Truth Magazine

By Luther Blackmon

For hundreds of years the Bible has been the world’s best seller, in the book field. The life of the average novel is about one year, and it is “gone with the wind.”

The first book printed, after the invention of the printing press with movable type, was the Bible. This was about the middle of the 15th century. It was called the Guttenberg Bible, after the name of the man who invented the printing press. A copy of this book, if you could buy one at all, would sell for $100,000. The British government paid Russia $510,000.00 for a single copy.

The longest telegram ever sent was the New Testament. When the revised version was completed, the whole book was sent by wireless from New York to Chicago. Several years ago the “British and Foreign Bible Society” was printing 22 Bibles every minute, day and night, to keep up with the demand.

Enemies, scoffers, doubters, fanatics, neglect and destruction have sought its termination. Diocletian thought he had effectively done away with all “Christian ‘Scriptures.” But when Constantine came to the throne, 28 years later, he issued an edict to have all the scriptures that could be found, brought forth. In less than forty-eight hours, fifty copies of the Bible had been found.

Celsus, Voltaire, Gibbon, Hume, Ingersol, Paine, Robespierre and many others have hurled their “witticisms” and sarcasm against it, to no avail. Even its friends have sometimes caused it to be looked upon with suspicion and disdain, because they have tried to make it a sort of theological grab-bag. “Choose the kind of religion you like and then find some scripture that can be made to appear as though it confirms your choice.”

Unity of The Bible

The Bible was written by about forty men, over a period of 1600 years. They came from all walks of life. Ezra the priest, Solomon the poet, Isaiah the prophet, David the king, Daniel the statesman, Amos the herdsman, Moses, Luke and Paul the scholars; From the cliffs of Arabia, from the hills of Palestine, from the courts of the Jewish temple, from the dungeon of Rome and from the Isle of Patmos. Most of these men never saw each other. Yet, their writings, when brought together, form a perfect and harmonious whole.

We have never heard anyone say, “I was a thief, drunkard, liar, a moral leper, but I read Shakespeare and Darwin’s writings, and I am a changed man.” But this has been said of the Bible thousands of times.

Not Affected by Surroundings

Moses, who wrote the Pentateuch, was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. They then believed that man sprang from worms along the Nile River. Then, when man spat on the ground, a woman sprang up. Where the woman spat, an animal sprang up. No such foolishness as this is found in the writings of Moses.

The writers of the New Testament were all Jews, except Luke. Yet they describe their Messiah as being entirely different from that which the Jewish people expected him to be.

Archeology

Critics of the Bible said Moses could not have written the Pentateuch, because writing was not known in Moses’ day. Archaeology has long since exposed this fallacy. Archaeologist M. de Morgan uncovered a black diorite upon which was written nearly 400 lines of writings, giving 248 laws written by Hammurabi a king of Babylon, about 2250 B.C.

Skeptics once insisted that no such nation as the Hittites ever existed. Records have now been found which show that the Hittites, for about seven centuries occupied parts of Syria and Asia Minor. No originality is claimed for this article. It is all borrowed. “Nuff Said.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 25, p. 2
April 27, 1972

By Joe Neil Clayton

When God gave the command to abstain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, He warned Adam and Eve, “. . . in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17). We conclude that He meant spiritual death, because Adam and Eve lived for a long time after their sin, physically. So, spiritual death is the condemnation for sin. A man can live physically, while being “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2: 1).

By his sin, Adam set the precedent which introduced this punishment for it. Paul confirms this, by saying, “Therefore, as through one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned” (Romans 5:12). When I sin, today, I have followed in the pattern of Adam’s sin, and must be punished by the same means, death.

When Paul was describing the deterioration of those who “refused to have God in their knowledge,” in Romans 1: 28-32, he concluded that “they that practice such things are worthy of death.” In the list of sins, those who were merely envious, boastful, and disobedient to parents were as worthy as murderers and inventors of evil things. No distinction was drawn, because all deserved the same punishment, death. When one of the angels who poured out the bowls of wrath in Revelation 16 saw the result, he exclaimed, “Righteous art thou, who art and who wast, thou Holy One, because thou didst thus judge: for they poured out the blood of saints and prophets, and blood hast thou given them to drink: they are worthy.”

Our natural reaction to this might be that God is too severe in requiring the punishment of death for sin. We make our judgments by a more moderate standard, and decide that a little envy should not be condemned with the same severity that murder should be. After all, the murderer takes a life, but the envious person is simply negatively “ambitious.”

What we do not realize in all of this is that God is trying to show His attitude toward sin. He is not trying to reflect our standard, He sets His own! When Paul considered this problem, he learned the lesson, and passed it on to us. He tells us that Law serves the purpose of causing us to know what sin is. However, because we then have knowledge, we grow more aware of the sins we commit. What brings it home to us most effectively, finally, is the fact that the Law condemns sin, and pronounces the sentence of death. Paul says, in the Spirit, “So … the law is holy, and the commandment (is) holy, righteous and good. Did then that which is good (the Law) become death to me? God forbid! But sin’ that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me through that which is good;-that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful” (Romans 7:12-13).

The fact that God pronounces the sentence of death for sin, and makes no distinction between sins in regard to this condemnation, helps us to realize the exceeding sinfulness of sin. If the punishment is severe, it is evidence of the extreme offense of sin to God.

When we consider again the sins of Adam and Eve, we have two ways to consider it. In the eyes of men, all they did was to eat of a fruit that was not good for them. In the eyes of God, however, their action was one of rebellion. In one sin, they turned from their creator to obey Satan. As if that were not bad enough, they also sought to attain to prerogatives that belonged exclusively to God. A God of the stature of our Creator cannot endure such offenses, and His punishment of Adam and Eve, and all subsequent sinners, teaches us to respect His commands.

We cannot escape the fact, however, that we have sinned, and we may still stand under the condemnation of death. In the death-row atmosphere of such knowledge, any sinner must seek to escape through an appeal to the mercy of God. Adam and Eve had only the consolation of futile sacrifices of animals, whose blood could never take away sins (Hebrews 10: 4). Their confidence had to be placed ultimately, with ours, in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This escape plan is cause for great thanksgiving, as the Apostle Paul said, “O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law: but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Corinthians 15:55-57).

Let every sinner therefore come to realize the sinfulness of sin, as it can be known by its punishment, death! Let us avoid all sin, as we would the plague. Holiness is much needed in the church, today. The sinfulness of professing Christians has brought great shame on the church, and the cause of Christ. Let us take a long look at the punishment for sin, the next time we are tempted.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 24, pp. 11-12
April 20, 1972

By Ray Ferris

Should We Limit Our Fellowship?

When we can agree that any meaningful “fellowship” first involves a fellowship with God, we are still faced with the problem of whether to fellowship one another on given occasions. We were told by brother. Ketcherside that there are only three bases upon which fellowship can be scripturally withheld from a fellow Christian: (1) Because of moral turpitude; (2) Teaching false doctrine; and (3) Factiousness (the heretic of Titus 3:10 in the KJV).

Expressions that were used in explaining moral turpitude caused me to wonder what stand might be taken regarding the man who sinned from time to time but would never make any effort to acknowledge the sin and seek forgiveness. There are some logical questions that might be asked also about all of the “factiousness” that exists among us, and Carl Ketcherside’s willingness to have “sweet loving fellowship” with any and all’of them! Are there none of them that have been, admonished a first and second time by Carl? Or is the matter of withdrawal only an option to exercise if we want to” do so? Paul said in Titus 3: 10 “Reject a factious man after a first and second ad monition.” Brother Ketcherside has convicted himself on this point by speaking of the many divisions that are unfounded, according to him, but he is still trying to have fellowship with any and all of them.

The Real Center of Discussion

The strong point of discussion centers on the point of false teaching (doctrine). According to Carl Ketcherside, it is possible to teach and practice a false worship (the use of mechanical instruments of music) and still be worthy of fellowship-even in the very sharing of the practice that is false. According to him it is possible to teach and practice unauthorized work and use unlawful organizations (you may take your choice of the activities of the Christian Church or the institutional crowd) and still be worthy of fellowship in the unauthorized practice. According to him one can teach and practice a false plan for saving one’s soul (sprinkling for baptism or baptism for the wrong purpose) and still be worthy of his fellowship because such a one is a “brother in prospect” and “a child of God!” His argument to defend this claim is based on an extension of the figure of a new birth to include any one who “believes” as one who has been conceived by the planting of the word and has just not yet been born – the delivery is to happen!

What About The Pious Unimmersed?

Is it indeed possible to be a child of God without having life? If one is alive spiritually what more can he desire? Truly this is a strange doctrine that is utterly unknown to the word of God. Redemption from sin (Eph. 1: 7), forgiveness of sin (Col. 1: 14), salvation (Acts 4: 12 and 2 Tim. 2: 10), reconciliation with God (Eph. 2:16 and 2 Cor. 5:19), being a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17), being a child of God (Gal. 3:26-27), being a part of the heritage (Eph. I: 11), having the seal of the spirit (Eph I – 13-14) so that one may receive the promises of God (2 Cor. 1: 20), and have eternal life require one to be in the Son, Jesus Christ (I John 5: 11), where every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places is to be found (Eph. 1:3). But baptism, which is a burial (Rom. 6:4; Col 2:12) in water (Acts 8:35-39, 10:47-48), is into Christ (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27) and into the body of Christ (I Cor. 12:13). Until one has been baptized into Christ he is still guilty of sin, and therefore is dead spiritually. Read again Ezek. 18:1-4; Rom. 6:23: and Eph. 2: 1ff.

It might be profitable to remember the language of Paul in 2 Cor. 6:14-18. “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership has righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, ‘I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore come out from their midst and be separate,’ says the Lord. ‘And do not touch what is unclean; and I will welcome you. And I will be a father to you’. And you shall be sons and daughters to me’ says the Lord Almighty.” (NASB)

Other Bases of Withdrawal

Notice that other points are emphasized in scripture regarding discipline that may lead to “disfellowship” beside these, three. In Matthew 18:15-17 the one who is guilty of a personal wrong is to be excluded from our fellowship, if he will not correct the wrong done. In 1 Cor. 5:9-11 we find an order to the disciples in Corinth not to “company with” brethren who are covetous, idolaters, or railers (revilers) as well as brethren who are fornicators, drunkards and extortionist. These terms do not all fit the neat little mold of moral turpitude, false doctrine and factiousness. Now along with that read again Gal. 5: 19-21 with particular emphasis to these expressions – idolatry, sorcery, enmities, jealousy, outbursts of anger, variance, emulations, wrath, and “those who practice such things.” (NASB) How can one claim to have “fellowship” with such things and/or those who practice them and be approved of God?

In 2 Thess. 3:6 Paul commands brethren in Thessalonica to “withdraw yourselves from (keep aloof from – NASB) every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the traditions which he received of us.” Thayer says the word ataktôs which is translated “disorderly” means disorderly and in its adjectival form means, “disorderly, out of ranks, (often so of soldiers); irregular, inordinate … deviating from the prescribed order or rule I Th. v. 14, cf. 2 Th – iii 6.” (Thayer Greek English Lexicon of The New Testament, by Joseph Henry Thayer, p. 83) Vine says, the adverbial form “signifies disorderly, with slackness (like soldiers not keeping rank), 2 Thess. 3:6; in ver. 11 it is said of those in the church who refused to work, and became busybodies (cp. I Tim. 5: 13).” He says the adjectival form “signifies not keeping order (a, negative, tasso, to put in order, arrange); it was especially a military term, denoting not keeping rank, insubordinate; it is used in I Thess. 5:14, describing certain church members who manifested an insubordinate spirit, whether by excitability or officiousness or idleness. See unruly” (An Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words, by W. E. & Vine, P. 320) In I Thess. 5:14 Paul instructs the brethren to warn these people and in 2 Thess. 3:6 he commands the faithful to withdraw themselves from (keep aloof from) these individuals. The doctrine of Carl Ketcherside is a flat denial of this teaching of Paul.

False Implications

There have doubtless been extreme and hasty actions among the Lord’s people on occasions in the severing of the ties of fellowship. Disciplining the unruly should always be with patience and love accompanied by prayer. Divisions into opposing factions must be only as a last resort. I make no defense of any individual who rushes to and fro in the land with a chip on either shoulder and spoiling for a fight with the brethren, or anyone else. But I respect and admire any Christian who will state his conviction, defend it with the truth in love, and stand alone with his God if necessary (and that isn’t very likely) in order to abide in that sincere conviction.

It seemed to be implied in the discussion that some of us had caused the divisions over the different areas of controversy. That implication is not true. Many have worked fruitfully and worshipped in peace with brethren who believed in almost every extreme of conservatism and liberality of views among us. But we will not be forced to practice what is without authority, and refuse to be restricted to views that bind where God has not. Such who have been immersed into Christ are brethren, and activities that do not involve us in teaching and practicing what is forbidden, violating the conscience or endorsing these things, can be shared. Beyond this we cannot go.

Jesus, Error and “The Fellowship”

As we have noted in these papers, brother Ketcherside seems to indicate that if one has come into covenant relationship with God, then we must have fellowship with him. He said our problems were in it and not of it.

As Jesus was teaching the Jews, who were in covenant relationship with God (Jno. 8:25-47), “many came to believe in Him.” These are the brethren of Jesus in the flesh and the covenant, and Carl Ketcherside’s “brethren in prospect.” As Jesus speaks to these “believing” Jews, He indicates true discipleship requires knowing and abiding in His word – the truth. In the conversation that follows, Jesus says He and they do not have the same Father. Note these words: “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father . . : He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” (NASB)

Even those in the covenant can conduct themselves in such a way as to give allegiance to the wrong father and are therefore unworthy of my close association, endorsement and fellowship.

Motives for Withholding Fellowship

An understanding of the true motives that must be involved in withdrawal, or withholding of fellowship, is of utmost importance. We are honoring the authority of Christ. Read again Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18; Matt. 28:18 and 2 Thess. 3:6. Then note these words: “And why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and so not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46, NASB)

We maintain the purity of the church (I Cor. 5:6, 7, 13). Brethren have respect for the Christian who will stand for his conviction (I Cor. 5:5 and I Tim. 5:20). The world will not respect a people who use a double standard, applying the message only to others (Rom. 2:17-29 and 2 Sam. 12:14). The Souls of men are involved, and a brother must be restored to his proper place of salvation if he has erred from the truth, but it must be done with meekness and fear (I Pet. 5:19-20; 1 Cor. 5:5 and Gal. 6:1).

It is most difficult to understand how this doctrine could be so attractive. But when one does not look at the scriptural implications too carefully, and listens to the strong affirmations of love that supposedly prompt it, then it could have an appeal to many. To love the Lord is to keep His commandments, and to love my brother is to discipline him when he is wrong.

God’s plan will work, and God will not hold me blameless if I try to work another plan.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 24, pp. 6-8
April 20, 1972

By Cecil Willis

It is obvious that the liberals in the Philippines are hurting badly. As the native, faithful Filipino preachers teach the truth among the liberals, serious inroads are being made into the liberal ranks. The liberals are fighting back, with every dirty tactic at their disposal. Many unethical and unchristian acts have been perpetrated by liberals in this country, but they could not “hold a light” for the viciousness and perfidy of the liberals in the Philippines. Particularly vicious have been the Americans who are working among the liberal Philippine churches. Were the liberals not hurting so badly, they would not be fighting with such despicable tactics.

In August, 1971 I wrote a personal letter to Eusebio M. Lacuata (whom J. T. Smith debated in the Philippines last summer). My letter was in answer to one from Brother Lacuata. The liberals in the Philippines have been led to believe that the liberal brethren in America have just driven us off the polemical platform. The truth of the matter is that a liberal in this country now has to be hemmed up before he will agree to debate, or get some kind of unfair advantage by unfairly worded propositions. Brother Lacuata wanted us to let him carry on a written debate in Truth Magazine. I responded that I would do so, if he would get one of the liberal American papers also to carry the debate.

In connection with this letter to Brother Lacuata, I mentioned that I had known Douglas Lecroy when he lived in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. Brother Lecroy is a liberal American missionary in the Philippines and is now the editor of their paper Philippine Christian, which apparently goes to all, or nearly all, of the churches in America.

In my reference to having known Brother Lecroy, I was guilty of a case of mistaken identity. The man I knew in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio was Douglas Lacourse. Approximately eight years had passed, and somehow I had confused Douglas Lecroy with Douglas Lacourse. I guess the similarity of the names caused me to confuse the two men. As soon as I learned that I had made the mistake, I wrote Brother Lecroy a letter of correction and an apology, and asked that he publish my letter of correction and apology in the Philippine Christian. I do not know whether he will see fit to do so or not, but since a lengthy reference (at least five pages were devoted to it) has been made to this mistake of mine in the Philippine Christian, and since at least that issue of the Philippine Christian must have gone to all the churches in America, I felt that some explanation of my error should also appear in Truth Magazine.

Brother Lecroy entitled his article about me, “Lying to Advance the Party Spirit.” In the paper, he stated, “I am pointing out that Cecil Willis has deliberately and callously lied about me.” Now the truth is, Brother Lecroy in that statement lied about me. I neither deliberately nor callously lied about him. I simply made an honest confusion of personages. There is no need to lie about the deeds of the liberal American missionaries in the Philippines. They have so high-handedly and viciously treated faithful brethren there that there is not the slightest need to lie about them, even if one were given to lying.

Brother Lecroy admits that he thought perhaps mine was “a case of mistaken identity,” but then goes on to say that “he and they are not afraid to lie.” He refers to me as “such a low character” that he is not surprised that the American liberals refuse to meet me in debate He comments, “It may be that he is just the type person who is needed to build up the conservatives churches in the United States. . .”

Then Brother Lecroy sets out to destroy the integrity and reputation of nearly every faithful brother in the Philippines. Though it might be difficult for brethren here to believe it, this has been the tactic of the liberals in the Philippines all along. They seek to destroy in any way possible any brother who disavows liberalism, and they have the means at their disposal (i.e., the Philippine Christian) through which to do it.

Brother Lecroy states, “After all, what the Filipino antis want is the money. . .” He further says, “I know and others know that in a country as impoverished as the Philippines is, many people can be persuaded through offers of U.S. dollar support.” He charges, “The antis do not only buy preachers in the Philippines: they buy them anywhere economic conditions are severely depressed. Thus their overseas successes are largely confined to nations which are in deep social trouble.” It would be interesting to have Brother Lecroy and other American liberal missionaries tell us what they are paid, while they live in the same impoverished economy. My guess is that his wages would support any six of the Filipino preachers, and then our American brother has the audacity to talk about someone preaching for money. By the way, Brother Lecroy, how much are you paid? Want to tell us?

The truth is a number of men have voluntarily and insistently given up their support because they were convinced it was being unscripturally received. Several of these men are not now receiving one cent from any faithful church in this country, nor has any support been promised to them. But this is just a devious device contrived by Brother Lecroy to try to destroy the reputation of the men who stand opposed to sponsoring-church-ism.

He charges that some of the preachers who are standing for the truth are “an attempted rapist,” “an ardent gambler,” “a sectarian preacher who lied to a group of people to get them to permit him to baptize them”, “another was so unethical that he was fired as a teacher from Philippine Bible College” and one who “could not even sell medicine and then deliver the products that had been paid for.” He concludes his vicious assault by saying, “Since the ocean is very near at hand here on Luzon, perhaps you anti preachers had better send your supporters in the U.S. a pound or so of salt. Maybe then they can swallow you up and keep you down as men who are faithful preachers of the risen Christ.”

You see what I mean when I said the liberal American missionaries are making vicious attacks upon the character of every man who has left their ranks? Several brethren who received this issue of the Philippine Christian have commented about the bitterness of the liberals’ attack. One young preacher called me merely to state that he was very upset to learn that any brother in Christ could react as viciously as did Brother Lecroy.

The brethren whom Brother Lecroy attacked so viciously and demeaning are completely competent to defend themselves, and Lecroy knows they are, or else he would meet some of them in debate, as he repeatedly has been challenged to do. I might just add in passing, that when I was in M’lang in the Philippines in 1970, Brother Bob Buchanan who was then editor of the Philippine Christian sent me word that he would not meet me in debate, and his messenger was no other than a half-drunk liberal Philippine preacher. I went to the store where this brother buys his wine, and the store owner verified to me that he was a regular customer. The liberal brother defends his action on the ground that if he drinks some wine beforehand, he can preach better. The liberals have advanced the “end justifies the means” argument until they could not logically answer their drinking brother.

For years the Philippine Bible College was operated by a confessed Sodomist. And it seems in this country, in order to be accepted as a reputable debater for the liberals, one needs to have been married at least twice! Now with such sordid messes among the liberals on both sides of the Pacific, I believe they should not begin their mud-slinging against every brother who takes a stand against liberalism.

I am sorry that I made the mistake of confusing two brethren. It embarrasses me much. I do not use deceitful tactics. The truth of God cannot be advanced by a lie. But I honestly confused two brethren, because of the similarity of their names and because of a lapse of memory occasioned by the passing of several years. But such an honest mistake as that is no justification for a bitter and vicious attack upon me and upon all faithful brethren in the Philippines. Such an attack merely indicates the desperation of the liberal cause in the Philippines. And I predict that the cause of liberalism is going to suffer other serious set-backs in the Philippines, as long as they make efforts to defend the indefensible by personal attacks on the level of those recently made by Brother Douglas Lecroy. I pity the cause that such a vicious attack would help.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 24, pp. 3-5
April 20, 1972