GOSPEL AND DOCTRINE
by W. Carl Ketcherside

Restoration movements, like the people who launch them, grow old and slow down. They become sedentary and stationary. With the cessation of movement comes stagnation. When the search for the ancient order halts, sectarianism takes over. In such an event not only is an embargo placed upon truth, but truths once discovered are again lost, and vital ground is surrendered. A careful study of the various factions resulting from the restoration movement sparked by Thomas and Alexander Campbell will demonstrate the truth of what we say.

In the Gospel Guardian, March 13, 1958, appears an editorial entitled “What Must Men Believe To Be Saved?” It is a good example of the point we are making. The editor emphasizes the fact that Jesus said, “He that believeth not shall be damned.” He then says, “Since I do not want to be condemned I am most anxious to determine exactly what it is that Jesus requires that I believe.”

He cites as an answer Mark 16:15, 16: “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” The conclusion is reached thus: “The gospel is what Jesus commanded his apostles to preach, and it is what men are required to believe. Can anyone doubt this obvious truth?”

The editor continues, “In view of the confusion in the religious world, let us see if we can find a standard by which the test may be made to see what the gospel is and who is preaching it. Some pointed questions dealing with the heart of the matter should help us to learn what is the truth about this.”

In characteristic factional form the following questions are proposed. “Does a man claim to be preaching the gospel when he is preaching Baptist doctrine? If he is, then the Lord says: ‘He that believeth not shall be damned.’ Everyone, therefore, would have to believe Baptist doctrine to be saved. Are the peculiar and distinctive doctrines and practices of the Baptist church a part of the gospel?” The answer given by such a querist is obvious, and he systematizes his reasoning as follows: “(1) A man cannot be saved who does not believe the gospel of Christ. (2) But one can be saved without believing Baptist doctrine. (3) Therefore, Baptist doctrine is not the gospel of Christ, and must be a perverted gospel. What else can one make of it?”

The writer affirms, “The same standard may be used to test the peculiar teaching of any religious group. It proves the same thing regarding the doctrine of the Methodist, Presbyterian, Nazarene, Lutheran, and other denominations.” We presume the editor will admit that “The Church of Christ” is a religious group, and since the same standard may be used to test the peculiar teaching of any religious group, it will be a good measuring reed in this instance as well. I hold no brief for the “peculiar teaching of the Methodist, Presbyterian, Nazarene, and Lutheran” religious groups. The same thing holds true for the peculiar teaching of “The Church of Christ” religious group—or groups, for there are a great many of them. It is true that the peculiar teaching of none of these is “the gospel” which the chosen envoys were to proclaim, for the simple reason that no body of doctrine constituted that gospel.

In his partisan presentation, our editorial brother unwittingly reveals his own ignorance and the wisdom of his Baptist opponents. And while his thesis may be applauded as profound by members of “The Church of Christ” denomination, it is based upon a fallacy of which no early restorationist would have been guilty. Certainly a man is not “preaching the gospel when he is preaching Baptist doctrine.” Neither is he preaching the gospel when he is preaching “Church of Christ doctrine.” He is not even doing so when he instructs men in the apostles’ doctrine. The gospel of Christ is one thing; the apostles’ doctrine is a wholly different thing. They are distinct messages, not even intended for the same classes of people.

Before students may be taught in a school they must be enrolled or enlisted, but enrollment is one thing, and instruction is another. Jesus commissioned his envoys to “Go, and enroll disciples from all nations, immersing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I command you” (Matt. 28:19). The method to be used in enrollment is stated in Mark 16:15, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved . . . .” The gospel was to be preached to those who had not been immersed, with a view to lead them to that act of enrollment based on faith, and those enrolled by the gospel were then to be given a regular course of instruction. They were not to be taught the gospel, for one does not teach or instruct news. They were to be taught the apostles’ doctrine.

Preaching was an altogether different thing than teaching. Alexander Campbell was aware of this distinction. He regarded it as an unhappy thing for both the world and the church that the distinction was lost, or glossed over. Ponder carefully upon these words:

“Preaching the gospel and teaching the converts are as distinct and distinguishable employments as enlisting an army and training it, or as creating a school and teaching it. Unhappily, for the church and the world, this distinction, if at all conceded as legitimate, is obliterated or annulled in almost all protestant Christendom. The public heralds of Christianity, acting as missionaries or evangelists, and the elders or pastors of Christian churches are indiscriminately denominated preachers or ministers; and whether addressing the church or the world, they are alike preaching or ministering some things they call Gospel . . . . They seem to have never learned the difference between preaching and teaching.”

Campbell insisted that an understanding of this distinction was an absolute essential to any evangelist who was laboring for true restoration. Here are his expressions on the subject in Popular Lectures and Addresses (pages 536, 537):

“The difference between preaching and teaching Christ, so palpable in the apostolic age, though now confounded in the theoretic theologies of our day, must be well defined and clearly distinguished in the mind, in the style and utterances of an evangelist or missionary who would be a workman that need not to blush, a workman covetous of the best gifts and of the richest rewards . . .

In the discharge of the duties of this work he must properly and fully understand the whole oracles of God, and clearly distinguish between preaching and teaching Jesus Christ. This is no mere speculative distinction. It was appreciated, fully understood, and acted upon, or carried out in the apostolic ministry . . . .

For the sake of accurate and intelligible language and a clear appreciation of the Christian Scriptures and the Lord’s will concerning us, these words and works should be clearly understood and employed by every evangelist or missionary of the church sent out and patronized by the church; and more especially by our brotherhood, who unite in the apostolic platform of church union, communion, and co-operation.”

Perhaps the clearest expression on this subject was made in Millennial Harbinger, April, 1862, in reply to an article in a Presbyterian journal, entitled “Pre-Eminence of Preaching in Public Worship.” Campbell declared:

“There was teaching, there was praying, there was exhortation in the Christian church; but preaching in the church or to the church, is not once named in the Christian Scriptures! Paul once, in his first letter to the church in Corinth, said he would declare to the Corinthians that gospel which he had preached to them, which also they had received, and in which they stood.

We preach, or report, or proclaim news. But who teaches news!! Who exhorts news!! We preach the gospel to unbelievers, to aliens, but never to Christians, or to those who have received it. Paul taught the Christians; he admonished, exhorted, commanded and reproved Christians, and on some occasions declared the glad tidings to them who had received them, but who seemed to have forgotten them, as he wrote to the Corinthians.”

Campbell was not alone in recognition of the distinction between gospel and doctrine, preaching and teaching, or proclamation and instruction. In his comment on the word “teaching” in Romans 12:7, Moses E. Lard says:

“The teaching here mentioned, I doubt not, consisted strictly in instructing the church. I did not include preaching the gospel to those without. This was the work more particularly of the prophet. The didaskalia was for members of the church, and had for its object their enlightenment in duty. It bore the same relation to those within the church, that preaching did to those without. The design of preaching was to bring men in; the design of teaching to perfect them when in. Teaching was the work chiefly of the overseers of the congregation.”

In defining the expression “apt to teach” as relates to bishops, J. W. McGarvey said in Missouri Christian Lectures, page 193:

“What teaching is this? It is not preaching, for preaching was addressed to the world, not to the church, and an elder’s work as an elder was confined to the church. It is evidently the teaching prescribed in the second part of the apostolic commission, ‘Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you.’”

B. A. Hinsdale, a brilliant student among the advocates of the Restoration movement, makes this statement on page 13 of Jesus As A Teacher:

“While preaching and teaching are separate and distinct, they are closely related. First, in respect to matter. The preacher announces the gospel with a view to making converts or disciples; the teacher instructs (didache) or builds up the disciples in Christian doctrine or discipline.”

The consecrated student of the new covenant scriptures must acknowledge distinctions made by the Holy Spirit. No inspired writer ever made a distinction without a difference. Jesus sustains in this age, the relationship of a monarch ruling over His kingdom. There are but two classes of persons in respect to a kingdom—aliens and citizens. It is God’s purpose to enroll or enlist the first under the benign rule of His Son; and to perfect those who are thus enrolled, the citizens, in that character essential to enjoyment of “the everlasting kingdom.” He designs to accomplish this by means of a communication addressed to the needs of those who compose these two groups.

The aliens are to be addressed by a kerux, a herald, or announcer. His message is the kerygma, and in this instance, it consists of glad tidings or good news. His work is described by the term kerussein, to discharge the office of a herald, to cry out, proclaim.

The citizens are to be tutored by a didaskalos. The course of instruction given to them is the didache, prepared by the envoys of the Christ. The work of teaching is described by didaskein, which signifiies the examining, scrutinizing, illustrating, and establishing of a subject in a manner to influence the understanding or perception.

It is ridiculous to talk about preaching to immersed believers, in the light of the language of the Holy Spirit. You cannot evangelize those who are saved! The gospel of Christ was never addressed to those in the kingdom. The kerygma was intended to enroll men in the kingdom. In the commission to the envoys they were told to go into all the world. They were to herald the good news to every creature. Those who believed and were immersed would be saved. Believed what? The kerygma, the gospel, the message addressed to unbelievers and unimmersed. Did this consist of the entire body of new covenant scriptures? That would be absurd. There was not a one of the epistles written until many years after Pentecost, yet thousands heard the gospel and obeyed it on that day. Portions of the new covenant scriptures were not written until all of the original heralds but one had been long since deceased. Had they not preached a full gospel?

What is the attitude of most of the preachers of “The Church of Christ” toward these things today? It can best be described in the words of Jesus in the parable, “They made light of it, and went their ways.” Why should these truths so incense them? We think the answer is apparent. It was expressed by one of the leading members of the clergy of the Diana cult: “This our craft is in danger to be set at nought.” A very lucrative business has been built up in hiring out to “preach the gospel to the church.” Great institutions have been established to provide professionals for this work. Millions of dollars are invested to thus pamper sectarian pride. Publishing houses are concerned because of the investment in clerical organs such as “The Minister’s Monthly.”

If the members of “The Church of Christ” once come to see that they have been deluded and imposed upon, as the clergy has always placed the majority of the saints in a state of dependency and helplessness, so that the many exist only to provide financial support for the top level few, there will be a revolution, as there ought to be. If it is demonstrated that God never once authorized, suggested, or hinted at such a thing as preaching in the church, or to the church, the idea of hiring a preacher for such a purpose by the church, will become as extinct as the Mauritian dodo, among those who revere the truth. For that reason the clergy in “The Church of Christ” will scoff at and deride what is herein said, in true sectarian fashion. They will urge their members not to read it, but to flee from it like the plague. And those who hire others to study and think for them will complacently ignore the great importance of these divine distinctions to the detriment of their souls and the cause of Christ. Here are a few results of such disregard for the truth in this connection.

1. Forfeiture of the claim to be honest and sincere restorationists. If we can arbitrarily set aside the divine revelation to justify and retain in our contemporary practice that which was not a part of the ancient order, we set the stage on which we cease to portray the role of restorers and merely dramatize our own twentieth century sectism.

2. Renunciation of the foundation upon which true restoration must be achieved. In his Synopsis of Restoration, Alexander Campbell lists as the first goal, “The restoration of a pure speech, or the calling of Bible things by Bible names.” There are two great avenues of departure in interpretation. One is to create distinctions where the Holy Spirit makes none; the other to lose those distinctions which are legitimate and essential.

3. Creation of unscriptural officers and functions. This strikes at the heart of the polity of the primitive ekklesia. The church of God is a constitutional monarchy. The constitution delivered by the envoys of the Great King, provides for the essential officers and their qualifications. The idea of “the minister” to preach to the community of saints is as foreign to the new covenant scriptures as is an abbot or archbishop.

4. Inauguration of a complex and creedal basis of fellowship without scriptural warrant. This is clearly true of “The Church of Christ.” These brethren equate “the gospel” with the whole scope of the new covenant scriptures. Thus one must believe (i.e., understand as they do) all that is contained in the epistolary writings before he can be admitted to their “fellowship.” If he holds a divergent view on the millennium, instrumental music, etc., he does not “believe the gospel” so cannot be “saved” according to the commission to the envoys. Nothing has contributed more to the confused exclusivist sectarian attitude of this modern party than their egregious error and flagrant fallacy at this point.

What is “the gospel”? C. H. Dodd, Professor Emeritus in the University of Cambridge, delivered the Bampton Lectures in America, at Columbia University, in 1950. In the third lecture, which bore the title Gospel and Law, he said:

“The form and contents of the proclamation, the kerygma, can be recovered from the New Testament with reasonable accuracy. It recounts in brief the life and works of Jesus Christ, His conflicts, sufferings and death, and His resurrection from the dead, and it went on to declare that in these events he divinely guided history of Israel through long centuries had reached its climax. God Himself had acted decisively in this way to inaugurate His kingdom upon the earth. This was the core of all early Christian preaching, however it might be elaborated, illustrated and explained.”

The great envoy who carried the message to the Gentile world, thus describes the content of the joyful announcement, embodied in the kergygma:

“Now, my brothers, I want to speak about the Gospel which I have previously preached to you, which you accepted, in which you are at present standing, and by which, if you remain faithful to the message I gave you, your salvation is being worked out—unless, of course, your faith had no meaning behind it at all. For I passed on to you Corinthians first of all the message I had myself received—that Christ died for our sins, as the Scriptures said He would; that He was buried and rose again on the third day, again as the Scriptures foretold” (1 Cor. 15:1-4. J. B. Phillips’ Translation).

Any person who proclaims these facts, preaches the gospel, and the same gospel which Paul preached. Reverting to our introduction, we affirm that Baptist preachers proclaim the gospel. Billy Graham proclaims the gospel, perhaps more forcibly than most others of our day. Many of the representatives of the various denominations in the domain of Christendom proclaim the gospel. This statement is regarded as sheer treason by partisan members of “The Church of Christ.” They immediately ask the question, “Do you say that Billy Graham is a gospel preacher?” That is a loaded question. The querist equates “a gospel preacher” and what he would call “a Church of Christ preacher” as one and the same. Certainly Graham is not affiliated with “The Church of Christ.” But, if by the term “gospel preacher” is simply meant “one who announces the good news” the answer is in the affirmative.

The objection is made that Graham cannot preach the gospel, because he does not tell those who believe it what the Holy Spirit informed penitent believers to do to be saved. Such an objection demonstrates that the objector is ignorant of the divine limitations placed upon the terms he uses. There is a difference in the gospel proclaimed to lead men to believe in the Christ, and the requirements demanded of those who believe the facts which make up that gospel. Peter did not tell the conscience-stricken Jews on Pentecost what to do until they asked him, but he had already proclaimed the gospel to them. It would have been no less the gospel if they had never asked him, and thus he had never told them. If the narrative in Acts 2 had abruptly ended at verse 36, the gospel would have been proclaimed, as it certainly was.

Baptism is not a part of the gospel. It is a requisite of the response divinely commanded to those who have heard and believe the gospel. Paul said, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” One might preach the gospel and then give the wrong instructions to those who believe it about what they should do. He might convince them that their sins were remitted before the divine act of pardon takes place. In such an event, the preacher would be as wrong about where salvation begins, as preachers in “The Church of Christ” are about where the gospel ends.

Peter did not proclaim a partial gospel, or a fragment of the good news, on Pentecost. The gospel was as fully proclaimed that day as it has ever been. But there was not a single New Testament book written for many years after that day. Those who entered into covenant relationship on that day, did so on the basis of a perfect gospel. I am convinced that some who announced the kerygma, and many who heard it, did not understand all of its implications, but that did not affect the content of the kerygma announced by the heralds under motivation of the Holy Spirit.

Those who were immersed continued steadfastly in the doctrine and fellowship of the envoys of Jesus. The didache in which they continued was not the kerygma they had accepted. It is true that Baptist doctrine is not the gospel. Neither is “Church of Christ” doctrine. Neither was the apostles’ doctrine. So the editor of Gospel Guardian did not prove what he set out to prove about Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and others. He did prove that he did not know of what the gospel of Christ consists.

There is much more to say, but I would avoid being tiresome or boresome to the earnest reader, so will continue at another time, and in another article under the heading “Heralds and Herdsmen.”

Mr. Ketcherside’s last article, Drifting and Dreaming, is now available in reprint form at 10 cents each or $6.00 per 100 copies. This is an attractive 8 page booklet.

This journal would also like to suggest to those who are following Mr. Ketcherside’s essays to read his Royal Priesthood, available at $2.00.

Send your order to Restoration Press, 1916 Western Dr., Alton, Illinois.