Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

Recently we began a discussion of the deity of Christ. So abundant are the proofs of Christ’s deity that it is impossible to discuss them all, in one such lesson. So in this article, I want to continue our thoughts and show other proofs of the divinity of Jesus the Christ. Previously, we suggested, as a proof of his deity, the fact that Jesus never equates himself with men. He never prayed “Our Father who art in heaven,” but often he spoke of “my Father” and “your Father.”

Jesus: An Object of Faith

As an additional proof, I would like to suggest that the scriptures teach that Jesus is an object of faith, and not just a good example of faith. The modernist will very readily admit that Jesus is the most perfect example of faith the world has ever known. I believe it was Renen, the French skeptic, who said that there was never a particle of selfishness in Christ. Many who do not believe He is the Son of God will speak of Him as the Master Teacher, and will confess that He established the greatest moral system the world has ever known and that He is the best man the world has ever known and the perfect example of faith. But when one has said all of this concerning Jesus Christ, he has not said enough. Jesus was not just a good example for us. He was that, of course, but He was more than a good example. He is one in whom we are to believe. In John 20:30-31, the Apostle John cited the reason for his writing the gospel bearing his name. He said, “Many other signs, therefore, did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” John wrote that we may believe that Jesus is the Sort of God. He is more than just a good man; He is the object of our faith.

In Luke 7:50, Jesus said unto the woman, “thy faith has saved thee; go in peace.” The saving faith of this woman was not in the fact that Jesus was a good man, but that He was the Son of God. Faith saves only when its implications are carried out, because the faith that saves is the faith that obeys. Another passage showing the fact that Jesus is not just an example of faith but that he is the object of faith is John 20:27-28. When Jesus said to doubting Thomas, “Reach hither thy hand and put it into my side: And be not faithless, but believing” (v. 27), all of the doubts of Thomas were immediately removed. The Bible says that “Thomas answered and said unto him, my Lord and my God.” The evidence was such that Thomas confessed more than that Jesus was merely an upright man. He was, indeed, God’s Son.

The Authority of Christ

As another argument, showing the fact that Jesus was divine, let us consider the authority with which He spoke: As the scripture says, “never man so spake” (John 7:46). In the Old Testament, we find many words of God spoken through prophets, but each time the prophet spoke, he would begin by saying “Thus saith the Lord,” but when the Lord Jesus spoke, being God’s Son, He did not have to attach a prefix to what he said. He himself could speak with the, authority of God.

So we find that His sayings are put on a level with Old Testament pronouncements, which were regarded by all as the very Word of God. To illustrate this, let us notice some of the things Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount. He said, “Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment” (Matt. 5:21-22). Observe that He quoted the law and then said, “but I say unto you.” In the same chapter, verses 27 and 28, “Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” And, of course, there are many other examples in this same sermon. These are sufficient to show that Jesus’ sayings were equated with the sayings of God. They were put on the same level.

The Claims of Christ

As we continue to select a few of the evidences of the deity of Christ, let us notice what Jesus said of himself. First, He said He would judge the world. In Matt. 7:2123, Jesus gives a description of the Judgment in which people shall stand before Him and give an account for what they have done. “Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” And in John 12:48, He says, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day.” An ordinary man does not have the power to give to men eternal life or send them into everlasting destruction, but Jesus has this power, because He is God’s Son. Further, He says, “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mk. 8:38).

Secondly, another claim that Jesus made of Himself was that He had power to forgive sins. Of course, there are many denominational churches today which would assert that the power to forgive sins is no indication of divinity, because they feel that one must confess his sins to a preacher or other clergyman, and the preacher can make intercession for thesinner and get the sins blotted out. But the scribes spoken of in the New Testament were right when they said that the ordinary man who professes to forgive sins is a blasphemer. Had Jesus been an ordinary man, He would have been guilty of blasphemy. After having healed the man sick of palsy, “certain of the scribes said within themselves, this man blasphemeth, and Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise’. and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of mar hath authority on earth to forgive sins (then saith he to the sick of the palsy), Arise, and take up thy bed, anc go unto thy house” (Matt. 9:3-6). And in Mk. 2:7, we find the question asked, “Who can forgive sins but one even God?” So when Jesus claimed the power to forgive sins it was equivalent to saying, “I am God; I am divine.”

Thirdly, Jesus claimed perfectly to know God, and asserted that no one can know God except he reveal Him. “All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: And no one knoweth the Son saveth the Father; neither doth anyone know the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him” (Matt. 11:27). Jesus says, “I know God.” The apostle John says, in John 1:18, “No man hath seen God at any time.” So Jesus was more than a man. John continues, “the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” So we see that Jesus claimed and did things that no man can do.

The Works of Christ

The works that Jesus did also testify to his supernatural powers. Miracles in the New Testament were called signs. A sign signifies something. Miracles or. signs signified Christ had divine approval in what He said. Nicodemus came to Jesus and said, “Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; and no one can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him.” Jesus was willing to stake His claim to be the Son of God on the works that He did. He said, “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not, but if I do them, though you believe not me, believe the works” (John 10:37-38). Here is a temptation to divert our thoughts from our thesis and to discuss the many, marvelous works He did. But we must proceed with our presentation of other proofs of the Deity of Christ.

The Resurrection of Christ

The empty tomb of Christ is a historical fact with great implications. The tomb of Christ was guarded by a legion of soldiers. Yet on the third day, they had to admit, His body was missing. They had seen Him placed there dead. Later, the disciples saw Him, resurrected from the dead. His resurrection is a crowning proof of His divinity. No man before or since has made the claims that Jesus made, and then be willing to stake the truthfulness of those claims upon the fact that He would be raised from the dead. Paul says, in Rom. 1:4 that Jesus Christ was “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” The same writer emphasized that if Jesus were not raised from the dead, the preaching of the apostles was in vain, as well as was the faith of all the Christians. The apostles had borne false witness; the dead are not raised; we are yet in our sins, and those that have fallen asleep in Christ have perished (1 Cor. 15:12-19). All of this is true if there be no resurrection. But the Lord was raised and begat us again unto a living hope by His resurrection (1 Pet. 1:3, 4). When He broke the bonds of death and burst forth from the tomb, He brought life and immortality to light and radiated hope to all mankind.

Other Evidences

The apostle John presents some evidences of the Deity of Christ, in 1 Jn. 5. These proofs are the testimony of the water, blood, Spirit, God and the disciples. At the baptism of Christ, God said “This is my beloved Son.” In the death of Christ His blood was shed. Yet He was raised to live ever more. The Holy Spirit of God, through the apostles, bears testimony to the fact that Jesus is the Christ. God said on at least two occasions, at the baptism of Christ (Matt. 3:17) and at His transfiguration (Mark 9:16), “This is my beloved Son,” and John said, “He that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he hath not believed in the witness that’ God has borne concerning His Son” (1 Jn. 5:10). Every person that says Christ is not God’s Son calls God a liar because God said He is. And the final testimony that John presents is that of the witnesses. He said “God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is in his at Son” (1 Jn. 5:11). The disciples knew they had eternal life, and sealed their witness with their blood; their testimony also is to the effect that Jesus is the Son of God. We need more preaching today like Paul did in the synagogues of Damascus. After his conversion we read, “And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God” (Acts 9.20).

Truth Magazine XIX: 34, pp. 531-533
July 10, 1975

By Jeffery Kingry

It is possible to tell something about man in the things that he makes. Take the back off of your T.V. set or look at the circuitry in your stereo amplifier, and it will tell you something about the intellect of man. Gaze at a Rembrandt painting, or a sculpture from the hands of Michelangelo and it is possible to infer something of the eye and talent of man. If we can tell that there is intelligence and personality in man by looking at the things he creates, is it not also possible to infer something of God from looking at His creation? Indeed, that which can be known of God is plainly seen in his creation. We can tell something of the power and character of God in the things he has created (Rom. 1:19,20). Whether it be a butterfly upon a flower, or the vastness of space, we can look to all and say, “God is greater than these.”

This is what is so repugnant in the idea of reducing God to our level. The God who created the universe and all that it contains must be greater than His creation. He does not live in man-made shrines, neither can he be waited on by human hands, as if the Power who made all things needed anything that man has to offer Him. Indeed, it is God who gives us life and breath, and our existence in this life. It is not right for us to imagine that the Divine Image can be represented in gold or silver or stone-a work sculptured artistically by the inventive ingenuity of man’s thought (Acts 17:24-29).

This entire creation-from the intricate mathematical precision of the atom, to the raging power locked in the heart of the sun in its swift orbit-all proceed forth from the power and wisdom of God. How presumptive-how arrogant-how totally deceived we are when we presume to tell God by our lives and actions that we know more about living and the true reality than He does.

Do I Do That?

You might imagine that you are free from such presumption. But, when man is presumptive enough to set aside the will of God to follow what is aesthetically pleasing to himself–he has set his tastes above the will of God. Jesus said, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed. And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:31,32). The truth is what makes men free, not man-made systems of thought. As a child, my father would sometimes bring me a model airplane to build. My first effort at putting the pieces together resulted in a lopsided plane, with many bits and pieces left over. My father viewed the disarray, reached into the box, and pulled out a folded piece of paper I had overlooked. “When all else fails, son, read the directions.” God did not give us this life and creation to “put it all together” by ourselves. All the unhappiness we see in this world is a result of men trying to put it together without the directions.

The things we see as quality-worthwhile-of lasting value, ultimately decay and pass away. The new car rusts, the flowers fade and fall, the fame passes away in the history books, beauty turns to wrinkles and grey hair, and eventually the dust receives them all. This is the crux of the whole of existence. What is enduring? What is of lasting beauty and quality? What is life for? Only the One who made all this to start with has the answers. We find the answers only when we submit to what He has said.

The Answer of God

When you submit yourself to God in true humility, then God will make you enduringly beautiful, and transport you into a way of life whose fruit is everlasting life. Not everlasting existence alone, but everlasting life! An eternity of pure beauty-unrivaled by any created glory which we can experience in this life. “For the Lord taketh pleasure in His people: He will beautify the meek with salvation” (Psa. 194:4). The beauty of this world will all eventually pass away, but the beauty of an eternal spirit, cleansed of all that is unclean, can never pass away. That spirit is you. Not your body, what you own, your job, or anything else tangible-but you.

Sin is what keeps us from eternal life. The only thing that can take away sin is the blood of Jesus Christ, His sacrifice upon the cross (Eph. 1:7). That blood bought the church of Christ (Acts 20:28), and the church is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22, 23). There is only one way to partake of the sacrifice of Jesus: Baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). In baptism we are added to the church (Acts 2:41, 47). We are baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13). We are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27). This baptism is a burial in water (not sprinkling or pouring) and a planting (Rom. 6:3, 4).

Man’s soul is the only thing of eternal value worth saving in this world. Do not throw away the beauty that could be in your life upon the beauty that fades away like a flower. What is a life? It is here but for a little while, like the brief existence of a frosty breath on a cold day. Why don’t you invest in the future what no man can take away from you? Why not become a Christian today?

Truth Magazine XIX: 34, p. 530
July 10, 1975

By Dennis C. Abernathy

(Note: This article was sent to William Wallace for usage in the Gospel Guardian many months ago. It never saw the light of day.-Dennis Abernathy)

The above is the title of an article written by Gordon Wilson that appeared in the Gospel Guardian January 3, 1974. Much of what he said in the article was good, but with some of the points made, I must respectfully disagree.

1. First of all, Brother Wilson says, “Judging from the amount of writing done on the topic in the summer season, it appears that a lot of preachers feel that hot weather makes for an increase in immodesty.” He then says, “Perhaps they are right.” I must say that I am one preacher that can be included in the “lot of preachers,” that feel that way. Let me say also that there is no “perhaps” to it. Hot weather does make for an increase in immodesty. All a person has to do to realize this is just walk with his eyes open. But Brother Wilson said in another article, (Immodest Apparel and Immoderate Preachers-The Defender-July 11, 1971, “What I am not so sure about is why some brethren notice this particular evil so often and in such rich detail. Frankly, they have me worried about myself: How come I so seldom notice the scantily-clad young women who, we are assured, fill the churches as well as the streets and beaches?” And my wife has always told me that I was naive!!!

2. Brother Wilson says, “Our text will have to be I Timothy 2:9, 10; this is the only passage in the New Testament which links `modesty’ with `apparel.’ So, when we have quoted this passage we have exhausted what the Book says about modest apparel.” In this Defender article referred to above, he made a similar statement, when he said we should speak . against this evil as against all others, and then he says, “To prove I believe so, I now proceed to say all the Bible says on the subject.” He then quoted 1 Tim. 2:9-10 and then added, “That is it.” What dear reader, is he saying? He is saying (if I can read) that all the Bible says on modest and immodest apparel is to be found in 1 Tim. 2:9-10. Sounds like a Baptist who would say that “salvation is by faith only,” and to prove that he believes so, he will proceed to say “all the Bible says on the subject.” He will then quote a lot of passages that deal with faith. But concerning modest and immodest apparel I submit the following for your consideration: 1 Pet. 3:1-6; Tit. 2:4-5; Matt. 5:27-28; 2 Sam. 11:2-5; Gen. 38:13; Prov. 7:10.

3. Next Brother Wilson says, “How is the best way for preachers to deal with this problem? Definitely not by a tremendous amount of public preaching on the subject.” May I ask, will this solution work with other problems equally as well? What about fornication? What about dancing? What about reading dirty books, or going to obscene movies and etc.? Do we need to do much public preaching on these subjects, Brother Wilson? A lack of or the cessation of preaching on things that are sinful never “solved or dealt with any problem.” Certainly, when preaching on these subjects, our language should not be “of the gutter.” (Col. 4:6; Eph. 5:4; Eph. 4:29; Tit. 2:8) But does our brother mean by “discreet” that we should preach in such a way that no application of principles which are laid down may ever be applied?

4. Then our brother says, “What the evangelist should do is to teach the older sisters that it is their duty, (Amen! DCA) not his (what about 2 Tim. 4:1-2; 1 Tim. 5:1-2; DCA) to teach the young ones.” “In addition, the preacher should have such a wholesome and consistent program of Biblical teaching that he will soon succeed in instilling in most members a sense of the total lordship of Jesus Christ over their lives. When a sister comes to have a joyful awareness of the abiding presence of the Lord at all times, she will certainly think about how she should dress.” Again, I ask, will this work with other sins? Should we just teach the “total lordship of Jesus Christ” and never be specific in dealing with sin? This abiding presence of the Lord comes through the obedience to His word and this word must be taught. This involves more than just teaching the total lordship of Jesus.

5. Our brother says he approaches the subject in the way above and that “there is never an extensive problem of immodesty in any congregation where I have been for very long.” Now I sure hope that is so, and I can certainly rejoice if it is. But just maybe the immodesty is there but he just “seldom notices” it in the churches, on the streets and on the beaches. I wonder!

Brethren, let us teach the truth on this subject and then stick with it when we do. I believe teaching of the sort I have reviewed is loose and will add comfort to those who want to dress as they please, instead of the way God would have them to do. There are many good sisters who dress modestly and above reproach, and there are many who would dress modestly if they were taught to do so. Some, of course, will dress as they, please and call you “dirty minded” and accuse you of running around with a tape measure in your hand, if you say something about it. Let us not judge something modest or immodest by the shame of the world. Many in the world would not be ashamed if you wore nothing at all!! “Streaking” will bear that out.

Truth Magazine XIX: 33, p. 525
June 26, 1975

By Wallace H. Little

By the time you read this, Brother Connie Adams and Cecil Willis will be in the Philippine Islands or will have already returned from their preaching visit there. As they will report the trip details, I will not comment on them. Several weeks prior to leaving, Cecil called me and asked if I had seen a printed letter authored by the liberal Americans in the Philippines, those running or connected with the Philippine Bible College (PBC) in Baguio City. I already had a copy. Additionally, others had contacted me about it. The letter was a collective recommendation by its writers: churches and individual brethren in the United States should cease supporting Filipino preachers. This was to be done by a phasing out over a three year period. The letter is too long to comment on all points. But at Cecil’s request, I will examine the most important: its premise, problems cited and a possible reason for this letter being sent to conservative brethren here.

On page one, second paragraph, one phrase shows the foundation for the liberals’ conclusions on problems they believe are produced by American support of Filipino preachers. “. . . We have listened carefully to the sermons and comments of Filipino brethren, we have talked seriously with men who have had the same problems in other countries, we have discussed the matter with overseeing elderships (emp. mine-whl), we have studied the situation from every possible aspect, and we have spent much time in prayer to God about it . . . .” Their expression, “overseeing elderships,” is the key. To our liberal brethren, this is synonymous with “sponsoring churches” and elders running them. If we are to understand it literally, it is saying “overseeing overseerships,” “supervising supervisorships” or “eldering elderships.” Had it not been for the letter’s authors, I would not have known there were any other kind. Given their use of that expression, some of their problems with American support of Filipino preachers become understandable. On page one, paragraph three, the letter continues, “. . . We American workers have recommended support for several Filipino brethren. Nevertheless, as time has passed, a number of undesirable effects and results (emp. mine-whl) have been manifest to all, both Filipinos and Americans. There have been abuses by those who make ‘godliness a way of gain.’ On the other hand, the practice itself has produced the problem even among the many conscientious preachers and congregations who love the Lord, and want to do it right.” The letter is saying that the problems result from the system. They are partly right. Let’s look at each, as the letter lists them. I will copy each verbatim, so none will be misrepresented.

1. “The preacher feels a great allegiance to the stateside church supporting him, and the local church here is not directing his work.” What the preacher feels comes from him. That the local church is not directing his work is not the result of his feelings, but the fact that Philippine Bible College, through its power of the purse, is doing the directing “in the name of” the sponsoring church. This problem truly is the result of the system, but not the system of support; rather, of control. Destroy the unscriptural system of control and the problem will disappear.

2. “Because he receives adequate help from overseas, the local church has no incentive to give according to ability.” I have no doubt this is a problem among liberal churches there; it is among many conservative churches also . . . and here in the United States . . . and elsewhere in the world. The problem does not come from preachers being supported. Instead, it is from lack of instruction on this by the preacher and other teachers. Also, it shows a carnal attitude toward giving, emphasizing things for which money is used, rather than the real need for each Christian to give (Acts 20:35). “The practice itself” has nothing to do with it. So while it is a problem, our liberal brethren there have identified neither its cause nor cure.

3. “Because he usually receives more support than the membership, it is psychologically difficult for him to preach on sacrificial giving.” Why? The conclusion does not follow. The fact a man is well off materially is not by itself a barrier to preaching on sacrificial giving. We all know those with considerable money who do indeed give sacrificially, setting a fine example, and teaching others to do the same. And I know a number there who do likewise, including several who give more than 50 percent of their income. To a godly preacher, the possession of material blessings above his needs will stimulate him to increased giving in appreciation of what the Lord has done for him. Also, he will teach this by word and example. In contrast, reducing a carnal man’s income will do nothing to cause him to preach on sacrificial giving. His life will teach the opposite and his preaching on it will be very quiet.

4. “He is many times considered a ‘hireling’ by the community, for, even though very sincere, he may be accused of preaching an ‘American doctrine’ for money.” He may also be accused of drunkenness, adultery and false teaching, as happened to several conservative preachers in the spring of 1973 while Frank Butler, Jady Copeland and I were there. But the accusations do not make the charges true now any more than they did in ’73. Our liberal brethren ought to be very well aware of this considering they were the ones who used this technique of character assassination attempting to ruin the reputations of these conservative preachers. As to being a hireling, with the control exercised by the sponsoring church and the Philippine Bible College, this might well be true of those Filipino preachers receiving support through them. The problem surely is the result of “the practice itself” but not the practice of support; instead, the practice of institutionalism and this particular facet, the unwarranted control of the affairs of local churches by the Philippine Bible College.

5. “Because the local church has no fellowship with him in providing support, the church feels no close relationship to him, and he feels no obligation to the church in some cases.” I am glad this was qualified, “in some cases.” I would hate to have to go to the Holy Spirit and tell Him that He was wrong when He had Paul write, “Besides those things that are without, that which tcometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches” (2 Cor. 11:28); “For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:2, 3), particularly in view of his comment in verse 7, “Have I committed an offense in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of Christ freely?” It seems our brethren once again have shown they are smarter than God.

6. “Because he is supported well from overseas, the membership sometimes feels that he should do all the personal evangelism, teaching of classes and preaching.” Here is another instance of cause and effect being unrelated. It truly may be the congregation expects the preacher to do all these things. But the same situation exists in the United States, and being supported is not the cause of it.

7. “Because American elderships are concerned about how their help is being used, and because they do not know personally the national preacher they support, they must ask someone they know to make an evaluation of the preacher’s work. Usually, this `evaluator’ is an American worker on the field. This evaluation can cause bad feelings and estrangement between American workers and national preachers. In a recent questionnaire filled out by national workers, about 90 percent of the criticism of American workers here was over the matter of preacher support. Even though the American preacher rejects the concept of ‘bossism,’ the overall situation tries to force him into it.” This particular problem is one of the liberal’s own making. Since they function under centralized control, it is quite natural they expect Filipino brethren to submit to this also. And they are perfectly right: it is a problem for them. “Bossism” is a difficulty for them, and will continue to be so long as they operate under the sponsoring church concept. It is more than passingly interesting, the letter pointedly and with emphasis says the support should not be stopped “. . . from those who work in printing, radio, teaching in bible schools, extension training (emp. mine-whl), and related areas . . . .” This includes, naturally, the American and Filipino workers at the Philippine Bible College. Naturally!

One more point: why is this letter being sent to United States conservative churches? I cannot help the thought passing through my mind, the liberals would like to slow or stop the flow of United States money to conservative Filipino preachers, and for none of the “reasons” cited in their letter as “problems.” They might just reason within themselves: if they can convert conservative United States brethren to their new view of support of native preachers, they can pretty well stifle opposition to their institutional sins, and restore themselves to a Pope-like control over the church there. I have no proof that this is the case; but I cannot help wondering.

Most recognize there is a need for-all churches, in the Philippines and elsewhere, to accept their own responsibilities in supporting their preachers. This is independent of any problems evident among Filipino preachers supported by United States brethren, the opinions of our liberal American brethren there notwithstanding. The difficulties they cite will not be solved by cutting off support from the United States “in three years” or three decades. The solution for valid problems lies in teaching and application, in the Philippines as in the United States. Think: after generations of work by those believing in the principles of the restoration movement in the United States, gospel preachers working with small congregations or where no churches exist still require outside support. Why would we think the Philippines ought to be different?

Debate with Buchanan

Bob Buchanan, current president of the Philippine Bible College wrote Cecil Willis offering to debate him on the right of that college to exist. If it comes to pass, it will appear in Truth Magazine and the publication of the American liberals in the Philippines, The Philippine Christian. One of the stipulations was that Cecil debate the college as it now is, and do so on information he currently has available. When he and Roy Cogdill were in the Philippines in 1970, Cecil was prepared to debate Buchanan then, as the college was at that time. Why does Buchanan insist the debate be as the college is now, and on information Cecil has now? Has something changed? I doubt it. It takes money, lots of it, to run even such a school as that, and it is highly unlikely liberal brethren in the United States who support that activity would continue to do so if it did not go along with their centralized concept of operation. But I still wonder.

While I was there on military assignment, in February 1967, Ken Wilkie who was then president of that school, defended it, speaking for an hour at the Phil-American lectureship held in the building of the Clark Air Base church of Christ. His speech was taped, and a copy brought to me later that evening. In the presence of my wife, Tom Hansen and his wife, we noted his major points. We have testified to the accuracy of our information. Wilkie described what the Philippine Bible College was, and who would know better than its president? I have been accused repeatedly of misrepresenting that school, of getting my information concerning it from inaccurate sources. If so, those who know it best do not know what it is. All the information I have on the Philippine Bible College came from Ken Wilkie and its other defenders and supporters! The following summarizes the points Wilkie made in his speech:

1. The Philippine Bible College is an example of New Testament cooperative evangelism.

2. The Philippine Bible College is not an unscriptural organization.

3. Mt. 28:19,20; Mk. 16:15,16 and 2 Tim. 2:2 justify the Philippine Bible College.

4. The Phillipine Bible College is an expedient way for the church to do its work in the Philippines.

5. To prove the Philippine Bible College wrong, critics must produce a better way of training Filipino preachers.

6. The Philippine Bible College was originally under the oversight of the elders of the Southwest, Los Angeles church;

now under those of the Inglewood church. These were and are Scriptural arrangements.

7. In their work in the Philippine Bible College, the American “missionaries” are under the oversight of the Inglewood elders; this is Scriptural.

8. In other capacities, the “missionaries” are under the oversight of the elders of their sponsoring churches; this is Scriptural.

9. The Philippine Bible College is the church at work in the Philippines.

10. Students at the PBC pay tuition; this is Scriptural.

11. Some Philippine Bible College students work off part of their expenses; this is Scriptural.

12. The individual “missionaries” at the Philippine Bible College are sponsored by various United States churches; this is Scriptural.

13. Churches and individuals sponsor students at the Philippine Bible College; this is Scriptural.

14: Churches provide money to build and maintain the facilities (considered separately from support of “missionaries” and students); this is Scriptural.

15. Since the Philippine Bible College is sponsored by a church in the United States, it is Scriptural for it to be under the oversight of the elders of that church.

16. Since no coercion is used to obtain funds for the Philippine Bible College, there is no loss of congregational autonomy by churches supporting it through its sponsoring church.

This speech was made in a situation where no one would contend with Wilkie on his claims, which was fortunate for him. Not one will stand the test of Scripture. I am persuaded that he and the others were well aware of this. Since 1967, the Americans at that school have been challenged repeatedly to debate.,pne, many or all of these points. They have steadfastly refused. This is what the Philippine Bible College was in 1967; I have doubts anything significant has changed since. If Wilkie, Buchanan and company were unwilling to debate them at that time and since, why is Buchanan wanting to do so now? (Not that I am objecting; this is the answer to years of prayers.) I can see only one reason: the pressure,from their own men is getting so strong that they believe they have more to lose by continuing their refusal than by appearing to be willing to debate. I am suspicious of any conditions laid on by Buchanan. Lurking in the back of my mind is the thought: if enough restrictions are placed against Willis, forcing him to decline due to unfairness, then Buchanan will be able to say to those pressing him, “Well, I tried; but the anti’s didn’t really want to debate anyway.” These tactics have been used by the liberals there on other occasions.

Connie Adams and Cecil Willis are highly respected among conservative brethren in the Philippines. I rejoice that they are returning this spring, and pray both for their success in Christ’s service there, and their safe return to their loved ones afterward. I anticipate God being glorified through their efforts, and look forward with pleasure to reading their reports when they return.

Truth Magazine XIX: 33, pp. 522-525
June 26 1975