Truth Magazine

By Grant B. Caldwell

We finally come to seemingly the most substantial proof of the Sonship of Jesus, the resurrection. On this hangs the entire system of Christ. Everything we do has in large measure to do with his resurrection. To emphasize the importance of the subject, read I Corinthians 15:1-30. We will not take the space just here to record the entire passage, but the logic of Pauls argument cannot be ignored. In verses 1-11, the apostle makes proof of the resurrection from the standpoint of the witnesses that saw the Lord alive after they knew that he was dead. In verses 12-19, Paul shows the consequences of refusing to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. And finally, in verses 20-30, this inspired man demonstrates the position held by Christ as a result of his resurrection.

Many passages could be offered from the New Testament to show the necessity of believing in the resurrection. Our purpose in this portion of our study shall be to offer the proofs of the resurrection which in turn prove Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God. Our entire faith as Christians rests upon this one fact. If Christ was raised from the dead, we can believe him to be the Son of God. We will know that he was born of a virgin, that he performed the miracles we read, and that he has the authority to direct our lives.

How anyone can claim to be a Christian and yet deny the resurrection of Jesus, I will never understand. However, there are many in the world today who claim to follow Christ (Christians, so called) who do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus.

In Romans 1:4, Paul said that Christ was “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” Thus, our belief in him as the Son of God depends on this event.

Carefully consider the proofs regarding his resurrection, a matter clearly foretold of him in prophecies such as Psalm 16: 10 and Isaiah 28:14-18.

The Empty Tomb

One of the strongest of the proofs offered in behalf of the resurrection is that of the empty tomb. It is admitted by nearly all that Jesus died and was buried (some will deny this), and that on the third day, his body was missing. The attempts to explain this event are many and varied. Some say that the soldiers took the body to prevent the disciples from taking it. Others believe that while the soldiers were asleep, the disciples came and took the body of Jesus away. These explanations will not do, however, because of the magnitude of the penalty for allowing the body to disappear. The soldiers would not have allowed that body to be taken from its place. Yet, this story began soon after the resurrection of Christ and continues until today. (Matthew 28:12-15)

Some will affirm that Jesus never actually died but that he only passed out. Often called the “swoon theory,” this idea will not agree with any of the facts. The reader will kindly remember the soldier at his death pierced his side and blood and water came forth. It would be impossible for a man to live to tell about an event like that.

The Witnesses

The men who tell the story of the resurrection of Jesus are often accused of prefabricating the story. The testimony is nullified supposedly upon the basis of dishonesty. It should be noted that these were honest men. They related the facts calmly, often to their own discredit. Surely, one cannot believe that they would be so interested in promoting a lie that caused them so much suffering. The facts related and the local customs reported give credibility to their testimony.

Some would have us believe that these disciples only thought they saw Jesus. It must be noticed, though, that Christ presented himself to these people for forty days. These had given up. Peter said, “I go fishing.” They were not afraid and they sought no earthly gain.

In I Corinthians 15, Paul tells of the great numbers who saw the Lord. It seems somewhat foolish for someone today who was not in the land or the time to deny what was seen, or how they saw it.

Conclusion

We need desperately to believe in the resurrection of Jesus from the grave. Paul said that if we do not believe in this even, “we are of all men most miserable.” (I Corinthians 15:19)

About This Series

With this lesson, we bring to a close the series of studies on the subject of evidences. We feel that the study has been beneficial for many. Studies such as this are needful, especially in the society in which we live. Modernism is a definite threat even in the churches. It is our firm belief that more preaching and teaching should be done on these topics. But for whatever good we have been able to accomplish, we, are very humbly grateful.

You might recall a comment I made in beginning this series that the material used was not original, and you might wonder concerning my source of material. Because the arguments used are mostly standard arguments and found in many books, we did not footnote the material. However, if you are interested in further study, the following list of books is the ones I used in this study:

1. Blackmon, Luther. God or Evolution? (Tract)

2. DeHoff, George W. Why We Believe The Bible.

3. Gerstner, John H. Reasons for Faith.

4. Hardeman, N.B. “Is the Bible Credible?” (Sermon) Hardemans Tabernacle Sermons (III).

5. Hailey, Homer. Internal Evidences of Christianity.

6. McGarvey, J. W. Evidences of Christianity.

7. Ozment, Harry E. Evolution Examined. (Tract)

8. Robertson, Earl E. Foundations of Faith.

9. Sewell, F. E. “The Resurrection: Facts and Fiction (1, 2, and 3)” (Articles) Facts for Faith, Vol. 11, 1, 2, and 3.

10. Tuten, Jimmy. “External Evidences of the Bible.” (Articles) The Defender, Vol. 12, 11 and 12.

11. Vos, H. F. (Editor). Can I Trust The Bible?

12. Wallace, Foy E. Gods Prophetic Word.

13. Wilson, Gordon. Evidences in Brief.

14. Wilson, Gordon. Is The Bible Fully Inspired? (Debate)

15. Wilson, Gordon. Set For The Defense.

16. Wilson, Gordon. The Posture of Faith.

17. Wilson, Peter J. Indestructible Foundations.

We appreciate the opportunity to discuss these matters and we trust that the discussion has helped in making the faith of each of us more profitable. If at any time good can be gained by such discussions, then the time has been well spent. Our sole aim is to assist in the proclamation of the gospel and we trust that all will understand that we are “set for the defense of the gospel.” (Philippians 1: 17)

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 38, pp. 8-10
August 3, 1972

By Ray Ferris

The difference between the little bush that a human foot can smash and the mighty tree that withstands the storm is growth. The difference between the helpless babe in arms and the stalwart lumberjack is growth. The difference between the babe in Christ and the elder in the church or the faithful gospel preacher is growth. Peter exhorted, “But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (2 Pet. 3:18, Emph. mine, REF.) He gave us the “recipe” for getting the job done in these words: “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby. . .” (I Pet. 2:2, Emph. mine, REF.) Paul said, “But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” (Heb. 5:14, Emph. mine, REF.) Proper desire for the word coupled with proper exercise of your senses guarantees spiritual growth. Are you growing?

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 38, p. 5
August 3, 1972

By Cecil Willis

Like our digressive brethren, denominationalism continually moves further and further away from the truth as it is in Christ. In recent weeks, the Quadrennial United Methodist General Conference was held in Atlanta. The purpose was to rewrite their creed, which is ordinarily done every four years. But at this Conference, drastic changes were being made. One writer described the final form of the creed as “the first major overhaul of the denominations theological guidelines in 150 years.

For some time before the Conference, it was known that drastic changes were going to be made in the formulation of Methodisms doctrinal stance. Time magazine (May 8, 1972) stated: “Methodism) once a movement that leaped like a brush fire along the nineteenth- century frontier, has suffered a net loss of 518,000 members in the past four years-the 6; biggest of any church in U.S. history.” James DeForest Murch stated: “Methodist Sunday school attendance has slipped by one fourth, missionary forces by one-fifth, and church attendance by still larger percentages” (Christian Standard, June 25, 1972).

One of- the most important reports considered by the Conference was the “Report of the Theological Study Commission on Doctrine and Doctrinal Standards.” Modernism has eaten ever deeper into the clergy ranks of the Methodist Church. Ohio Bishop F. Gerald Ensley who delivered the major address at Atlanta, admitted that the denomination contained many “wistful skeptics,” including some among its clergy. Murch stated, “A recent poll confirming the bishops view shows that only 49 percent of the Methodist clergy believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave.”

The committee that worked on the “Report of the Theological Study Commission on Doctrine and Doctrinal Standards” admitted that it faced “a bewildering spectrum of doctrinal diversity.” Modernism, in nearly every possible form, had appeared in official literature, various public pronouncements, and in the seminaries and pulpits. The Committee had to reckon with “black theologies,” “womens liberation theology,” “third world theology … process theology,” “development theology,” “linguistic analysis,” “existentialism,” “special-interest theologies in current fashion such as the theologies of hope, ecology, and the Jesus movement.”

What could the Commission do when faced with such a wide diversity of theological perspectives? It condemned nothing at all as heresies, but simply rejoiced in the “doctrinal pluralism” and “doctrinal diversity-in-Christological-unity” which are tolerated in Methodism. They were proud of the fact that Methodism lets men think for themselves and as they please. The Commissions report sounds as though our Brother Carl Ketcherside may have been a prominent member of the Committee. He also could rejoice in “doctrinal pluralism” and be satisfied with “doctrinal diversity-in-Christological-unity.”

The Committees report was accepted by a vote of 925-17! Some of the dissidents felt that “the new Statement has pulled the teeth out of the doctrine of the church and allows Methodists to believe, practice, and preach anything they like from atheism to ultra-fundamentalism without risking a violation of Methodist standards.”

Another important report was that of the “Report of Christian Social Concerns.” With so little emphasis upon doctrine, it is obvious that this typical modernistic denomination was mainly interested in social concerns. With their social gospel impetus, they created a whole new “Social Creed,” dealing with ecology, the right of private property which they declared to be “A trusteeship under God and is limited by the overriding needs of society,” drug misuse, war, etc.

Ethical Relativism

With-so much theological latitude granted, one should not be surprised to learn that the Methodists also conceded comparable latitude on moral or ethical issues. Murch, armed with what he called “a complete file of the Daily Christian Advocate published by the Atlanta General Conference,” reported “The marriage institution was lauded but different standards for men and women were condemned. Broad permissive divorce was endorsed with the right of all divorced persons to remarry. Homosexuals were welcomed to the church as persons of sacred worth.” Yet the apostle Paid said “Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (I Co. 6:9, 10, New American Standard Version)

Having compromised the truth of God, denominationalism has no grounds upon which to make absolute ethical judgments. Hence, some denominationalists are willing to compromise on nearly any ethical point. A report prepared for an Episcopal Convention stated: “There is no scriptural command requiring total abstinence for the God-fearing man . . . a Christian who drinks moderately with due respect for the feelings and needs of his brothers and with a conscientious care for the claims of God can drink with thanksgiving to Him for these blessings.” Yet Solomon declared: “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler: And whosoever erreth thereby is not wise” (Prov. 20:1).

On nearly every moral issue, there are among the denominationalists the ethical relativists. Time magazine defined situation ethics, which many call the “emerging contemporary Christian Conscience,” like this: “As to sexual morality, the traditional rules are giving way to situation ethics — meaning that nothing is inherently right or wrong, but must be judged in context on the spur of the moment” (April 22, 1966, p. 42).

Joseph Fletchers book Situation Ethics could be called the Bible of the situationist. Fletcher is now Professor of Medical Ethics at the University of Virginia Medical School, and was formerly Professor of Christian Social Ethics at the Episcopal Theological School in Cambridge Massachusetts. On the subject of abortion, Fletcher says, “Situationists would favor abortion for the sake of the victims self respect or happiness or simply on the ground that no unwanted or unintended baby should ever be born.” (p. 39) His rationalistic justification for this position is that the embryo is an “aggressor” or an “unwelcome invader,” and therefore may be forcibly expelled in self defense!

Fletcher also would, under some circumstances, justify premarital sex. He asks, “Does any girl who has relations . . . outside of marriage automatically become a prostitute? Is it always, regardless of what she accomplishes for herself and others — is she always wrong? Is extra-marital sex inherently evil, or can it be a good thing in some situations?” (pp. 17, 18)

Pageant magazine a few years ago quoted the Chaplain of a famous all-girls college as giving the following advice to the girls there: “Sex is fun … there are no laws attached to sex. I repeat absolutely no laws. There is nothing which you ought to do or ought not to doThere are no rules of the game … we all ought to relax and stop feeling guilty about our sexual activities, thoughts, and desires… The good news of the gospel which has been delivered me is that we have been freed from such laws as evaluative codes of behavior.” (Oct. 1965, p. 47) Fletcher even goes so far as to make the following statement: “. . . any act — even lying, premarital sex, abortion, adultery, and murder — could be right, depending on the circumstances.” (Quoted from the back cover of Situation Ethics)

Once a man cuts himself loose from the Law of God as a basis for moral conduct, he is at sea without chart or compass. When one becomes a doctrinal relativist, he is well on his way to ethical relativism as well. If some of our brethren are ready to accept “doctrinal pluralism, or “doctrinal diversity-in-Christological-unity,” they are logically committed to a defense of ethical relativism. And I might add, one brother among us (Leroy Garrett) already has written a lengthy treatise in defense of situation ethics. And there is not a “unity-in-diversity” brother who can answer him. Either Gods Word is the basis for both doctrine and practice, or there is no absolute basis at all, and one must retreat into doctrinal and ethical relativism.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 38, pp. 3-5
August 3, 1972

By Larry Hafley

Various men “at sundry times and divers manners” have attempted to establish authority for a “sponsoring church.” (One that oversees the funds and function of other churches in a work to which all have equal responsibility is designated a “sponsoring church.”) Not a few of these efforts have ranged from the preposterous to the ridiculous, from the inane to the absurd. All have been unsuccessful and unscriptural. The latest of these endeavors was made by Brother Gordon Brewer, preacher for the church in Streator, Illinois.

While taking advantage of the open pulpit of the Plano church on March 7, 1971, Brother Brewer set about to find scriptural authority for a diocesan eldership. He reasoned thusly:

(1) Antioch sent relief to the brethren in Judea (Acts 11: 21-36).

(2) Rom. 15:25-27. 31; 1 Co. 16:1-3; 2 Co. 8 & 9 show relief was sent to Jerusalem.

(3) CONCLUSION: The Jerusalem elders were the overseeing, sponsoring church for the aid sent to Judea.

His argument is based on the false assumption and assertion: that the incident in Acts 11: 27-30 is the same as the one in Rom. 15, 1 Co. 16, and 2 Co. 8 & 9. “They twain shall be one.” In this manner, the Jerusalem church would become the (“sponsoring”) elders referred to in Acts 11:30.

Not the Same

The occurrences are not one event they refer to two totally separate incidents.

I. Different Needy:

A. “Brethren . . . in Judaea” (Acts 11:29).

B. “Poor saints… at Jerusalem” (Rom. 15:25, 26).

CONCLUSION: Antioch sent to the Judean province, to the elders of the churches there, while the churches of Galatia, Macedonia, and Corinth sent relief “for Jerusalem” in particular, hence, two different circumstances.

II. Different Messengers:

A. “Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:30).

B. Paul, Titus and others (2 Co. 8:1623; 1 Co. 16:3).

NOTE, Paul and Barnabas were no longer working together as they were in Acts 11. A sharp contention separated them (Acts 15:36-40).

CONCLUSION: Different deliverers reveal two occasions (Cf. Acts 12:25).

III. Different Times:

A. Acts 11:27-30 (about 45 A.D.) (Acts 11:18, 26, 28)

B. Rom. 15, 1 Co. 16, and 2 Co. 8 & 9 (about 58 A.D.) (Acts 20:22, 23; 21:10-15)

CONCLUSION: A casual reading of the book of Acts reveals two separate events in time (Acts 12:25, 21:17).

IV. Different Senders:

A. Antioch sent relief (Acts 11:27-36).

B. Corinth sent relief with others (I Co. 16:3).

But: The Corinthian church did not exist when relief was sent by Antioch! Corinth could not have sent relief when Antioch did, for there was no church at that time!

CONCLUSION: Different sending churches equals separate events.

There is little excuse for shallow, superficial dealing with the Scriptures as engaged in by our friend and brother, Gordon Brewer. Beware lest misguided love and zeal provide nonexistent Scriptures for unscriptural schemes.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 38, p. 2
August 3, 1972