Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

Beginning with the August 10, 197 2 issue of Truth Magazine, four editorials were printed entitled “Theological Liberalism at Abilene Christian College.” These articles were precipitated by an article written by a young brother (Randall Mark Trainer), which appeared in the April 20, 1972 issue of the Gospel Guardian. Brother Trainer assured everyone that there was no theological liberalism to be found at Abilene Christian College. Such an article, written by a former Florida College student, so delighted the administration of ACC that they photographically reproduced the Guardian article and circulated it all over the brotherhood. The Firm Foundation and the Christian Chronicle also reprinted the Guardian article. Apparently that Guardian article served their purposes well.

My articles were written to attend to a job that I sincerely feel should have been attended to by the Gospel Guardian editor who permitted the Trainer article to be printed without a word of disagreement with its conclusions. This young brother stated that he had been in the classes of several teachers at ACC. Of these teachers he said: “If any of them has presented anything even remotely akin to theological liberalism. I am unaware of it . . . If some ‘brotherhood watchdogs’ have discovered an onslaught of theological liberalism in the church of our Lord today, they must have found it somewhere else than Abilene Christian College, at least so far as I can tell.”

My four article series was designed to show that our young brother was a little naive in his evaluation of ACC and its teachers. Considerable evidence was then recited to show that even ACC faculty members had accused other faculty members of theological liberalism. Such is still the case. If the ACC President or Dean will arrange for their Bible faculty members publicly to answer in writing a series of questions, I think I can even now prove that liberal positions are held by some Bible faculty members at Abilene Christian College. Does anybody want to challenge my hand on the matter’! If so, require the faculty members to answer some questions about what they believe and teach; and we shall see what we shall see!

I will guarantee you that I can write a series of questions, pertaining to Bible teaching, concerning which you could not hire the ACC administration or faculty to require each Bible faculty member to state publicly what he believes, teaches, or would practice. If you think my case is over-stated, let me simply offer the pages of Truth Magazine as one public means of interrogation. Then we can see whether there is any liberalism at ACC, to what degree has liberalism affected the ACC Bible faculty, and who the liberal ACC Bible faculty people are. I predict right now that there will be no “takers” on this proposal ACC Bible faculty members would end up testifying against ACC Bible faculty member, if they did not incriminate themselves.

Brother Trainer ought to know that some of the liberal brethren are in hysterics right now over theological liberalism within the church. Brother Trainer is just sure there is none of it at ACC. I am not sure Brother Trainer would know what it was, if he encountered it face to face. My reason for that statement will be shown shortly.

“Doctor” Thomas B. Warren of Harding Graduate School in Memphis, edits a paper named The Spiritual Sword which is filled, issue after issue, with teaching against theological liberalism within liberal churches of Christ, and Warren and associates document abundantly that theological liberalism is about to engulf liberal churches. But Brother Trainer is oblivious to the slightest danger of such on the campus of ACC. I simply declare that Brother Trainer either does not know what some ACC teachers believe, propagate and teach, or else he does not know liberalism when he sees it.

Before me as I write is the January 1973 issue of The Spiritual Sword. In this issue is an article entitled -Some Grave Dangers Presently Facing Young Preachers.” Within this article is this statement: “No danger is more imminent or frightening than the presence of liberalism and modernism in the church of Christ today.” Is The Spiritual Sword writer misrepresenting the danger, or is Brother Trainer just blind to it? Listen further to our liberal brother warn about theological liberalism: -Its leprous hands have the church by the throat in wide areas of the country and many who are carrying its banner are the young preachers, teachers, professors and Bible Chair workers who have arisen from within the Lord’s church. Without doubt the church today faces one of the gravest crises it has ever confronted because of this cancer, which has grown up within our midst. It is the case today that preachers within the church are openly denying that the Bible is inerrant, holding that truth is subjective, relative and that absolute truth is not attainable.”

According to The Spiritual Sword writer, theological liberalism is running rampant “in wide areas of the country” and it affects “‘, professors and Bible Chair workers . . ..” But Brother Trainer has not seen the slightest indication of it at ACC. Trainer said, “Neither does there appear to be a trend in the direction of theological liberalism.” I do not make bets, but if I were a betting man, I would bet that Brother Trainer could not get every ACC Bible faculty member even to state of every other Bible faculty member: “Neither does there appear to be a trend in the direction of theological liberalism. – But if every ACC Bible faculty member were to make such a careless statement, I still would defy them to agree one by one to answer a series of questions regarding what they believe, teach, or would practice. I do not believe that even the administration (-an get the Bible faculty to agree to answer questions about their belief, teaching, and practice through a public media.

James D. Bales, of Harding College, said: “if we think modernism cannot subvert churches and colleges today. We are helping it to happen. If we think, when it begins to appear among us, that it will go away if we ignore it, we are guilty of failing to exercise vigilance. It not only can happen to us, but it is happening to us.” (Modernism: Trojan Horse in the Church, p. 15) But again, according to Brother Trainer, it may be a danger everywhere else but there is not even a “trend in the direction of theological liberalism” at ACC. Who believes it???

ACC Bible faculty members J. W. Roberts, Everett Ferguson, and Tom Olbricht are even yet on the Board o! Trustees of Mission magazine, which is the Number One espouser of theological liberalism among churches of Christ. Some accused me of misrepresenting these brethren. I was told that they had been Mission Trustees, but they were not any longer. So when I went to Abilene recently, I asked Brother Ferguson if they were still on the Board of Trustees of Mission. Unequivocally he answered that they were.

Mission magazine periodically conducts an opinion poll. The January 1973 Mission states: “Churches of Christ have historically called for unity on the basis of a return to the New Testament. For some the New Testament is viewed as a blueprint, which is to be followed in exact detail in every age of history if the church is to be faithful to the Bible. For these Christians unity will only come when everyone agrees to the concept of a New Testament blueprint and then conforms to it.”

Then this question is posed: “Is the New Testament a blueprint for church organization and worship?” Friends, this gets to the very heart and essence of liberalism. Soon they will feature the results of their opinion poll. Keep in mind that three ACC Bible faculty members are helping to propagate such material as this, and then some young naive brother wants to guarantee the brotherhood that there is not the slight tinge of liberalism at ACC . . . that there is not even “a trend in the direction of theological liberalism” there. Apparently our voting brother either does not recognize blatant liberalism (yes, even modernism) when he sees it, or else he does not in any way hold the Trustees of Mission responsible for the thrust and propagation of the paper over which they serve as Trustees. Incidentally, Mission now has a new and fulltime editor (Victor Hunter). and have moved their offices to Dallas, Texas.

Brother Trainer’s Beliefs

Shortly after Brother Trainer’s article in the Gospel Guardian appeared, he sent me an article entitled “This I Believe,” and urged me to print it quickly, for some brethren were beginning to question his soundness. Trainer’s article appeared in the July 1:3, 1(72 issue of Truth Magazine.

What did Brother Trainer then believe? He itemized several beliefs in order that brethren may know what he believed and where he stood. Point No. 7 was this: “The Scriptures reveal God’s complete and perfect pattern for the organization, worship, and work of the church. We must strive to duplicate this pattern today without addition, subtraction, or modification) in order to be pleasing to God.” This sounds good, doesn’t it? This is precisely what I believe a Bible believer must believe. Let’s see how Brother Trainer puts this into practice, after a while.

Point No. 8 in Brother Trainers article said: “A Christian can never participate in or endorse any activity with another Christian or congregation if he does not believe that activity is in complete accordance with the Scriptures. A Christian must withdraw himself from an apostate, ceasing to have any dealings with him which are related to being a fellow-Christian, but must seek to restore him to the Lord.” And that sounds plenty strong too, doesn’t it? But wait just a minute before concluding where Brother Trainer is going to stand.

Under point No.10 Brother Trainer said: “A Christian must never compromise his conviction on any teaching of the Bible for the sake of unity or any other worthy end.” And that too sounds like a fine and truthful statement.

But what did Brother Trainer do when he left ACC? He moved to Austin, Texas where there are two faithful churches. From the July 13, 1972 Truth Magazine article, one would conclude that Brother Trainer would oppose inter-congregational cooperation, the church support of human institutions, and congregational involvement in recreation. It is probable that nearly everybody thought that was what Brother Trainer believed. But when he moved last summer to Austin, he aligned himself with a liberal church.

Brother Trainer had said: “A Christian can never participate in or endorse any activity with another Christian or congregation if he does not believe that activity is in complete accordance with Scriptures.” It is therefore evident that Brother Trainer thought that the practice of the liberal church in Austin with which he aligned himself was “in complete accordance with the Scriptures. “

Furthermore, he had said: “A Christian must never compromise his conviction on any teaching of the Bible for the sake of unity or any other worthy end.” But he did! Or else he thought the practice of the liberal Austin church was “in complete accordance with the Scriptures.”

A few months ago, Brother Trainer was worried because some of the brethren doubted if he was sound in the faith. Evidently those brethren had good reason for being doubtful about Brother Trainer. I thought he was a naive young brother who was playing into the hands of the liberals who operate ACC. But now he is aligned with them.

Now what of his testimony that there is no liberalism at ACC? It now is apparent that his was simply the testimony of one liberal that there was no theological liberalism at ACC. I did not believe it then, nor do I now. Brethren had better beware of young men who waver in their stance for the truth. Such young brethren are usually “on their way out’ When they begin such wavering. Certainly we hate to see brethren (young or old) jeopardize their souls, and become useless for the cause of truth. And certainly brethren had better continue to be wary of brethren, voting or old, who evidence by their teaching (whether oral or written) that they either do not know the truth, or do not intend to stand upon it and uphold it. Such men are a threat to the purity and loyalty of churches, and brethren might, with very good reasons, be wary of them.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 19, pp. 3-6
March 15, 1973

By Connie W. Adams

The author of this article does not claim to be an expert on etiquette but there are certain amenities which ought to be evident to all who will stop and think a little. It is nothing short of amazing to observe some things which one cannot help seeing while standing in a pulpit. Some of the action not only is disconcerting to the one trying to preach, but to other worshippers as well. All such poor manners are not limited to the time when preaching is being done but occurs throughout services. In the hope that some will be helped I describe the following:

1. The Manicurist. This is the one who files fingernails during the service, and sometimes even clips them with a nail clipper. The person doing this is invariably a poor listener and seldom looks at the speaker. It is a diversionary tactic to help pass the time. Why not give the speaker your undivided attention-you just might learn something.

2. The Sleeper. If I had my way about it (and I don’t usually), I’d not call upon any brother to take any public part in worship of the congregation who shows so little respect for the Lord as to habitually sleep while God is being worshipped and his word being taught. What must be the impression made upon visitors to set, a man serve at the Lord’s table or lead public prayer, and then return to his seat and go sound asleep? What must be the attitude of God in beholding such irreverence? This is a curable ailment if one is willing to try.

3. The Isle Roamer. This might be a young child, a teenager or a grown person who wanders in and out during the service. We quickly excuse mothers with small children who must be taken out at times. I do not believe that the children and young people who wander in and out always do so. Do they go in and out at will at school? This becomes a habit and requires self-discipline. It is distracting to all present. It could divert one’s attention from a part of a lesson, which he needs the most.

4. The Gum Chewer. This person seldom does so discreetly. It is usually accompanied by popping and smacking with all the elegance of a cow pulling her foot out of the mud.

5. The Home Work Getter. This is the child or young person old enough to pay attention and to derive profit from the lesson. Some do this during song service. Such youngsters are not being taught proper respect for God and his worship. Firm parental attention will cure it.

6. The Invitation Up setters. These are the people who have come to look on the invitation, not as a solemn moment when every heart strains and yearns for the salvation of those who need to come to the Lord, but the signal for the end of the service. One is daresome to mention the word “faith” until he is right sure he plans to extend the invitation, for he will start a clatter of the early song book teachers. Then there are the gigglers and whisperers during this time. It is enough to make one decide not to obey the gospel if it breeds such poor manners.

Let us come before God with due reverence

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 19, p. 2
March 15, 1973

By Connie W. Adams

There is a tendency to take scriptural terms and expand them to include more than the Lord ever intended. It is all too easy to make of these terms a giant umbrella to shield whatever we want to put under it.

Sound

Timothy was admonished to “hold fast the form of sound words” (2 Tim. 1: 13). Titus was to rebuke false teachers that they might be “sound in the faith” (Titus 1: 13). He was to speak “things which become sound doctrine” (Mt. 2: 1), and to use “sound speech, that cannot be condemned” (Tit. 2:8). A preacher is therefore “sound” when he teaches the wholesome words of life found in the scripture. He must not only teach sound doctrine, he must practice it and show himself “a pattern of good works ” (Tit. 2: 7). He is to be “an example of the believers” (1 Tim. 4:12). A congregation is sound when it adheres to sound doctrine, both theoretically and practically. This means an adherence to all the truth, not just isolated parts of it. It should permit and require the whole counsel of God to be preached.

Over the past twenty-five years the majority of congregations in this country took up some practices unknown to the New Testament. The support of human institutions became widespread. Theological defenses were devised to support this practice, thus doctrinal corruption resulted. The sponsoring church idea was revised to satisfy a desire, to activate the universal church through a single agent. Along with these changes came an increasing demand for church supported entertainment and recreational facilities. The churches which began to practice such things became unsound in so doing, because there was no Bible authority for them. Those who insisted on holding to the “old paths” began to look upon themselves as “sound” churches to distinguish themselves from those who have accepted “unsound” practices. The preachers who defended these practices were “unsound” because they were implicated in that for which no scriptural defense could be made. So the terms “sound” and “unsound” began to be used with respect to certain issues. When used in that frame of reference they are legitimate.

Sadly, there have been some who have decide that the only test of soundness in a preacher is his opposition to the above named practices. With some, the term has become an umbrella wide enough to cover preachers whose lives are ungodly, whose families live by the standards of the world and disgrace the name of Christ and who are to be tolerated because they know how to give the “liberals” “what for” every now and then. Never mind that they do not know how to present a balanced diet of truth. They are “sound”. They are against Herald of Truth! Don’t get me wrong, brethren; soundness in the faith includes opposition to error whether in or out of the church, but it does not end there.

Then there are those “sound” congregations, which have severed themselves from the “liberals” but have aligned themselves with the Devil on other questions. A church which is not doing what it can to spread the gospel in its own community and elsewhere as it has opportunity is not sound. One, which does not practice corrective discipline and allows the sacred body of Christ to become a spiritual garbage (limit) where all manner of sin is shielded with not so much as a little finger lifted to correct it is not sound either. One which knows how to do nothing more than fuss and fight over ever trivial idea or opinion is not sound, even if it is opposed to the college in the budget!

Certainly every congregation has its weaknesses and room for growth and improvement. As long as the whole counsel of God can be taught there and brethren are willing to listen to the truth and make corrections where they are needed, then that church is committed to soundness. Let’s be sound in the faith, but let’s not use a scriptural term as an umbrella to cover sin.

Fellowship

Much is said in the New Testament about the spiritual partnership of those who serve the one Lord. Such is attained by jointly walking in the light (1 John 1: 7). There is to be no fellowship with either moral corruption (Eph. 5: 11) or doctrinal error (1 John 2:19; Gal. 1:6-9).

But again, this great spiritual relationship with all its wondrous blessings has been made an umbrella to cover all kinds of doctrinal deviations — premillennialism, instrumental music, institutionalism and you name it. Men like Carl Ketcherside and his devotees will raise their fellowship umbrella to cover it provided one has been immersed for the remission of sins at some time. All along, the borders of this umbrella are getting wider and some of the “pious unimmersed” who are “brothers in prospect” are now standing under the fringes and in due time can expect full shelter.

Grace

Anyone conversant with the New Testament knows that man did nothing to earn the great scheme of human redemption. It was provided out of the riches of God’s grace (Eph. 2:8-10). The extension of favor may be conditional or unconditional and yet classify as grace. Some of the brethren are getting excited and thinking that some of us have forgotten all about grace when we stress the importance of gospel obedience. They hint that we have minimized grace and really hold to a concept of salvation by works – that God owes us salvation. If there is any hint in the word of the Lord that the grace of God saved a sinner without his believing the Lord to the point of obeying his commandments, then it has surely escaped my notice. The Lord is still “the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him” (Heb. 5:8-9). It will be of grace, to be sure, but grace may be rejected. The disobedient reject it and the obedient receive it. Unless a fellow has been dipping his bucket too deeply in the well of denominational theology, I fail to see the reason for the uproar. You just watch and see if this grace umbrella does not merge with the fellowship umbrella before it is all over until they will have one common handle. Already some who are enamored of Ketchersidism are in virtual ecstasy over their discovery of how the grace of God is wide enough to cover over all the doctrinal deviations, which have arisen among God’s people. Gird on your armor, brethren, there is going to be a battle over this! Dont be caught asleep.

There are other scriptural terms, proper in their correct application, which have become

umbrellas to cover too much. But perhaps enough has been said for now to rally friends of truth and to stir up a few enemies.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 18, pp. 8-9
March 8, 1973

By Earl E. Robertson

“For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we mad known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eye-witnesses of this majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there was borne such a voice to him by the Majestic Glory. This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: and this voice we ourselves heard borne out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. An we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit,” (2 Pet. 1:16-21).

Peter identifies the work of himself and the other apostles as that marked out by another; but in this disavows his information being second hand. He even affirms “we were eyewitnesses” of the things he testifies. To prove their work was not due to the leadership of others with fables or myths invented artificially when he mad known to these brethren the power and coming of the Lord, he testifies they were not only “eye witnesses” but they themselves heard the voice of God acknowledge Jesus Christ as His only Son! Peter says this voice came from heaven, “when we were with him in the holy mount.” The account of this majestic scene is recorded in Matthew 17:1-5.

Many are the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the Saviour, and the apostle affirms that such prophecy is made more sure through the eyewitness and voice borne from the heavenly account. The story of Jesus Christ was not a made-up story, but rather the fulfillment of Gods redemptive plan. (cf. Acts 10:43). God did not leave his people without sufficient evidence. (2 Pet. 1:3). The revelation of light from heaven to man upon the earth was a “lamp shining in a dark place”; and the day-star (Christ) brought the dawning of a new day.

But Peter says, “no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.” He emphasizes first their need of understanding by saying, “knowing this first ” The verb “is” means to become or spring into being. Private means simply what is ones own, and interpretation is from a word that means explanation or exposition. So, Peter is affirming that no prophecy or scripture ever came into being simply by a prophets own exposition; but to the contrary, “For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.”

Our evidence is both complete and sufficient. Various passages attest this fact (Jude 3; Acts 15:1-31). God caused His will to be made known in many ways (Heb. 1:1-2), and it can be comprehended by all responsible people (Eph. 3:1-6). Since this message from Him is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16-17), it should be read by one and all as though each man had personally received it. Jesus wants this message preached to every creature (Mk. 16:15,16), because each has sinned (Rom. 3:23) and needs the Saviour.

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 18, p. 2
March 8, 1973