Truth Magazine

By David Edwin Harrell, Jr.,

Integrity, as most of us know, is a small, literate and generally good-humored magazine edited by Hoy Ledbetter in the interest of the liberated “party” in Church of Christ. In September, 1978, the magazine noted the publication of the booklet A Journey Toward Jesus as follows: “For a free copy of an interesting booklet, A Journey Toward Jesus, consisting of extended correspondence between Bruce Edwards arid Edward Fudge (formerly staff writers for Truth and. Gospel Guardian, but no longer tied to any party), send your personal request . . .” (p. 34).

I confess that there were several things about that announcement that struck me as curious. First, I was once again astonished by the prejudicial, condescending, self-righteous tone that usually characterizes such broad minded pronouncements. In the same issue of Integrity, Carl Ketcherside, the chief guru of liberated Church of Christers and a wonderfully humane human being, displays the same fine sense of moral superiority in an article entitled: “Freedom from Sectarianism.” He eloquently thanks God that he is not bitter, bigoted, factious, and petty as other men are. In his words: “Ever since God delivered me by His grace from the party spirit, 1 have been under the conviction that His people have not all been gathered into any one group. I was not only set free from a sect, but from the spirit which creates and condones all sects . . . I was driven to the Lord Jesus. I belong only to Him” (p. 42).

Granted that there are some theological questions at stake in such assertions. I have no objections to a man saying that he was wrong but learned better. I do that regularly. But such changes do not necessarily mean that I was formerly mean, vicious and ignorant and have now become virtuous, enlightened and brilliant. Change might mean exactly the opposite; in most cases one’s changes of mind probably do not signal any such dramatic personality reversals. In short, I find the smug arrogance of liberalism more and more offensive. I have been a political liberal for years but I have come to be embarrassed by the intolerance of many political liberals. I think the tenets of religious liberalism are wrong, but I understand where they come from, and I can discuss them with respect and reason. Generally most positions make some sense if one grants a few assumptions. But I find it increasingly difficult to abide the patronizing liberal who begins every pontifical assertion: “I used to be an ignorant, bigoted Church of Christ sectarian but since reaching my present state of advanced enlightenment I now ‘know that I ‘am supremely right in my present beliefs.” That reminds me of a fellow who once prayed: “God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican” (Luke 18:11).

Second, and more to the point, the assertion that Ed Fudge and Bruce Edwards were formerly “tied” to “parties” because of their associations with Truth Magazine and the Gospel Guadian is blatantly misleading. I think it is simply”false. I believe that both Ed and Bruce understood the plea for undenominational Christianity. I think they both ‘opposed “partyism” and would not have joined faction. In my opinion, that is the case with most of the people who read those journals. In many ways, conservative journals represent the restoration movement at its most unstructured level. They are more independent, less uniform and exercise relatively little power over churches. I like that, and I think that most conservatives have a good perspective on the importance of institutions. If Ed and Bruce did not understand undenominational Christianity, shame on them: A lot of us do.

Even more misleading is the implication that these two young men are now associated with more liberal spirits (Integrity, that is) and are no longer aligned with any party. Of course, whether or not one belongs to a party is largely a matter of attitude. It is not wrong to listen to Paul or Apollos or Cephas; it is wrong to form a party around them, (1 Cor. 1:10-15). While partyism in the restoration stream is clearest to me among the mainline institutional Churches of Christ, the followers of Carl Ketcherside and readers of Integrity are not far behind. They hold a strongly corporate view of “the restoration movement” and have none of the doctrinal reservations about institutions which restrict the possibilities for denominational growth among conservatives.

There are, no doubt, both conservatives and liberals in Churches of Christ who have “party” loyalties. But lnlegritv, and I suppose Ed Fudge and Bruce Edwards, are alienated from conservative Christians not because they have been liberated from party ties. Nor is it a matter of the advanced enlightenment of all liberals. Our differences are doctrinal and temperamental. I shall let the Lord decide whose mind is most enlightened and shall be content with the results.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 10, p. 162
March 8, 1979

By Dan Walters

There is a desire on the part of many religious people, including some members of the Lord’s church, to widen their circle of fellowship. There are understandable reasons for this. There is prestige in great numbers; many do not feel comfortable as members of a small minority, whether in society, politics, or religion. There is power in numbers; with increased resources, new and greater works can be undertaken. For instance, there are at least five congregations in Asheville, North Carolina which are known as churches of Christ. Not one is large. If all were united, a large and impressive building could be constructed, comparable to those of Baptist churches in the area. The church would be more visible to the public, and perhaps it would be easier to gain converts.

There is another reason why all Christians would desire to widen the circle of fellowship, if they could do so with God’s approval. Our desire is to see more people saved; we especially desire that our relatives and close friends be included among the saved. If we could consider them saved without the necessity of repentance on their part, which many of them cannot see the need of, it would bring us great happiness. This applies even more to our loved ones who have obeyed the same gospel that we have, and yet have gone into digression by obeying the doctrines and commandments of men in relation to the work and worship of the church. What could be more desirable than a totally reunited church of Christ, able to face the hosts of denominationalism with a new strength and dedication, unmarred by sectarian strife?

The denominational world is now engaged in a struggle over the widening of fellowship. Carl McIntire of the Bible Presbyterian Church is involved in a controversy with John R. Rice of the Baptist Church. Both men are fundamentalists. Rice is personally a deadly enemy of classical liberalism, of those who would deny the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Yet he continues to have religious fellowship with such apostates if he believes that they have been born again. McIntire says:

“Born-again men who live and worship in the apostasy, preaching from pulpits that are under the control of the United States Presbyterian Presbyteries of Methodist bishops, maintain membership, communion, fellowship with the Devil’s own angels of light. These born-again men are all right to work with on his platform, and in his campaigns, says Rice.”

McIntire can not see why Rice takes such a position, but he should understand that Rice is forced to such a position by his own Baptist doctrine of “the eternal security of the saints” or “once saved, always saved.” According to this doctrine, if one has been born again, there is no way that he can apostatize to such an extent that he will be lost. And if he is saved, and will go to heaven, then why not have fellowship with him on this earth?

The word “fellowship” can be used in more than one sense, of course, but we usually consider ourselves to have religious fellowship with those whom we believe are saved and bound for heaven, without a need or repentance. Some would take the position that since God alone is the judge, and He will make the determination as to who will be saved at the judgment, that we should just accept all who claim to be fellow Christians upon their word. Many would consider that this would be the kind, the considerate, the loving thing to do. To do otherwise, according to this view, would be to make ourselves judges and to condemn others to hell.

This viewpoint is not scriptural; neither is it logical. We know that there are many passages which tell us to warn the erring, attempt to restore the lost, avoid the teachers of false doctrine, and withdraw fellowship from the impenitent. But, leaving that aside for the moment, what is the consequence of widening the circle of fellowship beyond the limits of Scripture? What is the consequence far as it concerns our erring friends and neighbors? Is it really the loving thing to do?

If we accept the gospel plan of salvation as outlined in the New Testament, we know that those who have never obeyed that gospel are doomed to be lost. Likewise, if we reject the “once saved, always saved” doctrine, we know that many will depart from the faith, and that those who have departed will be lost unless they repent. Though it is a hard thing to tell a dear friend that the bible says that he is lost and bound for hell unless he repents, that is the only kind of message that can possibly motivate him to repentance and thus bring about his salvation. If his house were on fire, would we warn him to flee, even if this involved great inconvenience? If he were involved in a business arrangement with a confidence man, would we warn him again, lest he lose his life savings? By what logic then can we afford to hold our peace while he jeopardizes his immortal soul?

Only a true love of the scriptural variety, not a mushy, sentimental, modern love, will motivate us to act as watchmen and to warn our neighbors of impending disaster. To widen the circle of fellowship, without regard for the eternal consequences, would be an act of folly, of indifference, of unconcern, and, indeed, an act of cruelty. With this in mind, we must view with a jaundiced eye the efforts of some modern “unity” advocates to present themselves as apostles of love and compassion, was well as their attempt to brand the proponents of limited fellowship as hard and uncaring Pharisees. The circle of fellowship has been drawn by the God of heaven. Man widens it at his own peril.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 9, p. 156
March 1, 1979

By Dan Rogers

Brother Ron Halbrook has well observed that “false teachers, including the prime movers of the new unity movement, always want the luxury of immunity from public view” (Gospel Guardian, Vol. xxx, No. xvi, Nov., 1978, p. 11). They want to set forth their pernicious doctrines, spreading them throughout the brotherhood, and yet be unopposed as they do so. They demand the “freedom” to “subvert whole houses” (Tit. 1:11), but deny the right (duty) of faithful Christians to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 3) against them in efforts to stop their mouths from “teaching things which they ought not” (Tit. 1:11).

It is almost axiomatic that he who publically sets forth his views, whether orally or in written form, can expect those who disagree with him to speak out in refutation. If false teachers wish not to be publically exposed and opposed, then let them keep their false teachings to themselves! Needless to say, it is impossible to refute a false teacher, or to even know that an individual is a false teacher, if he remains silent, keeping his false teaching to himself. If a false teacher will not remain silent, and a false teacher will not, then let him take his medicine like a man when faithful brethren courageously oppose him with God’s word, rebuking him and marking him (Rom. 16:17) for what he is, a false teacher!

Of course, we realize that it is asking too much of false teachers to expect them to take their medicine like men. As the rebuttals against them begin to appear, they are quick to whine that they are greatly misunderstood by those in opposition to them. However, that is not the problem. The problem is that they are understood in what they are saying, and they know it!

When it becomes evident to them that their smoke screen of “I’m, misunderstood” is concealing nothing, the false teachers change their tactics and seek to put their opponents on the defensive by making wild charges against them. The actions of Brother Arnold Hardin aptly illustrate this. In the January 12, 1978 issue of Truth Magazine (Vol. xxii, No. 2, pp. 6-7), in which he was provided space to reply to Brother Mike Willis’s earlier editorial, “Has Arnold Hardin Left Us?” (cf. Vol. xxi, No. 47, pp. 3-7), Brother Hardin refers to the actions of those who oppose him and his doctrine as a “purge,” “legalism,” and “devilish.” More recently, in the October 29, 1978 issue of The Persuader (Vol. xiii, No. 7, p. 3), the bulletin published by the Scyene Road church of Christ in Dallas, Texas; and edited by Brother Hardin, he charges that those who write in opposition to him “falsely accuse” him and “know their misrepresentations are just that!” Does Brother Hardin hope that such unfounded assertions as these will help to silence those who oppose his error? He should know better! When the issues over institutionalism arose, its advocates were quick to brand those who opposed their unscriptural schemes as “anti’s,” “orphan haters,” and a host of other things. Those assertions did not deter God’s faithful from resisting that false doctrine, and Brother Hardin’s assertions will not deter God’s faithful from resisting his false doctrine! This, Brother Hardin also knows!

What then is the false teacher to do? Well, he could repent of his false teaching. However, frankly speaking, most will not. Or, he could cease publically setting forth his false doctrine. But, as we have already indicated, such a course of action is not likely. Remember, the false teacher’s problem is that he wants to publically make known his false doctrine, but he does not want those who disagree with him to publically refute what he teaches. The only possible solution to his problem is for the false teacher to continue to publicly set forth his error, while at the same time trying to keep it out of the hands of those who oppose what he teaches. Once again, the actions of Brother Hardin aptly illustrate this. In the previously cited issue of The Persuader, Brother Hardin quotes from an article by Brother Bill Cavender in which Brother Cavender charges that “Arnold Hardin refuses to send his bulletin to many faithful men.” As to this charge, Brother Hardin admits that Brother Cavender is “partially right.” He then continues:

We have had some men bent on controlling the conscience of brethren to write demanding we send the bulletin. The only way such men will ever read it is to scour the country until they find a copy some where! Others who have deliberately violated every code of honesty and fair play have been dropped! These have been few in number. But we will not hesitate to do so again whenever it happens!

Let us closely examine what Brother Hardin here states. First, he charges that “we have had some men bent on controlling the conscience of brethren,” referring to those who oppose what he teaches. The record needs to be set straight! Who is “bent on controlling the conscience of brethren,” those who want to see first-hand what Brother Hardin is writing and who are not afraid to publically refute him, or Brother Hardin, who wants the brethren to see only one side of the issue, his, without refutation of it?

Secondly, Brother Hardin states that some of his opponents have written “demanding we send the bulletin.” Brother Hardin here makes a claim without giving any proof to back it up. And, until he proves differently, this writer goes on record as doubting the validity of Brother Hardin’s claim. It is likely much more correct to say that brethren who oppose what Brother Hardin teaches have written requesting to be placed on the mailing list for his bulletin. However, Brother Hardin, knowing that they will write in opposition to what he teaches, has refused to send it to them, entertaining the hope that even if they “scour the country” looking for copies of it, very few will be successful in their efforts, and thus will not be able to write in refutation of him, therefore cutting down the amount of opposition that he has to face. To say that faithful brethren have written “demanding” that the bulletin be sent to them is simply an emotional appeal to the rebellious nature of man, who reacts against “demands,” and is a statement designed to gain sympathy.

Thirdly, Brother Hardin charges that “others who have deliberately violated every code of honesty and fair play have been dropped!” What he is actually saying here is that those who have written in opposition to his teaching have been dropped from the mailing list, with his idea being, “If they don’t know what I’m saying, they can’t continue their opposition to me.” These brethren whose names have been dropped from the mailing list for his bulletin are not guilty of violating “every code of honesty and fair play.” The only thing they are “guilty” of is earnestly contending for the faith (Jude 3) against his false teaching!

Finally, Brother Hardin, in reference to dropping names from his mailing list and refusing to send them his bulletin, states, “But we will not hesitate to do so again whenever it happens!” Here, he gives all fair warning. He will not tolerate opposition! If you are on his mailing list, and you write in opposition to him, you will be dropped “like a hot potatoe” from it. Just here, a quote from the pen of Brother Mike Willis is appropriate. He states:

The truth of the matter is this: a man who is willing to publically reply to Brother Hardin has trouble even getting on his mailing list, much less having an opportunity to reply to him! According to reports which I have heard, Brother Hardin will purge your name from his mailing list when you begin to reply to him in a public manner” (Truth Magazine, Vol. xxii, No. 2, p. 5).

How does Brother Hardin justify his actions? He states that by their continued opposition “it becomes evident that to send the bulletin to such (i.e., those who oppose his teaching, D.R.) is casting pearls before swine – and our Lord has instructed us not to do so!” (p. 3). This brings us to the little chosen for this article. Up to now, you have no doubt been wondering what the title of this article has to do with the article. Well, Brother Hardin thinks that those who oppose what he teaches are swine! He “justifies” himself in not sending his bulletins to his opponents because that would be like casting “pearls” before “swine,” with “pearls” referring to how he characterizes his teachings. I am writing this article in opposition to what Brother Hardin teaches and am openly calling him a false teacher. Thus, I guess, in his estimation, that makes me a swine. However, let me hasten to add that Brother Hardin is wrong in his description of what he teaches in calling it “pearls.” Since he brought up “swine,” let me point out that perhaps a better description of what he teaches would be “swill” (or as Webster defines it, “garbage”). Since Brother Hardin is wrong about what he calls “pearls,” there is good reason to think that he could be wrong about those he calls “swine!”

Oh yes, one final question and then I’ll put down my pen. Does this article mean that I will not be getting The Persuader any more? I will be sure to let you know!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 9, pp. 154-155
March 1, 1979

By Irvin Himmel

Peter’s sermon on Petecost is reported in Acts 2, Verse 40 says, “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” Obviously, there is some sense in which people can save themselves. Let us reflect briefly on the question, What can one do to save himself?

1. He cannot devise a plan of his own. The Bible is very clear in stating that an individual is not at liberty to work out his own little scheme of redemption. Long before the advent of the Messiah, Jeremiah the prophet said, “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23).

Although man is free to make his own choices, he cannot direct his course so as to save his soul without yielding to the will of God for the following reasons: (1) Man as the creature is dependent upon God the Creature is dependent upon God the Creator. (2) The sinner is powerless to atone for his own sins. (3) Without revelation from God man would never come to know God, and there are many facts about himself that man could never know. (4) Men who have followed their own wisdom invariably have plunged deeper and deeper into sin. (5) Unlike birds that travel great distances by instinct; man is not programmed by nature with intuition by which he may safely guide his soul.

2. He cannot merit salvation by good deeds. Some folks seem to have the idea that if they are morally upright God will save them by virtue of their goodness. Others seem to think that righteous acts will somehow compensate for their wrongs and God will reward them. To all such people obedience to the gospel is viewed as needless.

The New Testament says, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Tit. 3:5). Paul reminded Timothy that God “hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, nor according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus~before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:9, 10). Salvation is God’s free gift, not something that man earns or deserves.

3. Some say he can do nothing. There are religious people who teach that there is no way whatever in which man can save himself. They want us to believe that God predestinated certain individuals to life and certain others to death, and that this choice was made arbitrarily before to the foundation of the world, therefore man is powerless to do anything in any sense to save himself. According to this theory, one must wait for a special divine call that comes through a direct operation of the Holy Spirit to know that he is one of God’s elect. If he never receives such a call, that person is doomed to eternal perdition.

The Bible affirms that there are certain things that man can do and must do to be saved. God does for man what man cannot do for himself, then God requires man to believe and obey Jesus Christ. To say that man can do absolutely nothing would make God directly reponsible for every soul that is lost!

4. To save himself one can:

(a) Apply God’s word. This is what Peter was talking about in Acts 2:40. He had just preached to his hearers about Jesus’ being both Lord and Christ. “What shall we do?” was their question now that they realized their lost condition. “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). Note that they were told to repent. This was something required. They were told to be baptized. This, too, was set before them as a gospel requirement. Then came the exhortation, “Save yourselves from this untoward (perverse) generation.” By repenting of their sins and being baptized for the remission of their sins they would be saved from the eternal fate that awaited the masses of perverse men and women in that generation. Verse 41 says, “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized . . .” Every sinner can and must believe and apply the gospel to himself.

(b) Give attention to stedfastness. Paul wrote to the Philippians, “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). Compare this with the statement of Phil. 1:27 in which he told them to “stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.” Paul was writing to people who had already obeyed the gospel, but their eternal security depended on their continuing to stand fast in the faith. We work out our own salvation by holding to the faith through which God preserves us (1 Pet. 1:5).

(c) Take heed. Timothy was instructed, “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine: continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (1 Tim. 4:16). The child of God must take heed to his life to be saved in heave (I Cor. 10:12; Heb.2:1; 3:12).

In summation, an individual cannot save himself in some ways of looking at it, yet in another sense he can and must save himself. God acts upon us through the gospel, and we must act in response to be saved.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 9, p. 153
March 1, 1979