Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Last week, I gave somewhat of an update regarding imputed righteousness with reference to some of the reviews which R. L. Kilpatrick, editor of Ensign Fair, has been giving to my articles on imputation. Brother Arnold Hardin has written just as voluminously in the bulletin published by the Scyene Road Church of Christ in Dallas, Texas. As a matter of fact, of the number of issues which have been written since the first of the year, more of them have reviewed my material or commented about Truth Magazine than have not mentioned something to do with us. I have patiently withheld making a reply to Brother Hardin lest we allow this paper to degenerate into endless harangues with brethren. Now, it is time to say something else about the matter.

Proposition For Debate Ignored

In the last issue of my exchange with Brother Hardin, I proposed that we engage in either a written discussion to be concurrently published in a paper sympathetic to his cause and in Truth Magazine or an oral discussion. Though some have criticized me for demanding that a written discussion be carried in some other paper at the same time that it runs in Truth Magazine, I still demand that it be done. Brother Hardin is so identical in belief with Brother Kilpatrick that I see no reason why Engisn Fair could not carry that exchange. However, if no one will endorse Brother Hardin, let us engage in an oral debate on imputed righteousness in Dallas, Texas. I am perfectly willing to see the issue further discussed. Brother Hardin, are you willing to meet on these propositions:

Resolved: The perfect obedience of Jesus Christ is imputed to the believer so that sins of the weakness of the flesh and ignorant sins are automatically covered.

Affirm: Arnold Hardin Deny: Mike Willis

Resolved: The doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account is unscriptural.

Affirm: Mike Willis Deny: Arnold Hardin

Or, had you rather continue to harangue in your bulletin, quoting Calvinist commentaries (and some non-Calvinist), without giving a man the opportunity to respond to what you teach? If you are as interested in the propagation of truth as you say that you are, you would have agreed to a discussion when I proposed it last January. Frankly, I do not believe that you are willing to see an open discussion of the subject in the Dallas area.

Evidences Considered

Brother Arnold Hardin has used only one passage to teach the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to the believer’s account since the first of January (after my review of his material) so far as I can determine. That passage is Romans 3:22. This passage reads as follows: “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.” The critical point of this verse is “by faith of Jesus Christ” (dia pisteos lesou Christou), whether it should be interpreted subjectively or objectively. By interpreting “by faith of Jesus Christ” subjectively, this phrase is interpreted to refer to the faith which Jesus had. By interpreting the phrase objectively, the phrase refers to man’s faith with Jesus as its object.

Hardin accepts the former interpretation (the subjective genitive) and quoted Burton Coffman as evidence that this was so. That position states that Jesus’ faithfulness to God is the means through which we are justified. Since I do not have Coffman’s commentary on Romans, I shall quote Hardin’s citation of it:

The aforegoing verses are the theme of Romans; it is the doctrine of salvation “in Christ”. The resolution of the problem of how God can make men righteous is determined thus: God himself, in the person of Christ, entered our earth life, lived the absolutely perfect life, fulfilling all the law of God, and paying the penalty of all sin through death upon the cross. Through God’s regard for the perfect righteousness of Christ, called by Paul “the faith of Christ,” a descendant of Adam, through perfect union with and identification with Christ, can receive the benefits of Christ’s righteousness (the righteousness of God) as his own, not while retaining his identity as a sinner, but upon the condition of his dying to himself, clothing himself with Christ, even taking his name, and being faithful to that new identity “in Christ”. The righteousness which God, by such a device, “imputes” to men is no mystery or magical byproduct of sinner’s faith, but is a bona fide, honest-to-goodness righteousness that was lived and wrought by Jesus Christ upon this earth; and all who receive it shall not be able to do so within the perimeter of their own identity, but only through their identity and union with Christ (The Persuader, March, 19, 1978).

The idea expressed is that the righteousness of Christ, His perfect obedience, becomes that of the believer.

However, most reputable Greek scholars treat this verse as the objective genitive (see A. T. Robertson’s A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 500 and Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 346). The rendering should be “through faith in Jesus Christ” according to this excellent student of the Greek language. This has been rather universally accepted among students of the Greek as manifested by the fact that all of the following translations render dia piatoeoa Jesou Christou as “through faith in Jesus Christ”: Revised Version, American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New International Version, New American Standard Bible, F. F. Bruce’s Expanded Paraphrase. Hence, the phrase in Rom. 3:22 does not offer any support for the idea that the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ is imputed to the believer’s account.

Though Brother Hardin has sputtered around and complained through many issues of The Persuader about the treatment he has received in Truth Magazine, the fact is that he has not yet cited the passage which shows that the perfect obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer’s account so that God sees the perfect obedience of Jesus rather than the wavering faith of a Christian. Brother Hardin, will you please send me the passage which proves that doctrine? I will be delighted to examine it as carefully as I can. I have searched through the past issues of The Persuader and your comments on Rom. 3:22 are the closest that I can come to finding a scriptural defense of the doctrine. You have not examined my replies to your heresy; instead, you sputter around about how badly you have been treated. We want scriptures not excuses!

Mutual Admiration Society

As I read the bulletin of Brother Hardin, he frequently refers to something some “respected” (by whom?) brother had to say which agrees with him. I have begun to notice the mutual admiration society which occurs among the heretics which have departed from the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For example, Brother Hardin writes about Brother Kilpatrick as follows:

We wish now to quote from the May issue of Ensign Fair edited by R. L. Kilpatrick. It is published in Huntsville, AL. 35801, 2710 Day Rd. It is the most stimulating magazine published by brethren. It will challenge you to think though you will not always agree with each and everything written-but why should you concerning any paper? We highly recommend it for study and enlightenment (The Persuader, May 28, 1978).

Earlier, Brother Kilpatrick had already patted Arnold on the back. Here is what he wrote:

In the December issue of Truth Magazine, edited by Mike Willis, this editor has formally charged Bro. Arnold Hardin (editor of the Persuader) with heresy for teaching exactly what we have taught in this editorial. I have been reading Bro. Hardin for more than a year on these above subjects and as far as I can tell we have the same understanding on the subjects of grace and the imputation of righteousness (The Ensign Fair, Vol. V, No. 10, February, 1978).

I would have to agree with Brother Kilpatrick that I cannot see a dime’s worth of difference in the position of either one of them. I am equally opposed to each of them! However, Kilpatrick assessed Arnold’s position correctly so far as his having departed from what he once believed as he wrote as follows:

The only thing Bro. Hardin is guilty of is learning too much! He has simply studied himself out of the narrow confines of this particular segment of the church (non-cooperative), and they have turned on him with such ferocity that it doesn’t seem possible that it could come from those claiming to love the Lord! (Ibid.).

Brother Kilpatrick recognized where Arnold stands! However, Arnold did not seem nearly so upset when Brother Kilpatrick stated that he has left us as he did when I said the same thing. Wonder why?

Brother Wright Randolph exposed Bruce Edward’s position as stated in A Journey Toward Jesus in Gospel Truths, edited by J. T. Smith. Who do you think wrote condemningly of Brother Randolph for exposing Bruce? None other than Arnold Hardin and Edward Fudge! These men applaud each other, encourage each other, and defend each other because they are all spewing forth the same kind of poison.

Arnold Hardin On Instrumental Music

I hesitate to charge a man with believing something that he may not believe so rather than making any comments, I shall just reproduce Arnold’s comments from “Good Old Fashion Honesty” from the May 14, 1978 issue of The Persuader. Here is what he wrote:

Things “stranger than fiction” continue. Whenever brethren disagree in their understanding of truth someone is heard to charge — “They do not respect divine authority.” Rarely are such human judgments correct though to be sure every generation produces such characters. But we believe that the automatic use of such a charge is being dishonest. One reads not far until such charges are made relative to those using instruments of music. (Wait! Don’t read into that your conclusion that I am now advocating such things!) I’m just simply telling “it like it is.” (Excuse me, Mr. Cossel.) Honestly being mistaken about a matter is a far cry from being void of respect for divine authority. If such be not the case then only those among us who understand everything will be exempt.

Brethren, you can draw your own conclusions from this statement. Neither Leroy Garrett nor Carl Ketcherside could have stated it better. You do not need my help to let you see from which direction Brother Hardin is coming.

The Place of Faith

Brother Hardin has been writing considerably about brethren teaching that faith is a work of human merit. So far as I have been able to read, most brethren (there might be an isolated case here and there of a brother who teaches otherwise) teach that faith is a condition for receiving grace and not the grounds for receiving God’s grace. Yet, Brother Hardin would have us to believe that on every hand, men are teaching that one can earn his salvation through human works. On April 30, 1978, Hardin wrote, “Brethren everywhere are turning faith into a work (under a law system) and making it not the instrument, but the ground of justification.” Brethren, have you noticed that “brethren everywhere” are turning faith into a work whereby men earn their salvation? I must confess that I have not read that. Perhaps Brother Hardin’s concept of faith differs from ours in this regard. Brother Hardin, does preaching that faith is a condition for receiving salvation result in one preaching salvation through works? We are anxious to find out the answer to this question. Too, please give us the sources from which you are quoting when you say that brethren everywhere are making faith a work for salvation through a law system. I want to know who has been teaching that in what paper on what date. Documentation please! Remember, a citation of an isolated case does not prove “brethren everywhere”!

Conclusion

I must confess that I am not too optimistic about seeing the answers which I have requested or seeing a debate arranged in Dallas to discuss these issues. I think that Brother Hardin had rather spew and sputter around about these matters in his local bulletin than to have an honorable discussion of them. However, we will keep brethren informed about the matter. Brethren, remember the propositions which we have offered to discuss with Brother Hardin the next time you hear someone maligning me about the manner in which this discussion has been handled.

Truth Magazine XXII: 37, pp. 595-597
September 21, 1978

By Dorris V. Rader

A debate between Carrol R. Sutton and Ray Hawk, involving churches contributing to “Benevolent Organizations,” was held in Hobart, Indiana in the buildings of the Hobart and Lake Station churches. This discussion was originally scheduled between Gilbert W. Holt and Ray Hawk. Upon the death of brother Holt, it was arranged for brother Sutton to do the debating.

In my judgment, the spirit which prevailed throughout the debate was above reproach. Brother Hiram Hutto served as Sutton’s moderator and Jim Bullington served as Hawk’s moderator. They had little to do as far as keeping order was concerned and all connected with the debate are to be commended. It was one of the best along that line I have attended.

The first two nights Sutton affirmed the following:

“The Scriptures teach that the church may arrange, oversee and provide the needs for those who are its obligation in the field of benevolence, and this arrangement is not a benevolent organization (institution) such as Paragould Children’s Home, Shultz-Lewis Children’s Home, and Homes for the Aged.”

Brother Sutton was well prepared. He showed from 1 Tim. 5:16 that the church is told to “relieve” and that it is not an issue of “how” in the sense of means and methods. He showed that the “benevolent organizations” such as those in the proposition do not constitute a “how” (means or method) but another organization. Hawk complained and wanted more passages. He tried to blunt the force of Sutton’s argumentation by presenting a chart that had Sutton versus this man or that on a variety of subjects not involved in the proposition. He stated that if Sutton could fellowship these men and disagree he should be able to fellowship those who supported benevolent institutions. In the first place, most of what he offered on the chart was false assumptions and did not correctly represent all the ones involved. None of it had anything to do with the discussion at hand, and this was turned right back on Hawk as Sutton showed “Hawk Versus” various ones on whether these institutions are human or divine. At one point, Hawk argued that we really believe the same thing on this question, and it is just a matter of semantics.

At one point Hawk mentioned a ten year old orphan boy who is a Christian and asked Sutton a number of questions about the arrangement he would have for providing for him. In the course of his illustration, he asked Sutton who would diaper the boy. This was amusing to Sutton and the audience especially since Hawk had just accused Sutton of “running scared.”

Hawk contended that Sutton was obligated to give a name and details to the “arrangement,” for providing the care by the church. Yet, Hawk admitted that if he were to be called on in similar fashion to give details for the church carrying out her obligation in preaching, he would simply cite Matthew 28:19-20. It was not sufficient, though, for Sutton to give 1 Tim. 5:16 which tells the church to relieve. He wanted Sutton to go beyond and bind details.

On Wednesday night brother Hawk affirmed, “The Scriptures teach that churches of Christ may contribute (transmit money) to orphan’s homes such as the Pargould Children’s home, Shults-Lewis Children’s Home, and Homes for the Aged.”

Brother Hawk spoke approximately 15 minutes of his first 20 minute speech without offering anything of of an affirmative nature. He talked about “Sutton’s Admissions.” The chart should have been labeled “Hawk’s assumptions” for they were more his assumptions than Sutton’s admissions. But, if all of that had been admitted by Sutton, it would still fall short of proving Hawk’s proposition. Finally, Hawk offered 1 Tim. 5:16 as proof of his proposition. He claimed it is all right there in that passage. He offered a number of charts all claiming 1 Tim. 5:16 as his proof text. In all of them he confused who, and how, and he confused buying services with making contributions. Sutton presented a letter from Hawk to a brother in which Hawk showed he knows there is a difference, and yet he certainly confused it in this debate.

On Monday night, Sutton asked the following question! “Do you believe the following proposition: `The Scriptures teach the church may arrange, oversee and provide for the preaching of the gospel and this arrangement is not an evangelistic organization (institution) such as the United Christian Missionary Society’?” Brother Hawk replied, “no” and promised to explain later. On Wednesday night Sutton asked the same question, and this time Hawk replied, “Yes.” Sutton pressed Hawk to tell us about this predicament. Hawk finally said in effect, “I don’t know why I answered both ways. I don’t have to explain. Which ever one is correct is what I meant.” The debate closed and we never learned from him which was correct or which he meant.

Hopefully, this debate will be put into print. I understand that arrangements have been signed to permit printing it. I would suggest you get a copy of it if and when it becomes available.

Truth Magazine XXII: 36, pp. 586-587
September 14, 1978

By Dan Walters

In regard to Brother Jeffery Kingry’s review (June 22) of my review (March 2) of an initial article of his on poverty (Sept. 15, 1977), I shall first deal with his arguments and then with his personal attack on me. Brother Kingry maintains that since he was not writing on the welfare system, I should not have brought it up. In fact he attacked the slogan, “I fight poverty-I work,” and the songs and jokes about the “welfare Cadillac” as examples of a wrong attitude toward the poor. Surely Brother Kingry is aware that the first slogan was a direct reaction to the late President Johnson’s War on Poverty; the latter slogan is a reaction to welfare abuse. By attacking these slogans, he implied that we should not ridicule the wasteful Federal welfare program, since that is the only thing these slogans were ever intended to do.

The Federal statistics he uses to “prove” widespread poverty in America are from 14 to 18 years old, and thus obsolete. Professor Martin Anderson of the Hoover Institution in a recent study, Welfare: The Political Economy of Welfare Reform (Hoover Press, Stanford, Calif.), demonstrates that real poverty in the U.S. has been practically abolished. The government is now spending a quarter of a trillion dollars annually to help poor people.

I do not say that a person has to sell all he has before he can be helped. I do say that he should sell expensive luxury items before he should present himself as an object of charity. The basic cause of poverty is sin, not always of the poor themselves, and as long as we live in a sinful world we cannot eliminate the causes of poverty. A rich nation like the U.S. can provide a free living for the poor, at tremendous monetary and human costs. Whether it should or not is a political question with some moral implications.

The churches of New Testament times helped those of their own who were in need; churches today must do the same. However, there are far fewer needy persons in modern America than in the old Roman Empire. This allows us to use more of our money for evangelism and edification. But if Brother Kingry had his way he would take all Christians off government welfare and put them on church welfare. He does not attempt to defend this novel idea in his second article. Neither does he defend his notion that special collections taken from individuals are unscriptural.

Because I had the audacity to disagree with him, Brother Kingry charges me with (1) being abusive and judgmental, (2) failing to meet the Holy Spirit’s requirements, (3) walking “not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel,” (4) having despised the poor, (5) being ignorant and prejudiced, (6) engaging in public foolishness, (7) being wrong, guilty of hardness of heart, and in need of repentance, (8) decreeing “unrighteous decrees” and writing “grievousness.” This personal attack will not help his cause or his reputation as a writer. I at least have the comfort of being in good company, since he earlier attacked brethren Yater Tant and Bryan Vinson as “bigots.” I have no charge to make against Brother Kingry other than to say that I am innocent of the eight charges above, which makes him at least mistaken.

If Brother Kingry regards me as a knave and a fool, that is his business, but it is of no interest to the readers of a gospel paper who want to study issues, not personalities. Brethren ought to be able to disagree on the exact application of scriptural principles without considering one another as outcasts. It is one thing to press a point with firmness, it is another thing entirely to slander a brother in Christ. I always regret a situation such as this because it lends support to the view that brethren ought not to engage in public controversies and debates. Remember that it is not the debate that is to blame; it is the poor attitude of some debaters.

Truth Magazine XXII: 35, p. 570
September 7, 1978

By John McCort

In the last few years most liberal preachers have become unwilling to discuss institutionalism in public debate. Those few who are still willing to defend their beliefs have taken a very strange position. They will not sign their names to a proposition that names a specific institution. They will not, for example, specifically defend Boles Home or the Herald of Truth. The only thing they will debate is the principle behind these institutions. A case in point is the debate that is to take place this spring between Connie Adams and Clifton Inman.

Recently I had a discussion with a prominent liberal preacher. I asked him why he would not defend a specific orphans home. He said, “I don’t want to have to defend the abuses that have characterized many of these institutions.” In essence what he was saying was that he could not think of one institution that he would be willing to defend.

It is a sad commentary indeed when these preachers can not find one good example of what they are trying to defend. Is it not sad that the institutions that divided the body of Christ are now past the point of public defense? Out of all of the human institutions the liberals have invented why is it that they can not find at least one that can be defended in public debate?

What is the cause of these abuses. I believe a contributing cause is the centralization of power and funds. Many of these orphan homes are nearly self-sustaining now because of investments they have made with the money given by local churches. One orphans home even loaned money to New York City! They have farms, oil wells, gas leases, investment properties, etc . . . . It is very embarrassing to these liberal preachers when the budgets of their pet institutions are exposed. It is embarrassing to find that about $300,000 a year is spent by the Herald of Truth just to beg more money. It is very embarrassing to find that less than 50 percent of the Herald of Truth budget actually goes into the production of films. Personally, I have not found the scriptural authority for the Lord’s money to be used to loan New York City $25,000 or for the church to get into any kind of business.

Why Won’t They Debate?

I fail to understand why the liberals will not debate any longer unless they realize that debates will only cause them to lose members. Many preachers are hiding behind the fact that their elders do not want them getting involved in debates of this kind. I can make one guarantee: if the elders where I preach refuse to grant me permission to defend the truth in a public manner they would have my immediate resignation. I could not work in a situation where my efforts to spread the gospel were being stymied.

Truth Magazine XXII: 35, p. 569
September 7, 1978