Truth Magazine

By Earl Robertson

Matthew records this statement, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). What good news for sin-laden people!

The Jews had the Law of Moses for fifteen hundred yeas, but that law could not take away sin (Rom. 8:3). That law was not given to take away sin, and it never so functioned (Heb. 8:7ff). The Old Testament vas dedicated by the blood of animals and the New Testament of Christ was dedicated by the Blood of Jesus (Heb. 9). Paul was a Jew (Acts 22:3) and lived as a Jew tinder the law. As Paul grew and was taught the law (“know the Lord, know the Lord”-Heb. 8:11), he found it did not give life, but rather death (Rom. 7:10, 24). The illustration of his own wretchedness also emphasizes the way out of sin — “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 7:25).

Jesus saves from sin! He does not save from accidents, local or national upheavals and catastrophes touching humanity. He died “for the redemption of the transgressions” of mankind (Heb. 9:15).God demanded death for sin, but the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin (He b. 10:4). Since God demanded the shedding of Blood for remission of sins (Heb. 9:22), He “gave His only Son” to die (John 3:16). Jesus was “a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief’-our sorrows and our griefs (Isa. 53:3,4). When He was “wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; God saw the travail of His soul, and was satisfied (Isa. 53:5, 11).

Jesus does not save people against their will. It is on the basis of “whosoever will” (Rev. 22:17). This is not what the creeds of men teach. Some human creeds teach “irresistible grace.” Some teach that God through Christ saves some men against their own wishes! Yet, in the words of Jesus the Savior, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). The invitation to “come” expresses action on the part of the sinner; it means the sinner, being away from the Savior and life itself, can come to the Savior. Salvation is offered only in Christ (2 Tim. 2:10).

Truth Magazine XXII: 12, p. 197
March 23, 1978

By Mike Willis

In 1925, John T. Scopes, a biology teacher in Dayton, Tennessee was charged with violating a state law which prohibited the teaching of any theories which deny the divine creation of man. The counsel for the defense was Clarence Darrow; William Jennings Bryan assisted in the prosecuting of Scopes. Scopes had been teaching evolution in the classrooms of Dayton, Tennessee. The trial lasted three weeks. Scopes was fined $100 after being found guilty. However, the fine and verdict were set aside by the state supreme court without any comment about the legality of the law.

The Scopes trial brought national attention to the controversy between the fundamentalists and the modernists. The trial itself was the culmination of a movement which had been going on for years. Alarmed by the steady growth of religious liberalism, the fundamentalists banded themselves together to stay the rising tide of modernism. The Scopes trial was somewhat of a test case as to whether or not the state schools could be restricted in their teaching. Though Scopes was found guilty, the ultimate result has been that this trial has been used to guarantee the modernists the right to present their theories of evolution in schools across this nation. Perhaps the time has come for another Scopes trial to be held.

Evolution in the Schools

Whereas the first Scopes trial was held in the hopes of guaranteeing those who believe in evolution the right to present their material in the public schools, if another Scopes trial ever occurs, it will likely be to guarantee the creationists the right to present their views regarding the origin of man. For today, evolutionists have such complete controls over the schools that in some universities a person cannot obtain a degree in certain fields of study without believing in evolution.

Evolution is not considered a theory by such teachers; it is considered a fact. The person who stands in opposition to evolution is not even given a hearing, in many cases. Regarding the manner in which evolution is presently being treated, Arthur Custance said,

Theories are essential to the progress of understanding in science because they structure experiment and inspire the asking of pertinent questions. When facts do not support the theory, it may be modified and continue to serve as inspiration for further investigation. But when a theory which is tentative is presented as fact, it no longer serves to inspire questions but rather to predetermine answers. To my mind, this is the present position of evolutionary theory. It has become “fact” and to challenge it is to run the risk of excommunication. In Medieval times, too, excommunication was one of the penalties for challenging the accepted view of things. At that time the test of whether any new theory was true or false was, as John Randall points out, whether it fitted harmoniously into the orthodox systems of belief and not whether it could be verified by experiment. This is exactly the position today; ecclesiastical dogma has been replaced by biological dogma which, as “dogma,” has been detrimental to the truth (Genesis and Early Man, p. 75).

Custance has accurately presented the situation with reference to the subject of evolution in most of our public schools. Today, there is no room for an examination of the arguments favoring creation over evolution. To teach creation in the classroom is to be guilty of combining church and state; to teach evolution does not involve this problem, according to those teaching the subject. Hence, one can teach evolution in the classrooms but dare not read the Genesis account of creation.

Not a few people have fallen down on their knees before the god of Science. Arlie J. Hoover explained what scientism is; he said,

The word scientism has been used for a long time to mean an uncritical worship of the empirical scientific method, an excessive veneration of laboratory technique. To a person who commits this error, “science” is a sacred word, and the phrase, “Science has proved,” has the force of a papal bull. To such people science has become a religion (Fallacies of Evolution, p. 16).

Such veneration of the scientists has created the disposition that science possesses all of the infallibility which Catholics believe the Pope has when he speaks ex cathedra. We cannot question whether or not evolution is true, because “science has proven” that it is true!

Evolution Still Remains Unproven

Despite the arrogance of those who believe evolution has been proven, the theory of evolution remains unproven. Let us consider exactly what would be necessary for evolution to be proven scientifically.

Bertrand Russell maintained that: “In arriving at a scientific law there are three main stages: the first consists in observing the significant facts; the second in arriving at a hypothesis, which, if it is true, would account for these facts; the third in deducing from this hypothesis consequences which can be tested by observation. If the consequences are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally accepted as true, although it will usually require modification later on as the result of the discovery of further facts (James D. Bales, Evolution and the Scientific Method, p.32).

What does this require specifically for evolution? What is necessary in order to prove the theory? In order to prove the theory of evolution, the following must be scientifically established: first, scientific proof must be given of the origin of our universe, solar system and earth; second, the origin of life; third, it must be scientifically established by the fossil record; fourth, it must be proved to be taking place in nature today; fifth, it must be proved experimentally in the lab; sixth, it must enable scientists to predict (cf. Bales, ibid., p. 56). This has not been done with the theory of evolution.

However, experimental repeatability is essential to the scientific verification of an hypothesis. “Science is built upon repeated results . . . .” By the very nature of the problem, evolution cannot be verified in this manner; therefore, it can never be established as a scientific law. No one has been able to demonstrate in the lab the changes which are absolutely essential to the scientific verification of evolution (Ibid., p. 72).

Evolution is a philosophy; it is not a science and certainly not a proven scientific fact. No one has presented sufficient evidence to prove the theory of evolution. The question of the origins of man is still open so far as the demonstrable evidence of science is concerned. Any person who maintains that “science has proven evolution” manifests his own ignorance of what constitutes science and the problems confronting the belief in the theory of evolution.

We Need Another Scopes Trial

Yet, the situation has evolved to such a degree that the proponents of evolution are almost in complete control of the educational facilities of the state. They are unwilling to present evolution as one of several unproven theories regarding the origin of man; they want to present it as an established fact. Furthermore, they browbeat those who believe in creation and make it extremely difficult to obtain a degree in certain fields of study unless that person will accept evolution.

What is the result of this? Science was allowed to present its theory of evolution but will not allow the presentation of the creationists’ point of view. As a result, our state is propagating a scientific humanism at the taxpayer’s expense. The theory of evolution may be properly defined as follows:

The word “evolution” is also used as a cover term for the total explanation of life’s origins and manifold forms. It involves the idea that the earth through a variety of natural processes became a place in which it was possible for life to exist. Life arose from the non-living, it arose by natural causes, and without intelligent oversight or direction. From the first form or forms of life, all the manifold forms have evolved through natural processes. All of this has been done without any supernatural intervention. It was not the result of intelligence, but of the blind workings of the forces of nature (Bales, op. cit., p. 25).

Hence, the indoctrination of our children in the theory of evolution constitutes the state’s involvement in the denial of supernatural creation. Instead, our state schools teach our children that the natural process must be explained without any reference to intelligent intervention into the course of nature.

The big question we now face is: How much longer are parents going to allow the selective indoctrination of their children-at taxpayer’s expense-with an exclusively, prejudiced, anti-religious view of origins that has no scientific -roof? (Hoover, op. cit., p. 85).

Hence, the world might be ripe for another Scopes trial-a trial designed to guarantee the creationist the right to present his view of origins alongside those views presented by the humanists who believe in evolution.

Truth Magazine XXII: 12, pp. 195-196
March 23, 1978

By Bobby Graham

“But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord” (1 Cor. 1:30, 31 ).

A Fourfold Benefit in Christ

In this matchless verse from the pen of the apostle Paul, notice the fourfold benefit that belongs to those in Christ: wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. What a treasure of gifts bestowed by a gracious God! In view of the blessings coming from God and His being their giver, it ill behooves men to glory in themselves or in their accomplishments respecting salvation or spiritual attainment. Let them count their blessings in these matters as divine bestowals; and let them glory in the giver of these glorious gifts, not in themselves.

The Relationship of Christ to This Benefit

That God has made all these gifts possible and has placed them within the reach of all men by his work of redemption in Christ is here affirmed by the apostle. The specific role of Christ in that work and plan is being considered in these verses. It appears that Paul, in effect, says that God has made Christ to be our benefactor in respect to these benefits; that is, God has given wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption to mankind through Jesus Christ. He is the one through whom all can enjoy the benefits here set forth.

The principal thought of the verses is the joint work of God and Christ in salvation, but the relationship of Christ to the believer in these matters is also implied. Christ is the cause or the means of the Christian’s receiving them. He is the cause or means of wisdom (Col. 2:3), of righteousness (Rom. 5:17), of sanctification (2 Thes. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2), and of redemption (Eph. 1:7). The statement that He is our wisdom, righteousness, etc., is similar to Jesus’ statement that He is the resurrection and the life (Jn. 11:25) and to His claim to be the way, truth, and live (Jn. 14:6), in that all of them are figurative statements; they employ a figure of speech which uses the cause for the effect or the effect for the cause. Jesus meant that He makes the resurrection and the life possible and that He is the means whereby one can learn the way, know the truth, and gain the life. In the passage of 1 Corinthians 1 that we are considering, Jesus is the means whereby men receive divine wisdom and benefit from it, whereby they can be just or righteous (not guilty).and the means of sanctification and redemption. The relationship of cause or means in relation to redemption is clear in Eph. 1:7, where He is the means of our redemption through His shed blood. In that Jesus bears the same relation to the other blessings of 1 Cor. 1:30 that He bears to redemption, then it must be His relationship as cause or means that is being set forth here.

Same Thought-Different Passage

The identical thought of Jesus’ role as the cause or means of our righteousness is found in 2 Cor. 5:21: “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” It is in Christ (means, cause) that the righteousness given or granted by the Lord is found. The chief difference between this passage and the earlier one is that this one indicates we can receive righteousness from God in spite of our sins, for Christ became as sin, or as a sin offering, for us. He bore our own sins in His own body on the tree of the cross, so we sinners might obtain an opportunity, for justification in the court of God in heaven. Thank God for it! Remember, however, that the blessing is gained in Christ and in compliance with His will.

A False Idea

We have discussed Christ as our means of righteousness at length that we might have a good foundation against the false idea that Christ’s personal righteousness, performed during his perfect life, can be transferred from Him to us (imputation). Such an idea is sometimes based on 1 Cor. 1:30. Surely we can see, though, that the blessings mentioned in the verse are not actual descriptions of Christ’s personal qualities. The verse is not even emphasizing Christ as our substitute, or as one whose personal perfection in keeping God’s requirements can be imputed to us where we lack. It is setting Him forth as the divine agent who made all of them possible. There is not even one verse in the entire Bible that teaches that Christ’s personal righteousness can be transferred.

How thankful we should be that in Christ our sins can be washed away, our guilt cleansed, and our righteousness obtained. The obtaining of them, however, depends upon our doing the will of the Lord, what Peter called working righteousness in Acts 10:34, 35. Would you learn the obedience that He requires of you that you might perform it and thereby receive the gift of righteousness and reign in life by one, Christ Jesus (Rom. 5:17)?

Truth Magazine XXII: 12, p. 194
March 23, 1978

By William C. Sexton

The first two nights of the series of debates with Brother Bob Loudermilk is now history (January 13, 14, 1978). We believe that the debate was a learning experience for all present, including the participants. I gained a great deal from my preparation and the discussion. We did not go into the debate because we felt that we possessed great skills as a debater; rather we entered the debate because we believe that Christians are to present and defend what they believe to be truth as it is revealed in God’s word, the Bible.

I feel that some clarification was made on the exact point that separates Brother Bob and me over the “container” in the communion. In the past, it has occurred to us that much misunderstanding exists between the two groups of brethren on this issue and not much is usually done in the debates to clarify the exact point of difference. In this discussion, I feel that we got to the heart of the issue. These brethren believe that the “cup” of Lk. 22:20 is the container, and that it represents the New Testament, while the contents of the container-the fruit of the vine-represents the blood of Christ. However, in most debates the number of containers is what is discussed, thus the real issue is not discussed. We would encourage all to debate the real issue if they are going to discuss it.

It is my position that Jesus took a container with fruit of the vine in it; then, when He began to give instructions relative to it, He made it clear that it is the contents that He speaks of. Therefore, I made a chart with the word “cup” as it appears in the account of the Lord’s Supper with all of the pronouns whose antecedent is “cup.” I filled out my view of the matter on the chart showing that when Jesus took the “cup” it was both, container and fruit of the vine, but when He gave instructions relative to it, He indicated that it was fruit of the vine. We did this consistently, all the way through, thus we affirmed that the “cup” of Lk. 22:20 and 1 Con 11:25-26 was the fruit of the vine, representing the New Testament in His blood, and this being equal to Matthew and Mark’s account of it being His blood of the .New Testament.

Brother Bob, however, affirming as he was that the container of Lk. 22:20 and 1 Cor. 11:25-26 was representative of the New Testament, had much trouble filling out the chart. He had Jesus taking the container and then instructing His disciples to drink it; also he indicated that they were to drink both the container and the contents in 1 Cor. 11:27-28. Consequently, he has the impossible happening: people drinking from an empty container, and then drinking both the container and the contents. However, Bob does not in fact believe in the empty container, and we did not charge him with such; we only pointed to his impossible indication on the chart, believing that such was the product of his improper view of Lk. 22:20 and 1 Cor. 11:25.

We are looking forward to him recognizing his impossible indication on the chart, as time goes by. Also, we are looking forward to a good discussion with him on the bread, Feb. 17 and 18, at the Westside church of Christ. 3500 South Meridian in Wichita. He is to affirm that the bread has to be in one loaf or piece on Friday night; I am affirming that the break may be in more than one loaf or piece on Saturday night, at 7:30. Remember, also, that we will be debating the classes on March 24th, and the Women Teachers issues on March 25th-both at the Westside church of Christ, 7:30 each evening.

Above everything else, I was glad that both Brother Bob and I could discuss with the feelings and deep faith and conviction we have in our proposition, and yet manifest respect, love, and appreciation for each other. I believe with all my heart that brethren ought to be able to do this, if they are going to stand the test of Christian character.

We would urge brethren throughout the country, to meet each other in this fashion, on issues that divide them. There is no need, in our view, to bring in professional debaters, and then let them leave town after the debate leaving the brethren divided. Brother Bob and I have worked here in Wichita for three years, studying and teaching. We have studied other issues, and we continue to study. If we had brought in other men to debate the issue, even though they perhaps would have done a better job as far as debate skills are concerned, they would have left behind a situation that would not have produced further study. However, brethren need to continue to get together after the discussion, and carry through on ideas that were presented and defended. We intend to do this, and we would urge the same behavior in other places, believing that this holds the greatest chance for fruitful study and application. We are appreciative of brethren, as Brother Bob, who are willing to discuss and defend what they preach and practice. We are willing to put what we teach and practice to the test, and if we were unwilling to do this, we would be afraid to teach and practice them.

Truth Magazine XXII: 11, p. 189
March 16, 1978