Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

It seems that my series of articles on imputed righteousness (Truth Magazine, Vol. XXII, Nos. 3-7) must have stung some of those who are propagating the Calvinist doctrine. I have been reviewed several times in both Ensign Fair and The Persuader (bulletin of Scyene Road Church in Dallas, Texas), edited by Brother Hardin. Heretofore, I have chosen to make no comment about the matter in order to avoid becoming involved in an endless harangue. Lest my silence be interpreted as a weakness in my position, I want to make some comments about the various reviews of my articles on imputed righteousness.

Ensign Fair

Ensign Fair is a periodical which circulates under the editorship of R.L. Kilpatrick and is published in Huntsville, Alabama (2710 Day Road). Since my editorials appeared in the latter part of January and the first part of February, Kilpatrick has replied to me publicly two different times by fame and written on the subject of imputed righteousness in nearly every issue of his paper. I want to review several of the comments which he made with reference to my editorials.

My position seems to present Brother Kilpatrick some problems, with reference to his position on fellowship. In February, 1978, he wrote,

I have never doubted the salvation of this group of brethren over their preference on how to support orphan’s homes or preach the gospel (since God is more interested in “results” than’ in “methods”), but this latest “issue” is a different matter entirely. Grace and Unity and the Imputation of Righteousness are biblically emphasized subjects which are basic to salvation and the understanding of Christianity, and to declare these truths as heresy is coming awfully close to blasphemy! We’re not just arguing “human institutions”, “man-made organizations”, “church treasury” and all such like; we’re dealing with the very foundation of the Christian system. God may very well tolerate the former but I’m not so sure he will the latter. Unless these brethren change their present course, I foresee a general exodus away from the non-cooperative churches in the days ahead (pp. 18-19).

Notice the things which Brother Kilpatrick has stated in doctrine of imputed the gospel; it pertains this comment. He says that the righteousness is the very heart of to the very matter of salvation itself. To deny the doctrine of imputed righteousness is to border on blasphemy and he is not so sure that God will tolerate a man denying the subject. Yet, in the May, 1978 issue of his paper, Kilpatrick wrote,

Lest the reader misunderstand, let me say that I consider Bro. Willis a brother in the Lord, even though he may have different feelings concerning me. Still, I do not imply that he is not a Christian, or that he is a false teacher even though I am firmly convinced that what he teaches is incorrect (p. 15).

It appears to me that Brother Kilpatrick is having trouble deciding whether or not his umbrella of fellowship is broad enough to extend to cover men like me. I stated before that it is extremely difficult for the tolerant to be tolerant of the intolerant. But, Brother Kilpatrick has apparently subdued the emotions he manifested in his February editorial and broadened his umbrella of fellowship to such an extent that he can extend fellowship to those who deny things pertaining to man’s salvation and to one who is on the verge of committing blasphemy. Now, my brethren, that is some umbrella of fellowship!

But notice now what has happened with reference to this grace-unity heresy. Heretofore, they have demanded that there be a uniform teaching as to matters pertaining to salvation and a diversity in all other matters. Now, however, Brother Kilpatrick states that this doctrine of imputed righteousness pertains to man’s salvation but that one can be in his fellowship while denying it. Hence, Brother Kilpatrick is willing to extend his limits of fellowship to those who disagree with him with reference to doctrines pertaining to salvation. Brethren, we have previously charged that the .very principles which are being propagated by those in, the vanguard of this grace-unity heresy lead to universalism. Some have trotted “a pretty fer piece” down that road.

Examining The Review

1. The doctrine of imputed righteousness is Calvinism. In my earlier articles, I documented the fact that imputed righteousness is part and parcel of the theological system known as Calvinism. This seems to trouble Brother Kilpatrick. He charged me with trying to bias people’s minds rather than giving scriptural documentation. Brother Kilpatrick, I gave documented evidence that the doctrine of imputed righteousness is part of the warp and woof of Calvinism because you brethren have been denying that. I showed in that previous article that the doctrine . of imputed righteousness is the theological justification of the fifth point of Calvinism, the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Yes, the doctrine of imputed righteousness is part of the total system known as Calvinism.

2. Does God demand perfection? I showed in my initial review of imputed righteousness that the doctrine of imputed righteousness was primarily justified by the proposition that God demands perfection. Since this is the starting point from which Brother Kilpatrick begins in his justification of imputed righteousness, this hit him very hard. His reply was that “every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution. . .” (Heb. 2:2). Then, he added, “Man will either have to pay the supreme penalty for sin or someone else will have to pay it for him. The very purpose of Christ’s coming was to do for man what man couldn’t do for himself’ (May, 1978, p. 17). Brother Kilpatrick is right; every transgression must either be forgiven or punished. However, the forgiveness of sins which comes through Jesus Christ atones for man’s sins. This verse proves absolutely nothing about God clothing a man in the righteousness of Christ (imputing the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account) rather than simply forgiving that sin. Even here, however, the fact that one is saved through forgiveness proves that God does not demand perfect obedience to the law. His plan for blotting out one’s transgressions shows that man can be saved with less than perfect obedience to the law.

The next verse cited was Rom. 8:3-4 which reads as follows: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Notice that this passage shows how the demands of the law were satisfied through Christ. We learn in Rom. 3:25 that this was done through the shedding of the blood of Christ. This passage in the context of Romans 7 shows that a man can be justified before God with a less than perfect record of obedience. The deficiency of man is satisfied through the forgiveness of sins made possible through the shed blood of Christ. Man stands before God’s law without sin to his account because man’s sins have been forgiven through Christ’s blood. God does not engage in some kind of “make believe” transaction whereby when looking at sinful man He sees instead the perfect obedience of Christ, Rom. 8:3-4 and Heb. 2:2 do not prove that the perfect obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer.

Another passage cited by Kilpatrick was Romans 3:31. It states, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” My friend, if you can read the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account in this passage you can read how that Satan died for your sins as well! Nothing short of perverting the text would be necessary to read such a doctrine into this passage. What this passage teaches is that God did not close His eyes to man’s disobedience in saving sinful man. Rather, the just demands of the law were met when the price for disobedience was paid through the shedding of Jesus’ blood. Hence, the law of faith does not negate the law; rather, it establishes it.

3. Justification through forgiveness. Kilpatrick wants to take both sides of this one. He wants to say on the one hand, that justification through forgiveness is “no alternative to what we have been saying. It is more or less the very thing we have been saying.” Then, on the other hand, criticize the doctrine as follows:

The central thought behind this scheme is that, first, God’s grace justifies the alien sinner on the merit of Christ’s sacrificial death and personal righteousness, and that this places him within the kingdom of heaven and constitutes him as “righteous.” However, from the point of initial justification onward, God’s grace is activated only in the forgiveness of those sins committed and repented of. Or, stated another way, justification forgives past sins but all future sins are charged and accountable until removed from the record through repentance and formal petition to God for forgiveness. The idea is that the sinner is justified until he sins again which makes him unrighteous; repentance and prayer restores him to a state of righteousness in which he remains until the next sin, and the process starts all over again.

This “jack-in-the-box” righteousness continues throughout the Christian life and if he is fortunate enough to have repented of all his sins at that point where death overtakes him, he will be saved. But woe unto him who may have overlooked a sin committed back in “ought-six” for which the record shows no check mark under “forgiven.” And woe unto him who had an evil thought and died of a heart attack before repenting of it; or unto him who may have become mentally unstable before clearing the divine ledger! (April, 1978, p. 18).

Now, apparently Brother Kilpatrick has trouble deciding whether he is saying that justification comes through forgiveness or not. The truth of the matter is that he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. But, let us look at this latter quotation in more detail.

Kilpatrick speaks of the weakness of justification through forgiveness because it only forgives past sins and does not cover future sins. Frankly, my brethren, I do not have any future sins; the only kind of sins that any man has is past sins. Sin is an act of transgression against God’s will. Hence, a man is not accountable for a sin until he has committed it. The only kind of sins that a man is accountable for is a sin which he has committed. He does not stand before God answerable for some sin which he might commit ten or fifteen years from now. A man only needs forgiveness of past sins because that is the only kind of sins that there are!

Furthermore, Kilpatrick’s comments about “jack-in-the-box” righteousness (I read where another referred to this as “yo-yo” Christians) raise some questions in my mind. He mocked the idea that one falls out of grace through the commission of one sin. Brother Kilpatrick, does one sin separate a man from God? Were Adam and Eve separated from God by one sin? Does one sin separate the person who has never obeyed the gospel from God? Or, must he wait until he has committed several sins before he becomes a sinner in need of salvation? Since you apparently believe that the sins which a Christian commits do not require repentance and prayer before they are forgiven, are we to understand that they are forgiven unconditionally or conditionally? If conditionally, what are those conditions and does that man have a “jack-in-the-box” righteousness until those conditions are met? If unconditionally, the conclusion is that a child of God cannot fall from grace. If not, why not?

A devious lie was implied when Brother Kilpatrick talked about an overlooked sin for which there was no forgiveness “check mark.” That lie was the idea that the forgiveness method of justification demands the specific confession of every sin which a man might have committed and the specific repentance of every sin which a man might have committed. No one, to my knowledge, has ever so written that one must specifically repent of every sin and specifically confess every sin in order to have it forgiven. One can make a general confession of sin and a general repentance to stand justified before God. If that sounds strange when stated with reference to this issue, apply the same matter to the salvation of the alien sinner. Does the alien sinner have to specifically repent of every sin he has ever committed in order to stand approved before God? If he forgets one sin and does not specifically repent of it, can he be acceptable before God? If Brother Kilpatrick can understand how the alien sinner can stand justified before God without specifically repenting of every individual sin, then he should be able to understand how the erring child of God can be justified before God without a specific confession of every individual sin.

From this quotation, however, I think that you can see that Brother Kilpatrick believes that justification through forgiveness is insufficient to save a man’s soul. Hence, the doctrine of salvation which he is teaching is in opposition to justification through forgiveness.

Brethren who teach the grace-unity error will find no comfort in what we are saying with regard to their argument that someone using instrumental music (1) generically repents of all his sins, (2) is received of God in grace, and, therefore, (3) should be received by us in unity. Persistence in and defense of sin is far different from an inadvertent sin in which a member does not persist and for which he would never dream of offering a defense! For instance, we might inadvertently wrong a brother; obviously such “secret faults” (Psa. 19:12) cannot be listed and given a “check mark.” But neither is God’s Word a maze of secrets for the initiated with reference to sin. It is no secret that to wrong a brother is sinful. Genuine repentance of all our sins would mean that we are determined not to be guilty of such practices, that we repudiate such courses of action, and that we will not “live in them” (Col. 3:7). The New Testament pattern of worship is no secret of philosophical wisdom. Worship with instrumental music is outside that pattern; it is iniquity or lawlessness. To worship with the instrument is to live in sin (Col. 3:7), to continue in sin (1 Jn. 3:8-9), to persistently run with one foot outside the boundary line (Mt. 7:23; 2 Tim. 2:5).

The grace-unity movement with its theory of imputed obedience is not proposing unity with a brother who inadvertently errs on some occasion but who is humble and penitent about all such mistakes and who refuses to persist in them. The movement with its theory seeks unity with brethren who continue on a regular basis to worship with instrumental music, to promote the social gospel, to centralize and institutionalize the church, and to propagate premillennialism, with never a thought of penitance about such practices.

Imputation of Adam’s Guilt

To further illustrate the extent to which Brother Kilpatrick has accepted Calvinism, read the following quotation:

The question of whether or not God’s divine attribute of justice may be compromised in imputing righteousness to sinners has never bothered us too much because it is in our favor. But the idea that God would do the opposite and impute “guilt” to those who have never committed personal acts of sin does not set too well. We are inclined to ask, “How can God impute guilt to those who have never committed positive acts of sin, namely those who have not reached the age of accountability? Doesn’t sin have to be committed before it becomes accountable?”

Without the imputation of guilt upon the whole human race, there is no answer for the death of the innocent. Physical death most assuredly is a “consequence” of Adam’s sin but we cannot overlook the fact that man’s punishment for sin (Rom. 6:23) must rest upon a legal base. It is not enough to say that the death of the innocent is a mere “consequence”, for, in the absence of guilt this would make God unjust.

If we are bothered by the negative aspect of imputation, should we not be just as bothered by the positive? In other words, wouldn’t it be just as “unjust” for God to overcompensate (impute righteousness) as it would for Him to under compensate (impute sin)? If it somehow fits within the framework of God’s justice to declare righteous those who are unrighteous, then it somehow fits to declare guilt upon those who have never committed sin (Ensign Fair, Vol. V, No. 11, p. 7).

Now, I suppose that Brother Kilpatrick will tell us that the doctrine of inherited sin is not Calvinism. One thing is for sure, Kilpatrick has accepted the Calvinist doctrine of imputation in its totality.

Conclusion

If Brother Kilpatrick knew of a verse which said, “The perfect obedience of Jesus Christ is imputed to the believer’s account so that-God sees Christ’s perfect obedience rather than the believer’s wavering faith,” he could cite the verse and this discussion would be over. Kilpatrick has been writing about the doctrine, quoting Calvinists, and Robert Brinsmead (an Adventist who edits Present Truth) to prove what Paul never taught. If our brother knows where the Scriptures teach this doctrine, let him trot out his evidence from the Scriptures and let us examine it. Till that happens, I shall continue to label it a damnable, pernicious doctrine of Calvinists.

Truth Magazine XXII: 36, pp. 579-582
September 14, 1978

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