradition, or teaching. Other traditions, such as Popes and Catholicism, are “along the path” that is wide and broad and “that leadeth to destruction.” So, we “restate” our “belief” that “the progress of the New Testament church comes along the path of New Testament tradition.”

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 23, p. 13
April 12, 1973

By Dudley Spears

Thomas, one of the 12 apostles, was commanded, “be not faithless but believing.” (John 20:27). Jesus taught, “He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much: and he that is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?” The Lord teaches here that it is quite impossible to give undivided worship and loyalty to two different commitments. He concludes, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Luke 16:10-13). God always requires undivided faithfulness to Him.

Another teaching of Jesus shows that there is a measurement by which faithfulness can be determined. He taught of two approved servants in the parable of the talents as “good and faithful servants” and one servant who was not approved as a “wicked and slothful” servant. (Matt. 25:26). Slothful is here used by our Saviour as the opposite of faithfulness. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of the New Testament says, “indolent, sluggish.” (Vol. 11, page 40). He says it is a synonym of “dull.” He adds that it means also, “shirking and irksome.”

The rewards of the two are opposites. Whereas the faithful servant receives the blessing and approval of the Lord, the slothful servant is condemned. How anyone could hold me, to the doctrine of “once saved always saved” in the face of these teachings from Christ is beyond me. The Lord plainly teaches that His servants (not Satan’s) are the ones who will be called into an accounting and judged according to their faithfulness. Jesus, to the church in Smyrna, wrote that some of them were about to be put to the test of their faith and added, “be thou faithful unto death and I will give thee the crown of life.” (Rev. 2: 10).

In Acts 16 there is the narrative of the conversion of Lydia, a seller of purple, who was

in Philippi. The Bible says that she invited Paul and his companions to be her houseguests, “if ye have judged me to be faithful.” (verse 15). This provokes me to think of myself and all others who claim to be disciples of Christ. Would Paul and his companions judge us to be faithful? Faithfulness as judged by the apostles and Christ is an extremely important issue to everyone who claims to be a Christian.

The word in English for “loyal” very aptly describes the word “faithful.” Anyone who is faithful is loyal. This, we recognize, is the usage found in both the civic and domestic realms. A loyal American is one who is faithful to the principles on which America is founded. He is willing to defend this country in every way consistent with his conscience, to pay his taxes and vote for the man he believes in and will work for the best interests of America. Much more and in a higher sense, a citizen in God’s kingdom, the church, is willing to defend the gospel (Phil. 1: 17), contribute of his money to advance the cause of Christ (2 Cor. 9:7-8), work untiringly in the work of the Lord (I Cor. 15:58), and share in the responsibilities of the church, if he is a loyal Christian.

We often say that some man has been “unfaithful” to his wife or vice versa on the basis of their taking up with another partner and cheating on their mate in marriage. We mean by that that they have not been “loyal” to the vows they made to be “faithful until they part in death.” Much more the members of the body of Christ are members of Christ’s bride, the church. (Eph. 5:23-25). They are to be faithful to the bridegroom. But when members of the church become “unfaithful” they start missing services, fail to pray and work as they ought and sometimes “forsake” the church and take up with the world. The devil controls the passions and purposes of this old world. It is the only place where he can have a controlling impact on one’s life. When members of the bride of Christ go back into the world, they become unfaithful to the bridegroom and are condemned to be lost unless they repent and return to their first love. (Rev. 2: 1-4).

There is another idea in the word “faithful.” It is the idea of “steadfast.” A faithful Christian is one who is not “tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine,” (Eph. 4:14-15) but remains constant in the service of the Lord. He just keeps on doing what is right. He heeds the admonition Paul gave in the book of Galatians. “Be not weary in well doing.. .” (Gal. 6:9). He remains faithful and constant in his work in the Lord. “Be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, for as much as ye know that your work in the Lord is not in vain.” (1 Cor. 15:58). He is aware of the fact that he may help build an empire of power, based on money and worldly goods, he may amass a fortune on earth, may martial mighty armies of untold power, but it will all be in vain in respect to eternity. Only those things that amount to “your treasures in heaven” (Matt. 0: 19,20) will benefit you when life is over. As Jesus said to the foolish and wealthy farmer in Luke 12:20, “Thou fool, this night shall thy soul be required of thee, and then whose shall al these things be?” Requiring the soul is what God is interested in-not bank accounts and full barns.

Robert Farish wrote the following. “Empty pews but crowded pleasure spots on the Lord’s day, indifference of church members to the aggressive attacks of atheists, anxiety, bate, greed, envy, strife, vile sins of passion, wholesale departure from the faith by many churches, etc., is evidence of lack of loyalty among those professing allegiance to Christ the King. Many church members are unfaithful to the Lord and according to the Bible they will be lost if they continue in their unfaithfulness. Citizens of the kingdom of heaven need to ‘awake out of sleep . . . cast off the works of darkness … put on the armor of light . . . walk becomingly, as in the day; not in reveling and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and jealousy.’ (Rom. 13:11,13). This language is addressed to believers; hence the responsibility to put on the Lord Jesus Christ is a continuous exercise. “

One cannot but be impressed by this observation. It seems to be more difficult to get people to study the Bible and attend worship services than to get them into a sports stadium. In fact, the Orange Bowl has more difficulty-keeping people out of the stadium than they do trying to get them in on New Year’s Day and any other time they have a football game there. The golf links are always crowded on Lord’s Day morning and people even have to get an appointment so they can play. How many churches do you know that have to seat their constituents by appointment? The beer joints and honky-tonks have more patrons than all the churches of Christ in the world has. How tragic! Well, why don’t we do something about this travesty on the love and mercy of God? What can we do?

Let me suggest that there are a few things we all can do to remedy such a situation and it begins with self. Here is what is involved in being a “faithful” Christian.

1. All of us can do some personal examination. Hear the words of Paul: “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith: prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” (2 Cor. 13:5). This was written to Christians. Stop, take a look at your life and refuse to say, “I’m doing the best I can.” Be honest with yourself and realize that you and I are not what we ought to be.

2. Make a resolution in your heart to try -just try-always to be better. Resolve to try really hard. “Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.” (Col. 3:9-10). Keep on trying to do better, aware of the grand fact that you, as one who put Christ on in baptism, have not been what you should have been.

3. Do something for the Lord every day and actually practice the religion of the Saviour. The religion of Christ is a “do” religion. Jesus said, “Not everyone that saith, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” (Matt. 7:21). Are you willing to try these Biblical suggestions? If so, you will enjoy the greatest thing anyone on earth can know–the peace that passeth all knowledge and understanding.” There will be no more nervous disorders for you, no more anxiety, no more being upset and mentally disturbed. Serving God in all faithfulness is the very best remedy for all the “tip tight” maladies that grip the fives of so many.

Faithfulness is a life of challenge that brings one into a newness of life every day and ultimately provides the greatest reward imaginable. Let these few lines serve to encourage all Christians to more loyal and dedicated faithfulness to Christ and His great Church.

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 23, pp. 11-12
April 12, 1973

By James W. Adams

In previous articles, what I have chosen to designate as a “Neo-Calvinistic, Unity Cult” has been discussed from the standpoint of the sources from whence it springs. It has been noted that its prime movers are a number of well known extremists who have for the greater portion of their preaching lives been identified with comparatively small groups of equally extreme brethren holding scripturally untenable views relative to the limitations of Christian liberty in the realm of generic authority. I have specifically identified brethren W. Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, and Ervin Waters as belonging to this number. Of these men, Carl Ketcherside has been the most vocal, the most persistent, and the most successful in attracting followers. The major part of my attention will, therefore, be paid to him in this series.

A Recapitulation

In my last article, I began a discussion of some -secondary sources” from whence springs the baneful influence of the “unity cult” under consideration. Attention was called to a number of men who have had unhappy personal experiences with fellow preachers and elders, who have been involved in abortive undertakings, and whose ambitions have been thwarted. In this connection, I mentioned with sincere personal sorrow such men as Pat Hardeman, Charles A. Holt, and Harold Spurlock.

Brother Hardeman took his departure from among what I conceive to be faithful brethren sonic years ago. Brethren Holt and Spurlock have more recently done so. Hardeman’s departure was more drastic but less vocal. Holt and Spurlock, through the medium of a journal which they called Sentinel of Truth, through the pulpits of faithful churches, and through the public medium of radio, attempted to indict churches of Christ as constituting a human denomination, and to stigmatize gospel preachers as money-grubbing, time-serving slaves to popish elders, as devotees of idolatrous ecclesiolatry, and as non-thinking parrots of “traditional Church of Christ doctrine and practice.”

Today, neither Holt nor Spurlock has much influence either among so-called “conservative” or “liberal” churches. Yet, the influence of their teaching-which was done while they yet moved freely among conservative brethren-remains. Wherever there exists a vestige of this influence will be found active sympathy for and empathy with Ketcherside, Garrett, and their ilk. There will also be found an attachment to the points of view, which characterize them. Furthermore, wherever such persons are found, they will be operating subversively to create as much dissatisfaction, unhappiness, and obstructionism as they can. This alone constitutes sufficient reason for such a series of articles as I am now engaged in writing and which Truth Magazine is publishing.

 Other “Secondary Sources”

The second source in this category is a considerable number of brethren who have become enamored of “the lust of other things” and “the pleasures of this life”-worldly allurements-and have compromised their principles. Their aberrations brought them to the brink of the abyss of complete loss of faith in God and the validity of things spiritual. Facing moral chaos and spiritual bankruptcy, and the word of God no longer constituting for them; in acceptable basis for a living faith (Rom. 10:17), they reached out emotionally and blindly for some concrete, sensual experience that would impress anew upon their consciousness the reality, of Deity and the validity of things spiritual. In subjective experience, they sought indisputable proof (?) of God’s active interest in, concern for, and acceptance of them personally.

The poignant desire of these people for self-assurance and the spiritual anguish which it occasioned (and I am not callous toward nor unsympathetic with them in their dilemma) became the parents, of their experiences in the realm of the supernatural. Hence it was that they (1) experimented with the occult, (2) experienced glossolalia (tongue speaking), (3) discovered “new truth” (?) through intuition or subjective revelation, and (4) found a common denominator in their extraordinary experiences for “unity” and “fellowship” with representatives of almost every species of error taught in so-called “Christendom” today. Brother Pat Boone among our more “liberal” brethren is a classic example of what I am talking about.

Until recently, conservatives have been able to say, “We have none of this among us!” This is no longer true. While I know of no overt “tongue-speakers” as yet among those professing to be conservative, I have heard of militantly conservative churches having to deal with some of their constituency who were experimenting with private “sensitivity” meetings. In these meetings, male and female Christians (married and single) sat together on the floor in a dark room, sometimes by candlelight, holding hands, and participating in spontaneous praying and singing. I judge they acted “as the Spirit moved them” as Quakers used to do in their public meetings. I do not regard this as an unwarranted judgment of motives by reason of the fact that these same people and others like them have expressed themselves as believing in an immediate indwelling and operation of the Holy Spirit upon the hearts and lives of Christians. It seems logical and eminently fair, therefore, to assume that these people in their “cell” worship of the spontaneous variety expect immediate, Divine guidance through the inner-working of the Holy Spirit with the view to enhancing their consecration and holiness as servants of Christ.

As further evidence of the correctness of this analysis, brethren have been experimenting in the public worship of the saints with “spontaneous singing.” An amazing thing about this is the fact that such has been done with little or no opposition. In some instances it has been incorporated with enthusiastic support by people who should know better. Spontaneous praying will follow, if it has not already occurred, then testimony. Several years ago in Lufkin, Texas, Charles A. Holt, for all practical purposes, advocated testimonial meetings as a part of the public worship. He did this by offering derogatory criticism concerning how shocked the brethren would be if such occurred.

Whether they know it or will admit it or not, brethren who practice such contemplate some immediate influence of the Holy Spirit, wholly unconnected with Divine truth, to preserve order or to give direction to that which they do. Otherwise, as they well know, that which they spontaneously do will not edify. An excellent young man, who has planned for a number of years to give his life to the proclamation of the gospel, personally known to and sincerely loved by me, has recently begun to insist that the Holy Spirit personally dwells in him and exercises all immediate influence upon him to keep him from sinning.

It is hard to describe how utterly nauseating it is to one who has spent so many years and so much of his strength opposing such phantasies among denominational lists now to witness, in his declining years, the birth and growth of such a preposterous delusion among professed New Testament Christians. In articles to come, I propose to establish a direct relationship between “cell worship” and “direct Holy Spirit guidance” and the Ketcherside unity cult by means of direct quotations from Ketchersides own writings.

A third group in the “secondary source” category is composed of a considerable number of young people, many of them preachers but veritable neophytes both by age and experience, who are caught up in the tolls of the neoCalvinistic unity cult. It is almost inconceivable but true that these people actually believe they have discovered “new truth” in their agitation for unity and fellowship on the basis of modified Calvinistic error and refined Pentecostal fanaticism.

The preachers of this group are young men of unusual ability and dedication, who otherwise could look forward to many years of useful service among conservative brethren, are beyond question militantly involved in Ketchersidism. A considerable number of them have spent from two to four years in Florida College, a school that, theoretically, provides a militantly conservative educational situation. They have been exposed to every teacher and all of the Bible courses which this school offers. Most of these men were outstanding students academically, morally, and spiritually. They are of high intellectual caliber; they are neither stupid nor lazy.

Despite all of this, they are now militant promulgators of a view concerning salvation by grace through faith which, by the most charitable application of sound interpretive principles, is nothing short of modified Calvinism. Some advocate openly their belief in an immediate operation of the Holy Spirit upon the heart of the Christian independent of divine truth. They advocate and practice a Ketchersidian type of “fellowship” with brethren involved in pernicious error and with denominationalists.

Incidentally, when questioned concerning their teaching and practice these young men are quick to cite the writings of Brother Edward Fudge, Associate editor of the Gospel Guardian, to their interrogators as containing an able expression of their views. Brother Fudge needs to take note of this fact. These are bright young men, and have little difficulty in understanding what they read. If Brother Fudge is not saying what they have concluded he is saying, he needs to recognize the fact that he is guilty of spiritually criminal ambiguity and is misleading eternity-bound souls made in the Divine image. He should set these young men straight and dispel the confusion and alarm of others whom he has disturbed by his pronouncements by a clear, unequivocal statement of his true attitude relative to the matters wherein they “misunderstood” him.

The views of our neophyte preachers are pressed with a great show of humility, piety, and love by constant affirmation-much as premillennialism was foisted upon gullible brethren in the not too distant past. In this regard, they bring to mind the often-quoted line of William Shakespeare, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” It is the old story, “If you don’t believe I’m humble, just ask me!” I am not impressed by this show of humility, piety, and love. These young men who are parroting the Ketcherside line are intellectually egotistical to the point of being nauseating. Their terminology, mannerisms, and constant references to the original languages in which the Scriptures were written constitute a type of intimidation through affectation of superiority. They are insufferable arrogant relative to & scope and depth of their understanding of Scripture. Nothing demonstrate, this better than there rushing into print with reams of material upon

subjects which have challenged the minds of the most pious, scholarly, mature students of the ages. Though often in error, they are never in doubt. Their protestations of piety are superficial Saccharine emotionalism is not piety. True piety is never permissive. It is loving, helpful, understanding, but never permissive in any realm governed by the will of God.

Is There A Cause?

What caused these young men to become involved in Ketcherside’s errors question which keeps pressing for an answer. Several considerations could have contributed: (1) The universal agitation in religious circles emanating from ecumenism in the denominational world; (2) the current “youth revolt” against “the establishment” and the “status quo” (3) disenchantment with hypocrisy and materialism in the church; and/or (4) it could be an “identity crisis-youth seeking to find itself and to establish its place under the sun. Perhaps any or all of these have had some influence, yet I am haunted by the conviction that there is a common denominator in this matter which has not yet been discovered-a fountain to which all of these young men had access and from which they have drunk other than and in addition to the writings of W. Carl Ketcherside. I think we do him entirely too much honor to attach such significance to his eternal mouthing. If there is such a common denominator, it needs to be identified, exposed, and eradicated. To the accomplishment of this objective, I am absolutely and unswervingly dedicated.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 23, pp. 7-9
April 12, 1973