My Reply

By Roy Loney

[Page 10]

     (EDITOR'S NOTE: This is a reply to our remarks in the October and November issues. Those remarks need no bolstering, so we publish this without reply, giving Bro. Loney the last word, except to correct his final statement. There are no stockholders in this paper. It is a personal enterprise. Those who write to it do so through the grace of the editor, not because the subscription price includes a stock certificate.)

     In replying to my last two articles, Carl injected personal references I wish had been left out. My affliction, sacrifices, knowledge and "poor" (?) judgment have nothing to do with the issues, and present the personality of the writers rather than the issues involved. I have had nothing to say about men, but have endeavored to bring the character, personality and authority of Christ to the forefront. "We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake." If we were to make a "rat race" out of the question of judgment, I am confident I would not suffer too much by comparison. The greatest curse of all time to the religion of Jesus Christ, has been the injection of personalities. The Paulites, Appollosites and Cephasites, have ever been numbered in legions, and this hinders truth and obscures issues. Can we not leave Carl Ketcherside and Roy Loney out of this and discuss issues from the standpoint of what God has revealed? In the October issue Carl intimates I may know much more than he, yet takes twice the amount of space used by me, to show how his superior (?) in knowledge is in error! God hath spoken. Our only consideration is to find out what he said.

     I do not appreciate the effort in the November issue to imply that I am giving

[Page 11]

up the fight because I called someone "brother." Peter called the murderers of Christ, "brethren" (Acts 3:14, 17). Did he thereby extend the hand of fellowship to murderers? Paul, at Antioch, called unconverted Jews "brethren" but this does not imply, a spiritual fellowship existed between them. There are many "false brethren" (Gal. 2:4). I might in courtesy refer to such as brethren, but still not recognize them as true children of Christ. The "brother" whom I quoted said, "A church that does not talk about Christ, is not the true church of Christ." Will he recognize as true brethren, those whom he declares to be a false church of Christ? When does a man become a false brother? Will Carl answer? Lest I be falsely accused of endorsing his errors, I shall refrain from calling Carl "brother" in this article. The false brethren in Galatia were all baptized believers, but that did not make them true children of God. The same could be said of Jezebel and the Balaamites (Rev. 2:14, 20). They were members of the church, but Christ did not acknowledge them as true children. The prodigal son was dead to his father until he returned home, humbled and penitent (Luke 15:32). The same is true of many who have departed from the faith. A baptismal certificate is not the true certificate to prove sonship with God. When even the elect permit themselves to be deceived (Matt. 24:24) they leave the Father's house, and place themselves in the domain of Satan. "My sheep hear my voice ... and they follow me." "A stranger will they not follow ... for they know not the voice of a stranger.

     Only a misunderstanding could twist what I said into meaning that to be "restoration minded is the antithesis of being Christ minded." I did not say that, but I do say one can be restoration-minded without being Christ-minded, even as one can be a moral man without being a Christian, although one cannot be a Christian without being moral. Morality alone is not Christianity, although morality is included in Christianity. One can become so engrossed in restoration he will forget about the glorious person of Christ. The church at Ephesus could not bear evil ones and put to a rigid test the false claims of pretended apostles and found them liars. They were perfect in every point but one -- they forgot to be Christ-minded. Thus they were in grave danger of expulsion from Christ's fellowship, a point which cannot be ignored. When a man has no disposition to, or intention of, writing and speaking of Christ, but confines his teaching to matters of orthodoxy, he ceases to be Christ-minded. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus." "If any man have. not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Rom. 8:9).

      I was told of a younger preacher who preached at a place for six months. In every sermon he emphasized to nauseating boresomeness Acts 2:38. Not once did he preach on the necessity of accepting Christ personally as a Saviour and Redeemer. He was baptism-minded, but not Christ-minded. Peter preached a powerful sermon on Christ before giving the command to repent and be baptized. The Christ-minded man will want to follow the doctrines of Christ. "If ye love me, keep my commandments." This is the love of God that we keep his commandments." Planting Christ deeply in their hearts is the only divine method of getting people to be restoration-minded in the sense they will want to know and accept all the doctrines of Christ. The first commandment is to love God with all the heart. If that is a reality, full obedience will follow.

     The most unusual thing about Carl's reply to me is that he propositions me to write freely about the redeemer while he writes about doctrine. He says, "If Bro. Loney writes about the person and attributes of Jesus, and I write about the doctrine of Jesus, the paper will be better balanced than if all write the same thing." This is the same as saying, "I do not care to write about Jesus, and will leave that to someone else!" Did Paul write exclusively about doctrine? Did he not write a lot about Christ? Is it not every man's obligation to preach a "well balanced" gospel? What would Carl say, if I proposed, "I'll do all the singing, if you will

[Page 12]

do all the praying." A meeting conducted on that basis might be well balanced, but the individuals would not be. Isn't that about the same as saying, "I like grape juice but don't care for the loaf. You take all the loaf, and I'll take the juice." If one purposes to write entirely about the doctrine of Christ, to the exclusion of Christ himself, is he Christ-minded? "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." If we are not all adapted to write on the same thing, are we spiritually balanced individuals? I'm not half as concerned about having a well balanced paper as having a spiritually minded brotherhood.

     What is wrong with a long time gospel preacher who has no aptitude to preach Christ, dealing only with his doctrines? The divine command to "preach the word" (2 Tim. 4:2) does not mean to preach just the part that suits our aptitude. An unbalanced man will never be a stable man. Billy Graham preaches Christ with an intensity that wins my admiration, but when he fails to preach the doctrines of Christ essential to salvation, he becomes a miserable failure as a gospel preacher. The duty of one is the duty of all. That refers to preaching a full gospel and teaching the full truth. Any one who ceases to preach and teach of the glorious person of the crucified, risen and glorified redeemer, is missing most of life's richest blessings. Does Carl sing, "I love to tell the story of unseen things above, Of Jesus and his glory, of Jesus and his love?" If he does, he ought to change it to mean, "Roy Loney loves to tell the story of Jesus and his love, so I'll leave that to him." Better change your songs to fit your teaching, Carl. Many brethren write me, "Brother Roy, we are praying for you." I appreciate that, but I would not be justified in saying, "I'll not need to pray for myself now, others are doing that for me!"

     An elderly man was preaching near a college attended by two young brethren. One night one of the boys could not attend, so when the other returned he was asked, "What did he preach about tonight?" Disdainfully the other replied, "Oh the usual thing -- Christ and love!"

     If that attitude is to prevail, God save the church! If one has such an abnormal appetite for scholarship and finer points of doctrine that he is not interested in hearing the story of Jesus and his love, God save the boys! Did not Christ say the first commandment was to love God? Did not Paul say that love was the greatest thing in the world? Why teach things of lesser value, rather than put first things first? Paul declared unto the Ephesians "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). No preacher can obey Paul's command, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ," and neglect to preach and teach the most important things.

     I love our great brotherhood, therefore, write these things. It has blessed me in ways too numerous to mention, and I'd be less than a Christian if I did not wish to bless the brotherhood. The only way I can do so is to bring it into closer spiritual relationship with Christ. I would not knowingly contribute one thing which would be detrimental to brotherhood progress, but since all this restoration talk has started there is a noticeable and undeniable trend toward disintegration. There is unrest and sharp contention in many places, and I am sad. I am informed of a certain sister at one place who dated at least one married man, went to dances and smoked cigarettes, and she was quite vocal for a "broader fellowship." If my desires equalled hers, I, too, would want a less restricted fellowship. She could include Jezebel and Balaam as her brethren in Christ.

     It is true that many are called and but few are chosen. Only a few are walking the strait way that leads to life. Can we broaden that narrow way sufficiently to include those whose faces are set on the downward path, without earning the wrath of God? Some time ago Carl affirmed we could convert but very few of the institutionally crazed brethren. Then, what is all this big stir about a more liberal fellowship? Shall we take in more than the above "few." God forbid! Before all this noise started about broader fellowship, we were making real gains in the south, and elsewhere. We were happy

[Page 13]

to include the erring in our fellowship when they gave up their errors. Can any other method please God? "Return unto me, saith the Lord, and I will return unto you.

     Carl speaks of the Mission Messenger as "my paper." Every one who invests a dollar in that paper for a year's subscription thereby becomes a stockholder in that paper, and I, as a subscriber and full time contributor, have an interest in it that justifies my criticism of its editor.