Truth Magazine

By Eugene Crawley

Some time ago this statement was made to in e in a conversation with a young man who was attending one of the “Christian Colleges” preparing to preach, and who had already been very active in the “Campaigns for Christ” and “Youth Rallies” which have become so prevalent. His description of these endeavors included such words as “tremendous,” “fabulous,” and “wonderful,” but not once did he use the term “scriptural.” Indeed these and many other things are “new to the brotherhood,” and are being readily accepted and promoted by not a few, especially those associated with the “Christian Colleges.”

It is my judgement that some, like this young man, are accepting these without ever stopping to consider whether or not they are in keeping with God’s will. They get so “carried away” with what they term “tremendous success,” “fabulous results,” and “wonderful response” that they conclude there has never been anything that has accomplished as much. Thus, they lose sight of the need for Scriptural authority. I am persuaded that some have no idea of how to go about determining whether or not a belief or practice is Scriptural. How pathetic for them to become so confused over seeming success; it cannot be true success because it is not based upon a “thus saith the Lord.” Just where has the Lord authorized such arrangements which bind together a number of local churches, and a multitude of workers from them in a combined drive like the “Campaigns for Christ” and “Youth Rallies”?

Certainly I agree that it. is “something new to the brotherhood.” It is also something new to God’s arrangement; but it is not new to the world; denominations have been having such for a number of years. The gospel needed as badly to be preached in the days of the apostles, but where do we have any record of their directing that such be formed to accomplish God’s purpose in proclaiming the gospel? Had such been needed, don’t you know that the apostles, directed by the Holy Spirit, could have, and would have, arranged for it?

God arranged for the local church to be the organization in and through which the gospel was to be preached (1 Tim. 3:15; Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:1-3), and early churches accepted and faithfully discharged this responsibility, and every other work He gave it to do (1 Thess. 1:8; Phil. 1:5; 4:15, 16). Faithful churches are content with God’s arrangement, and continue to do the same today.

Opposition to such unscriptural arrangements does not mean that one is opposed to preaching the gospel, edifying the church, or caring for the needy ones; but rather manifests love for the truth, respect for Scriptural authority, and the desire to see souls saved.

We need to recognize that things like these which are “new to the brotherhood” are indeed too new to be right. A thing must be as old as the New Testament, that message proclaimed by the inspired apostles. May we all take a more discerning look at that which is being done, and resolve to stand firmly for the “faith once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).

Such endeavors are “tremendous” departures from the New Testament, “wonderful” displays of ignorance of God’s word, and “fabulous” disrespect for Scriptural authority. Brethren, think!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 29, p. 466
July 24, 1980

 

By Steve Willis

It is about time again for the Great Uncover Up. It happens all over the United States, but I am particularly noticing it here in Florida. In fact it has been going on now for a couple of months. I am referring to the time of year when many people, including Christians, decide to go with the fashion of the world and uncover their bodies so that they can get the sun, or get into the swim – or whatever.

I know that this kind of dress is noticeable among men as well as women, but as a man, I notice it among the women. The fashion industries make little change in the men’s summer apparel, but it tries to make its great “advances” in the area of women’s swim wear and lounge wear. We might question the kind of advances that are made by the companies in light of the advances made by men toward women because of their clothes (or lack of them).

I am reminded of Adam and Eve and our minds’ pictures of them wearing their fig leaves. We read that they “sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings” (Gen. 3:7). They recognized their nakedness and their need to cover it up. Yet they were unsuccessful in their coverup, for God “made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them” (3:21). 1 wonder what God would make for some of His people if He were to meet them this summer?

I might remark here concerning the audience that I hope will read this article: I want fathers, husbands, wives, mothers, – men and women of all ages – to read this and cover themselves up or see that those in their family are dressing in the way that God would have His people dress. I say this because of an event that happened to me once. A lady was complaining of another young preacher’s exhortations to the church about covering up. She said, “Why, we are a bunch of old ladies; we don’t wear those kind of clothes. We don’t even look good in them.” It was not twenty minutes before I met her daughter. She came in wearing the miniest of mini-skirts, showing her – you guessed it -behind! That was not all! Ten minutes later, she was coming to lunch in her bikini. I could hear that lady saying, “We don’t need that kind of preaching.” Got the picture? I certainly did!

The admonition to a young preacher is: “Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith, purity, show yourself (notice Paul did not stop here) an example of those who believe” (1 Tim. 4:12). Note that word “purity” and see if you are able to reconcile it with the swim wear of today.

Wives were told that they could win their husbands in some cases by their “chaste” – not chased – “and respectful behavior” (1 Pet. 3:2). Women, beware that there are those whose eyes are “full of adultery” (2 Pet. 2:14); do not add wood to their burning passion. For this reason, the Great Uncover Up may be a matter of spiritual life or death. We might be instrumental in causing the death of others, and reduce our chances of gaining eternal life.

While you are making a sigh of relief by shedding some of those clothes, you may be making someone else merely sigh.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 29, p. 465
July 24, 1980

By Robert F. Hendrix

NOTE: (R.L. Kilpatrick, editor of Ensign (formerly Ensign Fair], recently organized one of W. Carl Katcherside’s Unity Forums in Huntsville, Alabama. A printed announcement gave this objective: “To open the avenues of communication between churches of the Restoration Movement, denominational churches, and individuals in the interest of Christian fellowship and brotherly love. ” The report filed here was made by Robert Hendrix, faithful preacher for the Gooch Lane Church of Christ near Huntsville. Often confused with another faithful preacher named Roger, Robert had done most of his preaching among churches in middle Tennessee and north Alabama.

Brother Hendrix is well qualified to analyze the current misnamed grace-unity movement. A fine son of his was tragically disturbed by the Ketcherside-Fudge doctrines and ended up forsaking the gospel of Christ entirely. Brother Hendrix said in a note accompanying his article, “If I had known this early in the game, I believe we could have had more success with helping him. ” This tragedy was unfolding during 1973 and was one of several such instances known to me personally which motivated me to publish reviews of Ed Fudge’s doctrines that year. To those who believe Truth Magazine `jumped the gun” and also dealt too harshly with the Fudge influence, let me say that for many like brother Hendrix’s son we acted too late and were overly patient. These latter are the faults, not those imputed by certain critics, for which I seek God’s mercy.

In his personal note, brother Hendrix added these comments on the Unity Forum: “At each session they served coffee and other free refreshments and overwhelmed everyone who attended with courtesy . . . this is what impresses those who are not spiritually minded and sets them up for converts – then to feed them with such hogwash as `do your own thing and you are still our brother’ keeps them hanging on. You would have believed that you were at a performance of the PTL Club by the way each session started, with Dr. Don Finto whooping it up with `praise the Lord’ exclamations, spontaneous singing, chanting of Scripture, hand clapping, closing eyes and singing, etc. Ed Fudge was there two nights along with . . . a few from Athens. It makes me terribly sad to see the deceit of the unknowing visitors taking place right before my eyes, for there are always some present who don’t know the right hand from the left. ” Brother Hendrix asked in one of the sessions if the man who had been lauding all the denominations thought that “the Lord planted the Methodist Church, Christian Church, etc., ” especially “in view of Matthew 15:13. ” He admitted that the answer is, “No. ” These comments accurately portray the technique of the so-called grace-unity movement. The unwary are subjected to a subtle combination of gushing courtesy, the popular do-your-own-thing philosophy, and an informal entertaining atmosphere which brings the worship of God down to the level of a high school pep rally. Ron Halbrook)

On the dates of April 15-17, 1980, brother W. Carl Ketcherside was featured in parlor “A” of the Von Braun Civic Center, in Huntsville, Alabama, in a “Christian Unity Forum.” As I sat listening, recording, and taking notes of what occurred in the 7:30 Tuesday and Thursday evening sessions, and listening and asking questions in the Wednesday and Thursday 9:30 morning “Open Forum Discussion” sessions, the words at the heading of this article came to my mind. From some of the notes I am now rereading about what went on this week in this “Christian Unity Forum,” the following line appears on my note pad, “I feel that the thrust of this forum is shouting, `Loose, Loose, Loose,’ and we can have unity among all of our brethren.” Regardless of the subject of any of the five sessions that were carried out this week, without exception this thought seemed to jump out and grab you! I do not believe as brother Ketcherside, the featured speaker, and Joe Black (minister of the Cahaba Valley Church of Christ, Birmingham, Alabama), master of ceremonies and panel member on Open Forum Discussion; Don Finto (minister of the Belmont Church of Christ, Nashville, Tennessee), song director for all features, and panel member; and Bud Plaster (pastor of the First Christian Church or Disciples of Christ, Jackson, South Carolina) panel member, that the solution to uniting the religious world today is to “loose where Jesus did not loose.”

At four of the five sessions which I attended (I missed the Wednesday 7:30 p.m. gathering), the thought was expressed and stressed that we “should love everybody,” “all of God’s children are in some kind of error” (none is perfect), and consequently there is “liberty in Christ,” so we should be “loose” in our thinking on whom we can fellowship.

Brethren, I believe in and stand whole heartedly for “losing where Jesus loosed.” I also believe and preach the other side of the coin; Jesus taught in the same connection with losing that the faithful should “bind whatsoever had been bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18). Paul charges that preachers should “reprove, rebuke, and exhort” (2 Tim. 4:2), and two-thirds of that charge is not loose, loose, and exhort! We had better be courageous and faithful to point out sin wherever it pops up, and condemn it, as well as encourage and exhort wherever the situation is worthy of it, and be sure that the authority for doing both is God’s Word rather than the “think-so’s” or beliefs and feelings” of men.

It was obvious that the leaders in this Christian Unity Forum as well as the majority of those in attendance (possibly 150-200 was the largest attendance at any one session) were of the following opinions: (1) The body of Christ is made up,’ of “baptized believers in Jesus Christ.” (2) These “Christians” are in every denomination and regardless of what name one wears (Christian, Methodist, Baptist, etc.) or whether he insists on using the instruments of music, and many other things, he should be considered a bother with whom we are in fellowship in serving Christ. In the 7:30 p.m. opening address, “The Fellowship of Life,” the featured speaker used the church at Corinth as an example of how Christians should be loose and feel free to fellowship just about everything. He said (and I quote from my tape), “Now just remember this, 1 Corinthians 1:9, God is faithful by whom ye were called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Now that was said to the church of Corinth, and the church at Corinth was a real doozie of a congregation. I want you to know that I have seen a lot of real congregations in my life that would rack your soul, but I have never in all the born days of my life, I have never seen one like Corinth. ” He went on in his great oratical style to expound on their being divided four ways over men, having lawsuits, believing in no resurrection, abusing the Lord’s supper, and practicing fornication and idolatry. His purpose was to leave the conclusion that we are entirely out of harmony with the scriptures to think we can’t fellowship just about everything and everyone today. This is the note on which the forum began and ended.

Brethren, let us not be taken by the smooth speech of men regardless of their supposed sincerity. God did not condone and fellowship those groups of sinful men in Corinth, neither will he do so in regard to the same sins today. He told the church to “. . . put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (1 Cor. 5:13). This clearly shows that those who refuse to repent after proper discipline – both instructive and corrective – are considered to be disorderly (2 Thess. 3:6), and with such, Christians are “not to eat” (1 Cor. 5:11). Yes, brethren, being as narrow as “truth” (Jn. 17:17) as well as “losing where God has loosed” is the basis of Christian Unity.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 28, pp. 459-460
July 17, 1980

By Ron Halbrook

Faith is exalted in Modern religion as a great benefit but the object of faith need not be true, it is argued. Hocking argued,

But with the conception of reverence for reverence we arrive at liberalism within religion.

At the same time, the principle of reverence for reverence establishes the liberal attitude toward the various religions of the world. Wherever there is worship, there is the living flame (Liberal Theology, p. 57).

All kinds of religion and worship embody “the living flame.” Faith can sidestep the question of absolute truth and still receive practical benefits – at least temporal benefits.

The exaltation of such groundless faith leads “inevitably to a bottomless skepticism which is the precursor of despair,” and the higher such faith is exalted “the greater will be the inevitable crash when the crash finally comes” (Machen, What Is Faith, pp. 174, 179). The Holy Spirit through Paul warned of just such a crash when men began to undermine the factual basis of New Testament promises. Notice especially the words we have emphasized in 1 Corinthians 15:12 and 16-19:

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

The only hope about which Modernism is sure is a temporal, material hope for goals on this earth. For instance, Washington Gladden was a classical spokesman for Liberalism and the Social Gospel. In his sermon on “The Incarnation,” he rejected the notion “that the work of Christ is to get people safely away from this world to heaven;” therefore Gladden sought instead “the Christianization of human society” (sermon reproduced in Robert T. Handy, The Social Gospel in America, see esp. pp. 160-1). That hope has been echoed again and again by American preachers under the influence of Modernism. The faith of Abraham when he “against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations” was not faithless faith (Rom. 4:18). Rather, it was the confident extension of a faith that was based upon the fact of God’s past dealings with Abraham. The Bible is not commending Abraham for a Modernist-type faith which might have said, “I enjoy the benefits of hoping to be the father of many nations, for the wish is a living flame of faith; of course, it is not necessary to believe that this promise will be literally fulfilled.” The immediate benefits of counterfeit money are the same as for genuine, but the more counterfeit currency a person spends the more misery he faces when he learns the truth.

Many people were surprised at the openness of Modernism to the Neo-Pentecostal or Charismatic movement of the 1960’s-70’s. Does this mean that Modernism has not conceded that the miracles of the New Testament were factual historical events? No, indeed. Such miracles as the virgin birth of Jesus, His raising of a man dead four days, His own bodily resurrection,, and His ascension to heaven are still viewed with indifference. The emphasis of the modern, so-called Pentecostal movement on inward experience attracts some Modernists. They have said all along that an inward experience is man’s encounter with God and the voice of authority in religion. The so-called gifts of the Spirit claimed by Charismatics, “speaking in tongues” above all, are intense personal experiences which appear to be self-validating to the individual. The emphasis is not on any miraculous historical event which can be recognized as such by friends and enemies alike (cf. Lk. 22:50-51; Jn. 11:47-48; Acts 4:16). The bridge which some have found between Modernist and Charismatic faiths is the authority of a religious experience, and not respect for Bible miracles as historical reality nor for Bible authority as an absolute standard.

The object of our faith must be true if faith is to have real value! Peter argued that the object of our faith “our Lord Jesus Christ” – was literally seen and heard in the miraculous events of his life. “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables” (2 Pet. 1:16-18). Symbolism and all figurative language is thrown out of court by historical events witnessed by the Apostles. They did not claim the authority of a subjective religious experience but the authority of Jesus Christ who literally and bodily rose from the dead (Matt. 16:13-21; chap. 28; Acts 1:3). When the object of faith becomes a matter of indifference, the faith itself becomes indifferent. To destroy faith in the facts of the life of Christ and then to proclaim faith in Christ is to maintain a contradictory, self-destructive, faithless faith. To expect the world to be converted to a faithless faith is certainly to expect a miracle of major proportions!

The Miracle of Faithless Faith at Work (Are Facts Essential to Christian Living?)

Modernists have claimed over and over that Christianity is a way of life not dependent upon propositional truth. A person can be a Christian and live as one whether or not he believes the statements made in Matthew 1 about the virgin birth of Jesus or those in chapter 28 about the bodily resurrection. To the contrary, the Christianity found in Scripture was “a way of life founded upon a message” (Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, p. 21). Without the gospel facts which were preached, there could be no promises and commands, no power to shape character, no basis for the unique way of life proclaimed. 1 Corinthians I S shows that the gospel is one piece of cloth – to pull one thread is to unravel the whole garment. The facts preached must be kept in memory or held fast, else all is lost (vs. 2). The hope, peace, love, joy, honesty, and goodness of the Christian life depend upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Christian graces of 2 Peter 1:5-11 depend upon the historical reality of miraculous events in the life of Jesus Christ, affirmed in verses 16-18.

Jesus was right in arguing that His words and works are inseparable. He pronounced a bedfast man’s sins forgiven, then healed him in order to prove that “the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins” (Matt. 9:1-8). When the Jews threatened to stone Him for claiming to be God’s Son, He challenged them saying, “For which of those works do ye stone me?” (referring to His miracles, Jn. 10:30-38). The Modernist professes admiration for the recorded words of Jesus, such as the Sermon on the Mount, while viewing His recorded works on a scale from contempt to indifference. Since Christianity is a way of life embodied in the words of Jesus, His works are nonessential to Christianity, we are told. Actually, even the words of Jesus are sifted by the Modernist in search of “general and permanent principles” shared by all world religions, and certified by experience. These generic principles are the true gospel hidden within the recorded one. These principles are litle more than humanistic values read into the teaching of Jesus.

Recorded words of Jesus treated as non-essential or nonauthentic are those which relate to the supernatural and to His claim of personal, Divine authority:

1. His claim to be the exclusive Savior (Jn. 8:24; 14:1-6).

2. His claim to Deity (Jn. 8:58).

3. His claim to be judge of all men (Jn. 12:48).

4. His claim to forgive sin (Matt. 9:2).

5. His claim to exclusive authority in religion (Matt. 28:18).

6. His appointment of the Apostles to reveal on earth what is bound and loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:19; 18:18).

Everything the Apostles said is sifted by the same screen all claims to the miraculous and to an exclusive, final, Divine revelation are thrown aside. So, not even the words of Jesus are honored unless they happen to agree with the preconceptions of Modernism. Truly, to reject His works is to manifest the spirit which will reject His words.

Modernism expects man to live by certain selected words of Christ and of His Apostles, yet destroys the credibility of the only record we have of those words. Only a miracle could sustain man in such living for any significant time when the foundation is destroyed. Ecumenical “church unions based on piety, sentiment, love of organization, or the simple urge for togetherness become not only live possibilities but appalling actualities” (Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology, p. 37). Ecumenical unions with all world religions can precede upon the same basis. Those who thus act on a faithless faith ultimately must face the question which thousands have already faced and answered by deserting Modernism and religion altogether. That question is, “if Christian faith reduces to humanistic values, then why bother with church membership” or religion at all? (Ibid., p. 33). The road from Modernism to secularistic humanism to moral anarchy leads in a straight line. Living faith in the facts of the gospel is essential for day to day Christian conduct.

Why Is Modernism Attractive?

Machen correctly identified the root idea of Modernism as “the denial of any entrance of the creative power of God (as distinguished from the ordinary course of nature) in connnection with the origin of Christianity” (Liberalism, p. 2). The proclaimed goal of Modernism is seductive. It claims to mediate Christianity to the modern world, an attractive aim. But, in the process, Liberalism relinquishes “everything distinctive of Christianity, so that what remains is in essentials only that same indefinite type of religious aspiration which was in the world before Christianity came upon the scene” (Ibid., p. 7). The miracles of the Bible are rejected because, we are told, modern man will not accept a gospel which includes supernatural claims. Soon the gospel is reduced to a jumble of platitudes which in practical application mean whatever any man wants them to mean. Modernism is nurtured by evolution, worship of science, and by the appeal of convenience. Modernism is the power of this world victorious over “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). Its success is explained by the Holy Spirit in 1 John 4:5: “They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.” Modernism attracts the worldly mind precisely because Modernism is capitulation to the worldly mind.

What was the appeal of Satan in the Garden of Eden when he wished to set aside the authority of God’s Word in Eve’s heart? Satan had her to think that the Word of God should not be treated as a legalistic barrier to that which is “good for food,” “pleasant to the eyes,” and “desired to make one wise” (Gen. 3:1-6). God’s law, His rule, His very Being must yield to human lust, human desire, human conquest. Modernism has its own intellectual and propositional content – such as the proposition that truth is not propositional – but its appeal is not simply to the intellect. The appearance of pride and intellectual arrogance remind us that Modernism appeals to man’s loves, emotions, aspirations, and aims.

The devices used in the Garden are still used in every worldly force and movement:

1 John 2:15-17 Power of the World

Love not the world, neither the things

that are in the world. If any man love

the world, the love of the Father is not

in him. For all that is in the world,

the lust of the flesh, and – Lust For Fleshly Experience

the lust of the eyes, and – Lust For Material Things

the pride of life, – Lust For Human Autonomy

Is not of the Father, but is of the world.

And the world passeth away, and the lust

thereof: but he that doeth the will of God

abideth forever.

Those who find that the will of God revealed in Scripture does not satisfy their yearning for things of the world can find satisfaction in Modernism, humanism, or complete moral anarchy. After the Earl of Rochester returned from infidelity, he confessed that his real problem had not been intellectual: “A bad heart, a bad heart is the great objection against the Holy Book” (Mistakes of Ingersoll and His Answers Complete, p. 40). Beneath the intellectual arguments lies an unwillingness to submit a man’s life to God’s revealed will, in many cases.

Does this mean that the power of the world is greater than the power of truth? No, John said that we may overcome the world “because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world” (1 Jn. 4:4). The power of truth is sufficient to overcome the world but all men do not love the truth. Jesus is the King of truth in the Kingdom of truth; He said, “Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice” On. 18:37). Yet, the person to whom He spoke, Pilate, would not hear Him; Pilate loved that which is of the world more than that which is “of the truth.”

Jesus said that His teaching came from God. “If any man will – i.e. wishes to (RH) – do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself (Jn. 7:16-17). Robert E.D. Clark pointed out in Conscious and Unconscious Sin (pp. 167-68) that there was a purpose in the teaching method of Jesus. “Knowing what was in man,” Jesus would

seek to convince people by an appeal to the mind until He knew that He had presented sufficient evidence, and that rationalization alone stopped that evidence being accepted. After that, a continued attempt to present evidence on the same lines would have caused greater and greater sin against the light. Naturally, He would therefore refuse to go on presenting it, and instead would make the greatest efforts to show people that they were rationalizing in the hope that they might realize what were the true reasons for their rejection of Himself.

We must recognize, Clark argued, that the strongest evidence which can be presented today still will not convert some men. Clark continued,

The point for us to decide is not whether the story of Christ’s resurrection is as rigidly provable as we could wish it to be, but whether, if it did conform to the standard we demand, we should instantly change our lives and be willing to forsake all for Christ, or whether we should promptly raise the required standard of evidence or find some other point to argue about . . . The Christian does not stand for a religion which can answer every objection the wit of man can raise, but for the teaching of Jesus Christ that all who are of the Truth find in Him their Savior, Lord and God (material by Clark from James D. Bales, How Can Ye Believe?, pp. 95-96).

In short, so long as there are men not hungering for truth but yearning to rationalize their own desires, there will be hearts prepared to accept Modernism. In many cases, it is not a question of the evidence presented but of the hearer’s will.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 28, pp. 455-458
July 17, 1980