Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

Church discipline is a much-neglected subject. In many places, a good lesson from the pulpit setting forth just exactly what the Bible says on the subject would be a great shock to those assembled. A failure to understand and practice corrective discipline has resulted in congregations being filled with half-converted, worldly minded, negligent people. This has robbed the church of its spiritual power, caused it to be looked upon with disdain by the world, and thus greatly hindered the spread of the gospel.

WHAT IS DISCIPLINE? Webster defines it as: 1. Treatment suited to a disciple or learner; education; development of the faculties by instruction and exercise; training. 2. Training to act in accordance with established rules. 3. Subjection to rule; submissiveness to order and control. 4. Severe training, corrective of faults, punishment. 5. Correction, chastisement, punishment inflicted by way of correction and training.” Church discipline would involve the whole process of training and development of the child of God in the performance of that which the word of God authorizes. The “established rules” in the case would be the teaching of the New Testament. Every Christian must be trained in that which he is to know and to be. He must learn to develop his skills in the pursuit of his duties. In Mt. 28:20 Jesus said those baptized were to be taught to “observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Titus 2:11-12 shows that the grace of God teaches us to “deny ungodliness and worldly lusts” and to live “soberly, righteously and godly in this present world.” 2 Tim. 3-16-17 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of (God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” As the Christian is instructed in these matters, he is being disciplined. From this standpoint, every Christian needs discipline. For this reason, we need Bible classes, gospel meetings, training programs and such like.

But while instructive discipline is needed, the New Testament also provides for corrective discipline. In the army, soldiers are expected to live by the rules. When they fail to do so, correction is meted out. In the church, God expects his people to “follow after holiness,” to “love not the world,” to “set their affections on things above.” Whenever one begins to walk contrary to the pattern of sound words that person needs to be corrected, and the New Testament provides for such correction.

PASSAGES TO CONSIDER: 1. Teachers of error are to be corrected. “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” (Rom. 16:17.) Notice that these are to be marked and avoided because they are not practicing the doctrine of God. Such action was designed to awaken the one in error to his condition and also to save the church from contamination. 2. The “unruly” are to be warned. (1 Thes. 5:14.) 3. True preaching includes reproving and rebuking. (2 Tim. 4:2.) 4. The ungodly are to be purged out. (I Cor. 5.) In this passage we have the account of a fornicator being countenanced in the church at Corinth. They had done nothing about it. This little leaven was in danger of leavening the whole lump, that is, defiling the whole congregation. For the protection of the church, something had to be done. Further, this action was to take place when the church was come together, that is, in the public assembly. They were to “purge out” this ungodly member. This was to be done not only for the safety of the church, but also for the good of the one who had sinned. It was for “the destruction of the flesh.” That is, the sins of lusts of the flesh to which the brother had succumbed. In the destruction of the flesh, there was the hope that his soul would be saved. In the same chapter Paul wrote, “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.” (Verse 11.) Then in verse 13 he said, “Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” Such as are described in this passage are to be purged out, no company is to be kept with them, not even to eating with them, and they are to be put away from among the brethren. Now, just how many congregations do you know of which are practicing what this passage enjoins?

5. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2 Thes. 3:6.) In this passage he deals especially with the brother who would not work, who was idle, and in his idleness had become a busybody. (See verse 11.) Paul said, “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” (Verses 14-15.) The word “disorderly” denotes a soldier who breaks rank. In this context, the soldier broke rank by violating what Paul wrote about working. Now, my question is this: if a man breaks rank and is disorderly, because he violates one thing required of him in his service to God, is he not equally disorderly when he violates some other plain requirement? For example, the Lord taught that Christians are not “to forsake the assembling” of themselves together. To do so is to sin. It is to break rank. I know of brethren who do not believe that a congregation can withdraw from a brother who has simply abandoned the church. Their argument is that you cannot withdraw something you don’t have. It is true that when a brother so conducts himself, he has broken fellowship with God and therefore has none with others who are in fellowship with God. But that same thing is true of a brother who commits adultery or drunkenness. He cuts off fellowship with God in such matters, and therefore has none with any who enjoy fellowship with God. It seems to me that part of this confusion has arisen over the use of the wrong term. We speak of “withdrawing fellowship,” whereas Paul said, “withdraw yourselves.” While a brother may abandon the church and thus cut off fellowship with God and the church, I have an obligation to mark him, note him, keep no company with him until he repents. I know of no more public sin that a man could commit than to just abandon the public meetings of the saints. What greater harm could be done the church in the eyes of the world, or with reference to the weaker members, than for a man so to do?

WHY IS IT NECESSARY? 1. It is necessary because the Lord required it. We cannot respect his authority without complying with what he said on this subject. Those who deny that corrective discipline does any good in all essence are denying that what the Lord required will do good. 2. Fulfilling what the Lord requires preserves the purity of the church. Of course, the church will not be kept absolutely pure, because it is composed of humans. But we are to “follow peace and holiness.” We are to “press toward the prize.” With this spirit in mind, one who stumbles along the way, will recognize his wrong, repent of it, and continue to press in the right direction. Paul said “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” The whole church is liable to be injured by the ungodliness of a corrupt member. l’aul said the word of a certain one would “eat as cloth a gangrene.” (2 Tim. 2:17.)

3. Such action is designed to save the one in error (I Cor. 5:5.) When the brother finds himself cut off from the company and recognition of the faithful, he may be brought to his senses. Corrective discipline should never be vindictive. The purpose as it concerns the erring brother is to save his soul, when all other efforts have failed.

It should be noted that the act of purging out the old leaven is not the first step in our efforts to reclaim a fallen brother, rather, the last resort. Such action should not be taken until all reasonable efforts to teach and persuade him have proved unsuccessful. Any brother overtaken in a fault is to be restored by the spiritual. (Gal. 6:1.) If any err from the truth, brethren are to seek to convert him from the error of his way and save his soul from death. (Jas. 5:19-20.) He is to be approached with meekness and dealt with in a longsuffering manner.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 1. Some say to withdraw from a brother simply “runs him off.” If he has conducted himself in such a fashion as to be purged out, having resisted all efforts to win him back, then you don’t run him off. He is away from God in his state. You simply let him know, the church as a unit does, and let the world know that you cannot endorse his manner of life.

2. I’ve heard brethren say, “Well, I never heard the old-timely preachers say anything about this.” Now, if you didn’t, that would only mean they failed to do their duty as preachers. 3. Sometimes brethren will object by misapplying the statement of the Lord, “Judge not that ye be not judged.” The kind of judgment involved in that verse is forbidden. It is harsh, unkind, and unreasonable. But other passages show, yea, require, that we exercise judgment in some matters in the church. Jesus said, “Judge righteous judgment.” (Jno. 7:24.) In 1 Cor. 6 Paul rebuked the church at Corinth because they had not judged in the case where one brother went to law with another, and he raised the question, “Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren7” (I Cor. 6:5.)

4. “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone,” some object. Certainly those enforcing corrective discipline should be striving to do right. Sometimes, when this statement is made, it indicates that there has been a wholesale neglect of discipline and that the church has become so corrupt that it would be hard to know where to start and where to stop. But if the statement, “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone” implies that we cannot ever purge out the old leaven, then God would have required something impossible.

5. Some say, “Withdrawing violates the parable of the tares.” In Mt. 13:24-30 we have the parable of the tares in which Jesus said that both the wheat and the chaff were to grow until the end of the world and the Lord would separate them. The idea some erroneously get from this is that if you withdraw from the chaff, you might uproot some of the wheat. In the first place, true disciples are devoted to the Lord and by reason of such devotion are interested in obeying his will. In the second place, this is a perversion of the lesson of the parable. In the same chapter, the Lord explained what he meant by the parable. He said, “The field is the world,” not the church. The good seed are the children of the kingdom and the evil seed are the children of the devil. Both saint and sinner are in the world. The children of the kingdom are not to undertake the business of administering discipline to the world, as some religions have been known to do. God will take care of that matter. This passage does not deal with two classes in the dhurdl, rather, with two classes in the world.

Brethren need to stop hunting for excuses from doing that which is their duty to do. If every congregation would properly tead1 and train the members and then correct those who do not heed the teaching, the church would be purer, its chastity would shine in radiance before the world, it would have a magnetic attraction to the toil worn sinner, the borders of the kingdom would be increased, and more than that, many of the fallen would be reclaimed to the salvation of their souls. May the Lord help us to do such a good job in instructive discipline that corrective discipline will seldom be necessary? Should such become necessary, let us not hesitate to fulfill our God-given responsibilities.

Truth Magazine VI, 9&10 pp. 1,4-5
June – July 1962

By Luther W. Martin

In our modern age of new religious doctrines, new medicines, new inventions, new chemicals, new habits a n d recreations, the scripture that is used as title for this article, needs to be stressed more than ever.

By inspiration, the Apostle Paul states: “…Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (I Cor. 6:19-20.) “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God ” (Rom. 12:1.)

In view of the above scriptures, man does not possess the right to abuse or harm his body, any more than he has any right in the sight of God to end his life. Judas committed suicide and we know from the scripture that he “went to his own place.” (See Acts 1:25.)

Surgeon General of the Public Health ServiceSpeaking for the United States Government in an article which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and is more recently copied in part in the Congressional Record, March 19, 1962, pages A-4141-42:

“The Public Health Service believes that the following statements are justified by studies to date:

1. The weight of evidence at present implicates smoking as the principle etiological factor in the increased incidence of lung cancer.

2. Cigarette smoking particularly is associated with an increased chance of developing lung cancer.

3. Stopping cigarette smoking even after long exposure is beneficial.

4. No method of treating tobacco or filtering the smoke has been demonstrated to be effective in materially reducing or eliminating the hazard of lung cancer.

5. The nonsmoker has a lower incidence of lung cancer than the smoker in all controlled studies, whether analyzed in terms of rural areas, urban regions, industrial occupations, or sex.

6. Persons who have never smoked at all –cigarettes, cigars, or pipe–have the best chance of escaping lung cancer.

Unless the use of tobacco can be made safe, the individual person’s risk of lung cancer can best be reduced by the elimination of smoking.”

Royal College of Physicians

Advertising Age, a trade journal published in the U. S.’ reported the findings of the British Royal College of Physicians on the matter of lung cancer and its causes, in its March 12, 1962 issue:

“London, March 7–The Royal College of Physicians claimed today that cigarette smoking is a- cause of lung cancer’ and urged the government to restrict tobacco advertising.

In a report (immediately labeled by the Tobacco Institute in the U.S. as ‘admittedly a review of old data without any new research findings’), the college proposed that tar and nicotine content be printed on each pack of cigarettes.

The medical committee, which drafted the report, was set up in April, 1959, to investigate smoking and atmospheric pollution in relation to lung cancer and other illnesses. Today, it reported that cigarette smoking is a cause of bronchitis as well as lung cancer and probably contributes to the development of coronary disease. It also might be partly responsible for tuberculosis morbidity and mortality in elderly men, and it has an adverse effect on the healing of ulcers, the report said.

Sir Robert Platt, president of the college, presented the report, which went on sale today. He said there is a ‘reluctance to believe the facts’ because big financial interests are involved

The report claimed that health hazards associated with cigarette smoking are so great that prompt preventative measures should be instituted. It proposed restricting advertising, further restricting tobacco sales to children, increasing cigarette taxes, and educating the public to the hazards of smoking.

It said that if cigarette smoking were to end, deaths from lung cancer would decline to some 10% or 20% of its present rate…”

Changing Times–The Kiplinger Magazine

The March, 1962 issue of Changing Times, gives a comprehensive report on the findings of current studies of the relationship between cigarette smoking and the incidence of lung cancer. We copy only a brief excerpt:

“In just one generation, lung cancer, which is fatal 9570 of the time, has changed from an uncommon disease to one that causes by far the largest number of cancer deaths among men. In 1930, there were only 2,500 deaths from lung cancer recorded in the United States; last year, 36,000 persons died of the disease; in 1962, it is predicted that there will be 45,000 new cases and 39,300 deaths.

At this rate, according to the American Public Health Association statistics, a million children now in school will die of lung cancer before they reach the age of 70.

More than a decade ago investigators began the search for the cause of the big increase in lung cancer. Since then, 28 separate studies have been conducted by

scientists in eight different countries. The findings, remarkably alike in result, all point to cigarette smoking as a prime culprit–probably THE prime culprit, though not the only one–in causing cancer of the lung…”

Conclusion

In view of the above quoted factual data, Christians cannot afford to engage in that which endangers their health or which without need or reason, shortens their lives. “But the man who has doubts–misgivings, an uneasy conscience — about eating, and then eats (perhaps because of you), stands condemned…” (Rom. 14: 23.)

Truth Magazine VI: 8, pp. 7-9
May 1962

By Ted Kele

Every person with a sense of spiritual values is interested in the answer to this question. One of the ways in which Satan operates to the discouragement, and ultimate destruction of some of the offspring of God is to raise doubts and fears about their souls’ safety. It is not unusual that this question should be asked.

To this question, God’s Word answers, “Yes.” The Father has not left His children to wonder in fear as to the condition of their souls before Him. “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” (Rom. 8:16,17.)

From the testimony of two witnesses, it may be ascertained whether or not one is a child, and thus an heir, of God. The two who give testimony are God’s Spirit, and the spirit of an individual. Notice that God’s Spirit “beareth witness with our spirit.” Rather than the Spirit bearing witness to our spirit (in which case there would be only one witness), God’s Spirit testifies with our spirit. And from the testimony given by these two witnesses, we know either that we are, or are not, the children of God.

Quite often a person will depend upon his feelings to assure him that he is redeemed. And when his feelings change, then he begins to doubt his salvation, and falls prey to temptation. However, this is not the Bible basis of the evidence of pardon. Firstly, because forgiveness of sins takes place in the mind of God, not in our bodily feelings. “Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.” (Heb. 10:15-17.

Since sins are remembered, or removed from, in the mind of God, one needs to know upon what conditions God has promised to forget sins. And if he has met these conditions then he will have the promise of God that God’s mind is clear from holding him henceforth guilty. “He is faithful that promised.” (Heb. 10:3.) Thus, one might be led by his feelings to conclude that he was God’s child, when in reality, God still remembered his sins and iniquities. Salvation takes place, not in our breasts, but in God’s mind. Second, feelings are based upon testimony–which may, or may not be correct. If we are sincerely misled by false testimony, our feelings will react nonetheless, according to the erroneous testimony. It was in this wise that Jacob was led to grieve exceedingly. Believing his son, Joseph, to be dead because of the misinformation gained from his other sons, Jacob “rent his clothes, and mourned for his son.” (Gen. 37:34.) He was sincere in the way he felt, but was sincerely misled! His feeling that Joseph had been devoured by an animal did not alter the actual circumstances. So it is today. An individual assured by some religious teacher that he has been saved, and believing this erroneous testimony, will feel good as a result of what he believes. But he has believed a falsehood. God yet remembers his sins. And unless he learns differently, he may go through life deceived. Yet, this same person may later come to doubt whether he was saved or not. And with the change in his beliefs, His feelings undergo a corresponding change–since he feels as he believes.

One may ask another, “How do you know that you are saved?” “By the way that I feel,” he replies. “How do you feel?” He answers, “I feel good.” “But,” the querist persists, “Why do you feel good?” Again the reply, “Because I know that I am saved!” This common approach to the vital question of the evidence of pardon is in reality but arguing in a circle. It proves nothing. It certainly cannot demonstrate in the light of God’s Word wheher one has been saved or not. “There is a way which seemeth right onto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Prov. 14:12; cf. 16:25.)

Can one know then that he is God’s child? Yes, two witnesses–God’s Spirit and man’s spirit–testify together to he assurance that one is a child of God. It is not a case of one witness, God’s Spirit, testifying alone to man. If then the evidence of pardon depends upon the agreement of the witness of both the spirit of man, and the Spirit of God, in what manner or way does God’s Spirit testify? In dreams? Visions? Still small voices?

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly.” (1 Tim. 4:1.) That which is to be understood from the Spirit’s testimony comes from what God’s Spirit has plainly said. But again, how does the Spirit speak? As His return to heaven approached, Jesus taught His apostles that the Spirit would be sent to them as a Comforter, Teacher, Revelator and Witness. “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.” (John 16:26.) “Nevertheless I tell you the truth, it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove (“convict,” A.S.V.) the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment, Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” (John 16: 7,8,13.) These statements by Jesus indicate that the Spirit would testify after His departure.

This witness of the Spirit was first delivered on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2.) On that day, sinners were convicted of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, by the Spirit’s testimony. (v. 37.) And how was this testimony delivered? Through the words preached by the inspired apostles! “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (v. 4.) “But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words, . . . Ye men of Israel, hear these words, . . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you . . . Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (vv. 14, 22, 29, 37.) Herein we hear the testimony of the Holy Spirit, in the words of the inspired apostles. This accurately fulfilled Jesus’ promise to them, “For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” (Matt. 10:20.) (Heb. 10:15-17; cf. Jer. 31:31ff.), and in Such was characteristic also of the inspired writers of the Old Testament. The writer of Hebrews quotes from the pen of Jeremiah (Heb. 10:15-17; cf. Jer. 31 31ff.), and in doing so, comments, “Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before…” How did the Spirit witness? Through the writing of Jeremiah! “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Pet. 1:21.) Therefore through the writings of the inspired men of the New Testament, the Holy Spirit bears witness which has to do with our assurance of our salvation. But man’s spirit must also offer testimony with God’s Spirit. How does the spirit of man do this?

The spirit of man bears witness as to what the individual has, or has not, done. This is a matter of consciousness known only to the person’s own spirit. “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?” (1 Cor. 2:11.)

As a result, when God’s Spirit testifies in the inspired writings as to what man must do in order to receive God’s grace, and the spirit of the individual testifies that he has met these conditions of grace, the joint testimony of the two witnesses assures the person of his salvation. This assurance brings hope and joy. Do you have this assurance?

Truth Magazine VI: 8, pp. 18-20
May 1962

By Leslie Diestelkamp

Most Christians today are perhaps aware that brother Carl Ketcherside, of St. Louis, Mo., has been throughout the last three decades one of the most able and most conservative gospel preachers in America. I do not imply by that statement that most of us agreed with him, but we had to recognize his ability and conviction. Many of the things for which he stood so firmly were true to God’s Book, though he did indeed become extreme in his domination of churches, in his disfellowshipping tactics and in some other ways. However, there has now been a big change and, though his former divisiveness was evil, his present position is worse! He has gone to the other extreme, and now in trying to make a dynamic plea for unity, he has espoused a cause that is good, but has completely abandoned the true principles of the New Testament regarding and regulating the unity of believers.

I have not been able to secure all of his recent writing but feel obligated to respond briefly to some that has been seen by me. This is done with the hope that it will cause many younger men who seem to be almost swallowed up in this new movement to re-evaluate their attitude and re-consider the contrast between the word of God and the new and fair words of brother Ketcherside. Brother Ketcherside carries his new plea to various people by means of speeches wherever he can secure an appointment, it seems, and also by means of his paper, “Mission Messenger.”

In his articles on unity, brother Ketcherside stresses, properly I think, that we should not withhold fellowship from people because we differ or disagree. However, he fails to deal with the problem regarding those who practice unscriptural things, and who, by so doing would involve us in such sin also if we participate with them.

Brother Ketcherside often writes now of the sectarian spirit which he used to have, and which he seems to think almost all Christians now have. He properly criticizes his own divisiveness of other years when he did not recognize as brethren those who disagreed with him. Anyone who has been familiar with his record knows that he did need badly to repent and reform his ways and his attitude of sectarian, dictatorial aloofness. Furthermore, it is good that all of us be warned against any such creedalism and bigotry. When differences exist, instead of immediately separating ourselves from all others, branding them as apostates and “disfellowshipping” everyone who doesn’t agree with us, we must exercise patience and toleration with all people, at the same time teaching, studying and reasoning together.

That Other Extreme

It is dearly apparent that brother Ketcherside, in advocating some splendid principles which had not previously been included in his life and work, now has gone completely, altogether, without reservation into another extreme which may well be more destructive to souls than his former divisiveness. He now goes so far as to beg and plead and urge for unity without identifying the Bible principles upon which that unity can be based. Toleration is his theme, and he begs for such, not only with regard to men but with regard to principles. The actual crux of his appeal is not only that we be patient with men in error, but that we be tolerant with the error they advocate and practice. He is critical of those who try to keep the letter of the law of Christ, and like former brethren Warren, Wilburn, Key, etc., who were making these same pleas ten years ago and more, he seems to think one can keep the spirit of the Lord’s word without complete obedience to what is written in the New Testament. The other men just named, and still others unnamed, were able to lead many honest, deluded souls after them into real modernism, and their influence, especially here in the north has been hard to overcome. No doubt brother Ketcherside’s powerful voice and potent pen will also cause many to wander into denominationalism and destruction.

Examples

On page 8, Vol. 24, No. 4, of “Mission Messenger,” brother Ketcherside indicates that the “design” of baptism should not divide people who differ about it. This is equal to saying that it doesn’t make much difference whether one believes that baptism is “for remission of sins” or that it is the duty of a Christian. But valid baptism must be by the authority of Christ (Ac. 2: 38; Ac. 19:1-5; Col. 3:17, etc.) If one is baptized, believing that he is a Christian and that baptism is his duty as a child of God, that baptism could not possibly be by the authority of Christ. We might as well argue that the “action” or the “element” makes no difference in baptism! If the design of baptism can be dismissed as so inconsequential, then immersion is also unimportant and water is not a necessity at all. Brother Ketcherside will surely agree, and in so doing, abandons the very principles of salvation.

Again, in “Mission Messenger,” Vol. 23, No. 3, page 3, brother Ketcherside says, “Every sincere person who believes that Jesus is the Messiah and God’s Son, who is immersed in water in the implementation of that faith, is God’s child. He is my brother. He is in fellowship, the same fellowship into which I have been called.” But many such people believe that they were saved while sitting on a stump in the woods, while kneeling at a mourner’s bench or while and when some other physical, emotional matter overwhelmed them. They do believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. They are then baptized “to follow the Lord.” But this is not the baptism Jesus authorized, it is not into Christ nor is it into “the one body.” (1 Cor. 12: 13.) A few years ago here in Chicago-land Roy Key advocated that if a person was sincere, and truly believed, we could not say he had not been obedient to Christ simply because he had not been immersed. Brother Ketcherside is still a step behind, but undoubtedly will soon openly also advocate this false doctrine that wil1 destroy the souls of men.

In Vol. 23, No. 6, pages 5 and 6, brother Ketcherside says, “I have never advocated fellowship with or between sects or sectaries, but with the Christians in all sects.” ” I conclude that I am in fellowship with every sincere baptized believer on the face of the earth.” But we must keep in mind that if children of God are in the sects, it is in spite of God’s word and not because of it. If they are there, it is in violation of that word and not in adherence to it. If they are in such they are also in jeopardy of losing their souls eternally. Christ did not die for a sect or party. He has never added a single soul to such. And, again remember that many, many sincere, baptized believers have never obeyed Peter’s command (Ac. 2:38) and they would deny that baptism had any part in their supposed salvation.

Brother Ketcherside argues that there is only one church in existence, for all the called of God” are added to it. Indeed, those who are called by the pure gospel and are obedient thereto are only and altogether added to that divine organism, Christ’s church. But we cannot deny that there are many churches. People have been “called of men” into human societies. Brother Ketcherside says that there can no more be many churches than there can be many Lords. True. However, there are indeed many, many lords (masters). Likewise there are many faiths, many baptisms, many hopes and even many gods. Truly there is one real Lord, faith, baptism, hope and God. In the same sense, there is only one true church. (Eph. 4:4-6.) (See also 1 Cor. 8:5-6.) Paul says there are gods many and lords many. Today we can say there are churches many. It is not possible, scripturally, to have fellowship with people in the many denominations simply because some children of God may have left the one true body to join themselves to a human society. Neither can we scripturally assume that denominational doctrines, even though they may be honestly believed, will ever make real Christians. Brother Ketcherside says man can no more create a church than he could create a God or the Holy Spirit. Indeed man cannot create a true church that belongs to Christ, but he can create one that belongs to men and that will lead souls to destruction, just as he can create a god that is after his own desires and that avails nothing but eternal ruin.

Brother Ketcherside says, “Division among the children of God is a sin, a work of the flesh.” (Vol. 24, No. 4, page 2, “Mission Messenger.”) He then properly emphasizes that we must not judge a brother, but must wait for Christ to render the judgment against those who go astray. This is indeed a proper emphasis. (Rom. 14:10.) However, the New Testament does teach us to do three things that are hardly mentioned by brother Ketcherside in his fervent over-emphasis upon unity (unity at almost any cost). (1) We must teach and practice true principles to the fullest of our ability without compromise. (2 Tim. 4:1-4; 2 Tim. 2:4.) (2) We must fight sin and false doctrine, openly and vigorously. (1 Tim. 4:1-4; Eph. 6:10-18.) (3) We must withdraw ourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly (2 Thes. 3:6) and we must “mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine” which was given by the Holy Spirit. (Rom. 16:17.) A fourth principle, equally important is that we must endeavor to maintain unity in spite of differing opinions. This one principle brother Ketcherside emphasizes effectively, but almost to the exclusion of the other three just mentioned herein.

Unity is a beautiful thing (Ps. 133:1), but unity in error makes no one right. If I am at peace with sin, it makes me a sinner. (Eph. 5:10, 11.) If I have fellowship with those who teach and practice error, I bid them “God speed” and am “partaker of his (their L. D.) evil deeds.” (2 Jn. 11.) Let us plead for unity upon a scriptural basis. Let us never abandon truth just in favor of unity.

Truth Magazine VI: 9&10, pp 2-4
June – July 1962