Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In the November installment of Leroy Garrett’s series on “The Word Abused,” he decided to write on Romans 14:23. The editor was more concerned with disarming an argument made for the necessity of Bible authority than he was at clarifying what Rom. 14:23 actually teaches. Actually, the editor revealed that his own understanding of Rom. 14 is in conflict with other segments of Scripture, as I shall prove later in the article.

To show what the editor of Restoration Review trying to disarm, read the following:

“In the party in which I was reared and schooled, this passage is connected with Ro. 10:17, `Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,’ so as to show that if a particular practice is not mentioned in scripture (always something we oppose), then it is sinful. For something to be `of faith,’ therefore, it must be in the Bible, for `faith’ comes by hearing God’s word. It makes a perfect argument against the likes of instrumental music, and It is as sound as an Aristotelian syllogism.

“Whatever is not of faith is sin.

Instrumental music is not of faith.

Therefore, instrumental music is a sin.

“This argument depends upon Ro. 10:17, which can be expressed as another syllogism.

“If something is a matter of faith, then it can be heard (or read) in the word of God (Ro. 10:17). Instrumental music cannot be heard (or read) in the word of God (implying New Testament).

Therefore, instrumental music is not a matter of faith.

“Then comes the first syllogism. Since instrumental music Is not a matter of faith, it is a sin (Rom. 14:23).” (Restoration Review, XVII: 9, p. 162).

The editor’s complaint is lodged in the belief that the word “faith” is used in two different senses in Rom. 10:17 and 14:23. He said,

“To examine an argument we must first look at Its terminology. . . . Just so, in the first two syllogisms the term `of faith’ can be misleading, causing one to draw a wrong conclusion. In fact, `faith’ in Ro. 10:17 is different from `of faith’ in Ro. 14:23, while the argument implies that they are the same. This itself destroys the argument, for one equivocates when he uses a term In two different ways in the same argument, or when he uses a term that means something different In two contexts as If they meant the same. It Is like arguing: Man is the highest creature on the evolutionary ladder; therefore, man is superior to woman. If we argue about `faith’ from two different passages, as If the meaning of the word were the same, then the meaning must be the same. But this is not the case with Ro. 10:17 and Ro. 14:23, as we shall be seeing” (Ibid., p. 163).

The editor’s objection loses all of its force when one sees that the poignant syllogism which he is opposing does not even depend upon Rom. 14:23 for its validity. I would freely grant that the word “faith” is used in a different sense in Rom. 14:23 and Rom. 10:17 and agree that to use them together in a syllogism violates a principle of logic which invalidates any conclusion drawn from the joining of the two as a major and minor premise. However, if one does not employ Rom. 14:23 in the syllogism and uses the term “faith” to mean the same thing in both syllogisms, then the argument is valid.

Rom. 14:23 teaches, as Garrett pointed out, that whatever action one engages in which does not proceed from the firm conviction that it accords with God’s will is sinful. Paul was not discussing whether the action was in accord with God’s word; rather, he was discussing whether the person engaging in the practice believed that it was in accord with God’s word. Basically, this is the main point of Rom. 14:23. To use the passage to teach that to practice anything not taught in the Scriptures is sin is to abuse the Scriptures, even though that which is taught is true. We need to substantiate our contention from other passages.

However, the position “whatever is of faith is taught in the word of God” is true. No one can act from faith in doing anything for which he is unable to find authority in the Scriptures. I might decide to break my leg as an act of devotion to God. Though I might sacrifice quite a bit to do this, the act would be in vain and meaningless because it was not an act of obedience to God’s word-an act of faith (cf. Col. 2:20-23). Rom. 10:17 clearly connects faith and God’s word. One cannot act out of faith unless he is proceeding in obedience to God’s word. Other passages reveal the same truth, such as 2 Cor. 5:7. The major premise of the syllogism which Garrett denies cannot be attacked as being untrue. The major premise simply states that all matters must have positive authority from the Scriptures before thay can be considered scriptural. This is the positive expression of the “prohibition of silence” argument. For a thing to be wrong, one does not have to find a “thou shalt not;” if no positive authority can be found for an item, whether general or specific, it is sinful when incorporated into the work and/ or worship of the church. Thus, our major premise reads:

Major Premise: All matters of the faith are revealed in God’s word. Our minor premise does not depend upon Rom. 14:23 for its validity or substantiation. Therefore, the editor’s objection about equivocal usage of terminology carries no weight. The minor premise is:

Minor Premise: Instrumental music is not revealed in God’s word. Any objection which can be raised against this argument must be raised about its truthfulness. Is instrumental music revealed–as-acceptable unto God? This is where the issue must rest! The conclusion is valid or invalid depending upon whether this statement is true or false. Until recently, both Christian Churches and churches of Christ realized that the issue lay at this point. Arguments, pro and con, were made to establish the validity or invalidity of the statement. One must read the pertinent passages to decide for himself which is true. However, if both the major and minor premise is true, the conclusion is irresistible.

Conclusion: Instrumental’ music is not a matter of faith. Our knowledge of God’s attitude toward the introduction of unauthorized practices leads us to the conclusion that to introduce mechanical instruments of music into worship (something which is not a matter of faith) is sinful. We have learned all of this from Rom. 10:17 without the usage of Rom. 14:23. All of Garrett’s comments on Rom. 14:23 do not invalidate the argument; he might as well have been writing on Matt. 1:1 so far as its effect on this argument is concerned.

The argument can be applied to any item not authorized in the Scriptures. Garrett complained,

“The minor premise can be adjusted to fit all party distinctions, whether classes, literature, agencies, societies, sponsoring churches, owning real estate, pastor system, choirs, stained glass windows, orphanages, and on and on. The couplet of Ro. 10:17 and Ro. 14:23, joined In argument as described herein, is unanswerable-`I haven’t met the man yet that could answer it!’ It Is unanswerable if the terms in the premises are allowed to mean what the person making the argument wants them to mean” (Ibid.).

Brother Garrett, the terms of my syllogism are not equivocal; I have confined myself to Rom. 10:17. The argument is valid or invalid depending upon the veracity of the minor premise. If someone substitutes something into the minor premise which is scriptural, then the argument is invalid. However, so long as the minor premise is true, the conclusion is irresistible.

Look Who’s Abusing Rom. 14

However, while we are considering Rom. 14, perhaps we should make some comments about Garrett’s treatment of the passage. Garrett treats matters pertaining to congregational worship and work on the same level as matters of individual conscience, asserting that we ought to treat matters such as the sponsoring church, instrumental music, church support of institutions, etc. on the same basis as we treat eating meats, having a Christmas tree, exchanging gifts at Christmas, etc. He wrote,

“Then in verse 22 he asks, Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Again, this has no reference to one’s belief in the gospel. It is rather like asking, Do you have certain convictions about these things we’re talking about? If so, he adds, you are to have them before God. You don’t have to be judged by your brothers in reference to them” (Ibid., pp. 164-165).

Now, Brother Garrett, are you going to make the statement, “You don’t have to be judged by your brothers in reference to them” a universal statement? If it applies to all circumstances, then we have a conflict in the Scriptures. In 1 Cor. 5:9-13, Paul revealed that the church not only had the right, but also had the obligation, to judge its own members. If your statement applies to everything, the Scriptures contradict each other and cannot be considered God’s word. Furthermore, the church must not judge those who are modernists, immoral, etc., if we cannot judge our brethren as you asserted. If the statement you made is not universal, then it does not apply to all things. What right do you have to classify congregational matters, such as the usage of mechanical instruments of music in worship, the sponsoring church, church support of human institutions, modernism, etc. on the level of personal opinions? We want to see the criteria which you use to tell whether or not the rules of Rom. 14 apply to any given item.

My brethren, to show you why I am leery of Garrett’s application of Rom. 14 to contemporary problems, consider the following quotations from other articles in this one issue of Restoration Review which reveal how liberal Garrett’s thinking really is:

1. He believes that the church may celebrate the Lord’s Supper with leavened bread. “There is no reason for us to make the Lord’s Supper Jewish in this sense, buying their bread and following their custom. We should encourage our sisters to bake bread especially for the occasion, one loaf appropriate to the size of the congregation. Or simply place a loaf on the table right off the grocer’s shelf, Manor’s or Mrs. Baird’s would be fine, unsliced! There is no instruction in scripture that it must be unleavened, though we always have it that way, as if we presumed it was required. Matthew tells us that `Jesus took bread,’ which was unleavened only because that’s all they had in the house during Passover. It does not say that he chose unleavened bread. Whenever we take bread, the ordinary bread that we have in our homes, we are doing as he did…. This is why I would prefer leavened bread, for it makes for a more imposing symbol, rich and round and full of life as the Body of Christ should be” (p- 167).

2. He rejects examples and inferences as methods of establishing authority. “Since boyhood I have been taught that the scriptures teach us In three ways: by direct command, approved example, and necessary inference…. I am presently convinced that this approach is of no real value in applying biblical authority. This is because some commands in scripture are clearly not for us all; approved examples are not always distinguishable, and the question remains as to who is to decide which ones are approved; inferences can be tricky and confusing as to whether necessary of unnecessary, with the matter of proper application still unsolved” (p. 169).

3. Acts 20:7 does not reveal a pattern for the frequency of observing the Lord’s Supper. “Acts 20:7 may not emerge as a clear-cut case for disciples breaking bread each Sunday and only then, but it Is a vital piece of information that we are to give its proper place” (p. 170).

4. Baptists are Christians. “Ouida went with me to Texas hill country to perform a Church of Christ-Baptist wedding. I entered into this situation tangentially, from a discussion with Baptists at Baylor University. This Baptist student, to be married to a Church of Christ girl, was having a lot of problems, one being that he did not want to be married by a minister hostile to his own faith, though he was resigned to its being otherwise `Church of Christ.’ That everybody was out to `convert’ him he was taking pretty well. Since I loved both and accepted them both as Christians, and since I was `Church of Christ,’ I was asked to do the honors, albeit there was little hope that I would be all that popular a choice” (p. 172).

Frankly, I am not ready or willing to place all these items in the same category as eating of meats. I want to see some objective reason for putting them into the same category. If one can include these items, I know of no reason why he could not also put matters pertaining to faith in the deity of Christ in the same category.

I do not seriously disagree with Garrett’s exegesis of Rom. 14:23. However, I violently disagree with his application of it to matters of faith. Furthermore, I disagree with his conclusions regarding arguments on Rom. 10:17. Those who are reading the material flowing from Garrett’s pen can only view this as another attempt to blunt the sword used to make war against false teachers.

Truth Magazine, XX:15, p. 11-13
April 8, 1976

By Frank Drive

On Monday morning of November 3, Brother Tarry Cluff, minister of the Downtown church here, and I left for three days of work with the church in Sioux City, Iowa, arriving there early that evening. About half way there, we stopped in Broken Bow, Nebraska and visited briefly with Brother Don Jenson, manager of a local department store. He with Sister Jenson, are faithful members of the newly formed church in Broken Bow. This little city of 4,000 is almost in the center of Nebraska, and the congregation of about six members is moving right along in a good way. We had already visited with Brother and Sister Gene Masters of North Platte who also attend in Broken Bow. We were highly impressed and pleased with the zeal and optimism and forward look these brethren have.

We spent our visiting time in Sioux City with several brethren who have been neglectful of their duty and also some who know and understand the truth and should be taking their stand for it. As in many places and especially in new and hard fields as this, internal tragedies have befallen the Lord’s work that have discouraged many, and our work was one of surveying the field, make a study of how we could help, and the kind of help we could urge others to provide, and cultivate and strengthen as much local interest as we could. We will need to go back again and again, and plan to do so, but we were pleased with the results of this, our first trip and effort with them.

As you noted in my previous article referred to above, Brother and Sister Glenn Meyer are the only members at the present time, but they attend and conduct worship and preaching services in regular order, and drive 40 miles (one way) to do so.

As we drove out Morningside Avenue through the largest outlying business and residential area of Sioux City, looking for the street that would lead us to the building, we were surprised to approach unexpectedly the sign, “Church of Christ,” right on Morningside Avenue, encased in a nice brick triangular form, seen both directions, pointing only one-half block to the building. We found the building in nice condition and in good appearance, large enough to seat 150 in the main auditorium, and a full basement, where the office area and the printing equipment is, which the Meyers still use to print their bulletin twice each month with several hundred local residents on their list. With payments of $77.00 per month, this property will be paid for in seven years.

We are all the more convinced now, after this visit, that the work in Sioux City merits the favorable consideration of brethren anywhere who can go or help others to go. There is no doubt a good number will read this, who have an interest in this work, and perhaps have even helped with it in the past. Some may hesitate, considering the length of time Sioux City has been helped, but it must be remembered that most of this help was given during the time the church had a strong liberal element, which the brethren were eventually forced to leave. It is now a relatively new work, and the brethren there are to be much commended for securing this property, especially in such a very favorable location, and under such extreme adverse conditions, and to have made such progress in retiring the debt load on it, and to have continued to print and mail their bulletin as they have and are, to such a large list.

I must say also that Brother Terry Johnson, minister at Omaha, is helping Brother and Sister Meyers regularly with their bulletin work, and he and Sister Johnson have spent much time with them in their work.

Who will be willing to move to Sioux City and who will help provide the income to make it possible for someone to do so? Please let us hear from you, brethren. This work must have help. These good Christian workers, the Meyers must not be allowed to continue under such a burden alone. ‘They are valuable servants of the Lord in an extreme and unusually needy field. Especially because of its size and location, there must be a good church in Sioux City. The preaching of the Gospel is the common responsibility of us all, and we must rally to their aid now, and share their work with them. Write me or call, (303)482-9690. Contact Glenn H. Meyer, Route 2 Box 71, Bancroft, Nebraska 68004, or call him at (402)648-7697.

Truth Magazine, XX:15, p. 10
April 8, 1976

By Roy E. Cogdill

The mission of Christ into the world was fully accomplished. He will not be reincarnated to dwell on Earth. He will come a second time to award salvation to them that wait for Him.

For four thousand years the world looked forward to the Coming of Christ. It was heralded by all the prophets as the hope of the race. Every event in Old Testament history was made to converge into the design of His Coming. It was the event of supreme importance. Any doctrine, the consequences of which make the Lord’s first coming a failure, is pernicious, and cannot be ignored as some are wont to do.

We want in this article to contrast the Lord’s first coming in both manner and purpose with what the Bible has to say concerning His second coming. The text suggesting the basis for such a contrast is Hebrews 9:2728: “And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment; so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart f-om sin, to them that wait for Him unto Salvation.”

The First Advent

Our text declares that Christ “was once offered to bear the sins of many.” This is the foundation of the Gospel of Christ. Paul preached that Christ died for our sins, “According to the Scriptures.” God’s law had been violated. Death was required as a penalty. Christ died in our stead. That is the doctrine of atonement.

The scriptures declare that Jesus came into the world to destroy the works of Satan. “To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil” (1 John 3:8). The destruction of the works of the Devil was the very purpose of Christ’s first coming. Premillennialism teaches that Christ will come again to accomplish that purpose. A mighty carnal war will be waged by him at the time of His second appearance, in their scheme, for the purpose of accomplishing what he came the first time to do, viz., put down Satan, destroy his works, and establish His Kingdom. That means that he failed to accomplish this at the time of His first advent; that instead of conquering he was conquered, and instead of being exalted and crowned in His ascension to the Father, He went home in defeat and humiliation. What other conclusion can such a doctrine have?

That is not all. Christ came into this world and was made flesh and blood in order “To bring to naught him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14). Premillennialism teaches that He will triumph over Satan and bring him to naught, at His second coming; again proving that they regard the first advent of the Lord a failure. Such consequences cannot be overlooked, nor excused with any regard for truth.

The Bible not only declares that Christ came into the world to “destroy the works of the devil” and to “bring Satan to naught” but, according to the Scriptures, he succeeded in accomplishing this. Paul declares in Col. 2:15 that He “despoiled the principalities and the powers, and made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it,” and in Eph. 4:8 he said “when He ascended on high, He. led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men.”

Jesus said: “But no one can enter the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man.” Jesus came to destroy the works of Satan (1 John 3:8). This he could not do without binding Satan (Mark 3:27). He accomplished his purpose (Col. 2:15). Therefore Satan, the strong man, was bound. Satan has only the power and privilege that is yielded to him. “Each man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed” (James 1:14). “Resist the Devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7). We have indeed been delivered from Satan’s power and bondage to sin.

The Second Advent

The second coming of Christ will be “to them that wait for him unto salvation” (Heb. 9:27). His promise is, “I will come again to receive you unto myself, that where I am ye may be also” (John 14:3). When He comes again, “even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him. . . . then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:14-17).

We shall not know Christ after the flesh again for “though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more” (2 Cor. 5:16). He will not, therefore, return to dwell in the flesh. Concerning His first coming, Paul says, “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.” But in sharp contrast, of his second coming he declares that Christ “shall appear a second time, apart from sin.” Those words can have no meaning if Christ comes back in the flesh to dwell on earth (The Gospel Guardian, February, 1936).

Truth Magazine, XX:15, p. 9
April 8, 1976

By Ron Halbrook

It is a sad time in Zion. Those claiming to be soldiers of the cross go down to “the plain of Ono” to confer with compromisers. They have no qualms about yoking and plowing with false teachers. When talking to one group or when “called on the carpet” by others, they can preach it “round” or preach it “flat.” They are experts at “playing up to” some who do not want to believe such is gong on, and will even “throw a sop” to faithful brethren occasionally to quiet their fears. Not militant in spirit, not challenging error in its strongholds, they move to the sound of a beat they is mellow, soft, and soothing. As God said through Jeremiah, “they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace” (6:14).

Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside have been notorious for heralding the Good News of Compromise. These men started out several years ago saying we should state our convictions about instrumental music in worship, centralizing the church’s work, institutionalism, social-gospel practices, and premillennialism, but should not divide over such matters. “Since we are not under law but under grace I shall allow the grace of God to take care of the situation,” says Ketcherside. “It isn’t necessary for you to share my concerns for me to reverence and respect you as my brother or sister,” he says again. Practicing what he preaches, he now writes regularly in the Christian Standard (weekly publication of Christian Church people), a paper which approves the use of instrumental music in worship though he himself claims to disapprove it. Though he quit publishing his Mission Messenger in December of 1975, he plans to continue pressing vigorously his views on grace and unity. He will reprint key volumes of Mission Messenger (such as the one on “The Twisted Scriptures,” devoted to re-interpretation of 2 Jn. 9, 1 Cor. 1:10, Gal. 1:8-9, Jude 3); also he will do some autobiographical writing in Garrett’s Restoration Review. “The beat goes on” in several ways for Ketcherside. He now even recognizes “Christians in other bodies” and so believes we should team up with rather than debate Baptists, Methodists, and Mennonites (for quotes, see Mission Messenger for May, 1974, pp. 70, 74; April, 1975, pp. 54-55, 61-62).

Almost any issue of Garrett’s Restoration Review reflects the same views. It is sad to watch “their word … eat as doth a cancer;” to see them thrash about “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth;” and to observe them “wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 2:17; 3:7, 13). Garrett now defends cocktail parties by saying “drunkenness is a sin, but not drinking;” lasciviousness by saying “revelling is a sin, but not dancing;” and immodesty by saying “indecency is a sin, but not short dresses.” Not wanting to appear partial, he throws a sop to the gambler as well: “profligacy is a sin, but not necessarily gambling” (Restoration Review, Dec., 1974, pp. 394-395). On goes the beat, and on and on! Like Tetzel in Germany with his flowing banners, jangling bells, and smooth promises of cheap grace, these men have attracted quite a crowd who move to this new unity beat. That makes the tragedy all the greater.

In 1974 Ed Fudge marked a decade of service to the Christian Standard. For those who think Brother Fudge may have been shaken to review his position in recent months, we must point out that “the beat goes on” with another article in the June 1 issue (“Our Down-to-Earth Religion,” which follows on the heels of his last article for Nov. 17 1974, “Hallmarks of True Evangelism”). If recent events have not awakened Ed to review his convictions, they have led him to restate them. Like Ketcherside, he is willing to occasionally express his personal conscience against instrumental music, centralization, institutionalism, social-gospel-ism, and premillennialism. But, to use Ketcherside’s words, he accepts and works with one who is guilty of such things “as my brother or sister” -“since we are not under law but under grace I shall allow the grace of God to take care of the situation.”

For instance, in the July 27, 1975, Christian Standard (“Hallmarks of Scriptural Assemblies”), he says, “As an `inorganic’ brother I may observe that … instrumental accompaniment to the singing” cannot express “the true content of human minds and hearts.” Next appears (Aug. 17 and 24) a two-part discussion of “Fellowship and the Instrument,” which follows the approach he used in his Firm Foundation article “Four Kinds of Unity” (Feb. 19, 1972). Oneness or unity may relate to four areas: (1) Relationship-“an organic oneness. . . . They are each `in Christ,’ and Christ is ‘in’ each of them. . . . It is a gift of God, a natural by-product of union with Jesus Christ and participation in the blessings He has brought.” “Where does the issue of instrumental music fit?” Does its use destroy proper relationship with God and the relationship of oneness with other saints in Christ? When one uses instrumental music in worship, does he lose the “gift of God,” “union with Jesus Christ,” and “the blessings” of grace? “The issue simply does not fit in this category” is Ed Fudge’s answer (emph. added RH). Though he says, “I personally regard instrumental music in the worship to miss the mark of God’s perfect will,” still it does not interfere with our “being `one in Christ’ as fellow members of His body.” (2) Allegiance-“Men may hold Jesus as Lord in their hearts” and worship with instruments on account of misunderstanding. If they “knowingly and willfully go against what (they) understand,” of course that would be wrong. But if the baptized believer worships with the instrument through ignorance, “he and I are ‘one’ in the allegiance and loyalty, although we differ on the piano in church.” We should not allow “an instrumental cause” nor “a non-instrument flag” to interfere with this oneness of loyalty and allegiance. (3) Sentiment-brotherly love, affection, “climate of unselfishness and concern.” In other words, those who are in fellowship with the Father should exhibit family-type attitudes toward one another. Since the instrument does not disturb proper relationship to God the Father, it should not interfere with brotherly relations between brethren. “The issue of the instrument ought not to affect our oneness of sentiment and affection.” In view of this, he commends those “organic” brethren who occasionally leave off the instrument on behalf of “inorganic”brethren. By the same token, he has recommended (though not in this article) that “inorganic” brethren feel free to call on “organic” brethren to lead prayer, preach, or otherwise lead in public worship. (4) Understanding-“Oneness of common understanding is not commanded, but provided for.” This is where the instrument falls. The use or non-use of instruments does NOT affect our sharing in God’s grace, but only affects our sharing in one specific action: “singing with the instrument.” This “practically eliminates” the non-user from a church which uses instruments. But those “who differ on this issue may still have opportunities to be together, and they may then enjoy their onenesses of relationship, of allegiance, and of sentiment and affection.”

Summing up, Fudge has told us what we do and do not share with those who use instrumental music. We do not share with them in the one activity of singing with instruments in worship. We do share proper relationship to Jesus Christ, allegiance and loyalty to Christ and his words, the sentiments and affections of a family all in fellowship with God. But, “what saith the Scripture?” The truth is that those who worship with instruments have already interfered with brotherly relations between brethren. That is because their allegiance and loyalty is not to Christ and his word alone, but to doctrines and commandments of men. Ed says of using instruments in worship, “The practice within itself does not determine this business of loyalty and allegiance.” Pray tell, how can one be loyal to what Christ has commanded while doing something he has forbidden?!? The use of instruments does destroy “oneness of relationship” to God because it violates His holy covenant which was sealed with the blood of His only begotten Son (Matt. 28:18; Heb. 9:15-22; 1 Cor. 1:10; 4:17; 14:37; Gal. 1:8-9; 2 Jn. 9; Jude 3; Rev. 22:18-19; Matt. 15:7ff; Mark 7:lff). Fudge’s doctrine weakens “this business of loyalty and allegiance” to Christ and his word, whether he realizes it or not. How appropriate that part of his “Fellowship and the Instrument” appears in Christian Standard right along side Carl Ketcherside’s column “The Tool Chest.” Though Fudge attempts to drape his theories in Scripture, they actually came from Ketcherside’s tool chest.

Meanwhile, back at the Firm Foundation, Fudge keeps beating the same old beat. “The dispute of the past quarter-century regarding congregational support of benevolent and educational enterprises and certain inter-congregational arrangements” has paid too little attention to “the church’s nature in Scripture, or what may be termed a biblical ecclesiology . . . .” Thus begins “Church Action: A Study in the Original Greek” (Feb. 18, 1975). Special attention is given to whether a church can do everything an individual can do (provide recreation, social meals, entertainment; support human institutions, etc.). He quotes J. D. Thomas and Batsell Barrett Baxter as among those “who dogmatically affirm(ed)” the church can so act. Roy E. Cogdill and James R. Cope are quoted as among those who “responded, equally dogmatically” that such is wrong. Ed bemoans that “lines of argument, and . . . of fellowship” were drawn, mainly because “those who think of ekklesia-action primarily as corporate action overstate their case, as do those who limit ekklesia action to individual action.” We assume the truth is somewhere in the middle, but Ed assures us his article does not “propose to solve the specific problem.” Again, in the April 22, 1975, issue, Ed discusses the related issue, “Are examples binding?” He faults “almost all those who answer `nay’ ” as well as “almost all who answer `yea,’ ” His answer to the “furor” is to warn against “legalism” or traditional interpretations, and to suggest that each man “use every means at his disposal to understand God’s will revealed in Scripture-for there alone is it revealed.” We are never told if apostolic examples are a proper “means,” and if so, how and when. It is the same old pattern: some brethren just cannot afford to declare the truth of God clearly, uncompromisingly.

The Gordon Wilson who previously lived at 6939 Weber Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63123, but presently preaches at El Toro, California, and who has edited Facts for Faith, moves to the same beat. December 2931, 1972, the Dunn Road Chapel of Hazelwood, Missouri, presented their “Winter Youth Study.” Dunn Road has long followed the error of Carl Ketcherside, and is mentioned from time to time in his Mission Messenger (see Dec., 1973 and June, 1975). The Dunn Road “Housing Committee” made arrangements for young people to come as visitors, to hear featured speakers “Carl Ketcherside” and “Gordon Wilson” along with “Rod Langston and Bernie Crum” and “Albert McGee.” Jerry Phillips highly recommended this program (Dec. 6, 1972 St. Charles, Missouri Bulletin), which centered on Evidences. Dunn Road’s advertisements include repeated mention of Carl Ketcherside and Gordon Wilson. The schedule lists Gordon as the kickoff speaker, with one time slot for “Special Youth Meeting” and another which says “Choice of forum or bowling.” “The New Year’s evening will feature the Melody Boys Quartet” and “some congregational singing.”

Let no one suppose Gordon went to Dunn Road in earnestness to grapple with the Ketchersidian error into which they have long ago fallen, nor to challenge Ketcherside in any way. As the flier, reproduced here, and the tapes show, only “Evidences of Christianity” were discussed and not the vital issues this church direly needed to hear. Furthermore, in his opening remarks, Gordon commended the “Winter Youth Study” as being entirely proper, well-planned activities, good for all involved. Specifically, he commended the presence of Carl Ketcherside and the others on the program as being of benefit to all concerned. Recently, we had opportunity to see the compliment returned in a letter. Reflecting on his yokefellow at Dunn Road in 1972, Ketcherside praised Wilson: “one of the most qualified,” “thoroughly informed,” “Gordon has adequate ability.”

It is not enough that Brother Wilson failed to deal with the error of Dunn Road, or that he made a blanket commendation of the program and of Ketcherside’s part in it. He did not even manage to speak on Evidences without teaching denominational error! He solved the alleged discrepancy between Paul and James on “works” by saying the “works” in James 2 have no reference to “the alien sinner nor . . . what the alien sinner does.” The “works” in James refer only to “servants of the Lord responding to the salvation which is by faith.” “The word `works,’ Paul and James agree on. Neither man nor any other New Testament writer ever uses the word `works,’ with approval, of the obedience of an alien sinner. Never!” Compare that to Baptist Harold W. Tribble (Our Doctrines, pp. 80-81); he resolves the “difficulty in the relation of faith and works to salvation” by saying, “Our works exhibit our faith as the fruit exhibits the life of the tree . . . . The fruit testifies to the condition of the tree. So good works testify to the inner condition of the life.” So, after we are saved by faith, “works” are the proper response to salvation. Noted Baptist commentator B. H. Carroll says in his comments on James 2 that Paul and James “agree . . . that faith must evidence itself in good works . . . . Paul takes the case of a sinner and is trying to ascertain how that lost sinner can be declared just before God, and he says that it is through faith and apart from works. James takes a Christian, not a sinner, and shows how that Christian’s works justify the Christian’s profession.”

Adding insult to injury to the cause of Christ, Gordon Wilson has tried to deceive brethren about his loose conduct. He said, “Moreover, I recognize that there may be circumstances in which one’s own statements may be used in exposing a teacher of error, even though such statements may have been made in private.” So be it. When his loose conduct was called to his attention, he responded, “Third, you mention my appearing with Carl Ketcherside in youth rallies, lectureships, etc. without challenging his unscriptural teaching and activities. Where in the world did you ever hear such? I have never in my life appeared with him on any kind of program (the only time he has ever heard me speak was at the Hartford Forum, when I agreed to come and reply to the false teaching of one of his associates). I have never been on a youth rally anywhere with anybody. I have never been present at a lectureship where Carl Ketcherside was present. He and I have never been associated in any kind of program anywhere at any time. I would be interested in knowing what you are talking about.” When Gordon was provided documentation, he gird up the loins of his unmitigated gall and answered, “Thanks for sending the advertisement. I had never seen a copy of this before, was not in any way responsible for putting it out, and the appearance of my name in connection with that of Carl Ketcherside is a complete surprise to me. In any case, I did not appear on any youth rally, did not then or at any other time appear with Carl Ketcherside, and such a program would be and is totally disgusting to me. The advertisement is an absolute misrepresentation insofar as the occurrence of my name is concerned. This just makes me wonder what other phony documentation people might have in their files about me. It also makes me wonder why anyone who claims to be a Christian would reach a conclusion about a man’s soundness on the basis of such meaningless junk-before and without even asking an explanation from the man concerned.” (Letters from Gordon Wilson to James W. Adams, July 30 and Aug. 26, 19764, the latter entire.)

Gordon seems to be afflicted with the same memory malady as some of his cohorts. He has never in his life appeared on the same program with the man of whom he gave a blanket commendation and who returned the favor later, both men having reference to the other’s appearance on Dunn Road’s program in December of 1972! And Gordon could never forget it if it were to happen because the very thought “is totally disgusting” to him. Brethren Gene Boren, Frank Kuchar, Leonard Goatly, and Joseph W. Florea were eye-witnesses to this “totally disgusting” affair, but Gordon will not likely be impressed by that evidence or the tapes themselves any more than he was by the other “phony documentation”-“such meaningless junk.” He only wonders how “anyone who claims to be a Christian” could accept such a mountain of evidence in the face of his own pristine pronouncements. These fellows remind us of Hume’s claim that no amount of historical evidence could prove a miracle, and of new-orthodox claims that after sifting all possible evidence we must still be in doubt as to whether the resurrection of Jesus is historical fact. Truly, sadly, the beat goes on as such men go further into error and try harder to hide it, sanctify it, and cloak their doctrine in twisted Scripture.

And, “the beat goes on” with Gordon Wilson’s articles in the Christian Standard: January 6, 1974 (“Psalm of a Sin-Sick Soul”), March 24, 1974 (“Where Is Security?”), May 5, 1974 (“The Gospel Demands Change”), and again February 2, 1975 (“Keeping the Law of Christ”). There is nothing in these articles that would offend Christian Church people in their peculiar error-nor to save them, as a friend added! Apparently, the beat shall go on, too. On December 6, 1974, Gordon explained to Robert Jackson, Steve Wolfgang, and myself that he has no apologies for writing in the Standard; he said he does not expect to quit this or similar actions. Gordon’s Facts for Faith was being published by Lindy McDaniel’s “Pitching for the Master Foundation,” with the aid of brethren Hubert Moss and William Wallace. Edward Fudge was happily lending his support by writing a regular column. Others have provided aid and comfort to compromisers by providing articles and financial help. What about it, brethren? There are three possibilities: (1) You have been totally ignorant of Wilson’s activities, (2) approve them, or (3) do not have the courage of your convictions.

Truth Magazine, XX:15, pp. 5-8
April 8, 1976