Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

In the April 20, 1972 issue of the Gospel Guardian, there appeared a lengthy article entitled “Theological Liberalism at Abilene Christian College.” This article was written by a young man who then was a student at ACC, Randall Mark Trainer. Brother Trainer has since graduated and now lives in Austin, Texas.

Apparently there have been some who have been questioning the soundness of Brother Trainer, for he recently urgently asked me to publish an article stating what he believes on several fundamental points. He stated that some rumors persisted indicating that he had denied the faith, on certain salient points. He indicated that these rumors preceded his Gospel Guardian article. I have since published his article in order that Brother Trainer might have it publicly known what he believes, and lest he be misrepresented.

In the article under consideration, Brother Trainer used three columns of type defining what he meant by “liberalism.” By the time he finished narrowing his definition one would have a difficult time finding much “liberalism” anywhere! In this article, and in some others to follow, some things will be said and some evidence cited which will disagree with the conclusions drawn by Brother Trainer.

After narrowing his definition of “liberalism,” Brother Trainer concluded: “I must honestly report that I have seen very little evidence of its presence. To be specific, I know only two or three students whom I would consider theological liberals, and no faculty members whatever. Neither does there appear to be a trend in the direction of theological liberalism . . . . I have been in the classes of six professors in the Bible Department (Carl Brecheen, Everett Ferguson, Bill Humble, Robert L. Johnston, Thomas Olbricht, and J. W. Roberts). If any of them has presented anything even remotely akin to theological liberalism, I am unaware of it…. If some brotherhood watchdogs have discovered an onslaught of theological liberalism in the church of our Lord today, they must have found it somewhere else than Abilene Christian College, at least as far as I can tell. On the contrary, if and when theological liberalism does become a serious threat to the church, I hope and expect that our brothers at ACC will be in the first ranks in the battle against it.”

That is a right good testimony, isnt it? A speech like that would make good advertising propaganda, wouldnt it? At least, the ACC Administrators thought it would. John C. Stevens, the President of ACC, photographically reproduced the Guardian article, and widely circulated it through the brotherhood. It served his purposes well. The Firm Foundation, whose editor is on the board of ACC, also published the article, as did the Christian Chronicle. Apparently it has given our liberal brethren throughout the country a good deal of comfort. I might suggest to our young Brother Trainer that it could well be that naive articles like this may be what has caused his convictions to be suspect in the minds of some, though he acknowledges there were some suspicions before he wrote the article.

But there are a number of evidences that contradict the glowing report given by Brother Trainer. For several years, Ira Rice has been carrying on a campaign against some of the liberals among the liberal element in the church. Paradoxically, few men have been more liberal in several different ways than has Brother Ira Rice. In the December 31, 1967 Far East Newsletter, Brother Rice presents some inside testimony evidencing that there was considerable liberalism within the ACC faculty. His proof was the testimony of an ACC Bible faculty member, Eugene Clevenger. Brother Clevenger formerly was a faculty member at Florida Christian College, and I studied under him, as I did under Brother Bill Humble, now the Dean at ACC. Neil Lightfoot, who is a now a faculty member at ACC, and I were schoolmates at Florida College. Tony Ash, now with Pepperdine, formerly was an ACC faculty member, and also a schoolmate of mine at Florida College. I mention the names of these brethren, since some of their names will appear in the letters which I am about to quote.

Clevengers Letters

On October 5, 1967, Brother Clevenger wrote Brother Rice to commend his book Axe on the Root, which book was devoted to the exposure of modernism within the liberal element of the Churches of Christ. Clevenger then said: “Since you called my name in the book with regard to the R. B. Sweet Living Word Commentary, I thought you might be interested in a letter which I wrote David Stewart on April 29 of, this year. I am enclosing a copy of the letter. Neil Lightfoot has also withdrawn from the Commentary, and I am hoping that others of us who are not in agreement with the views of such men as I named in the letter will also withdraw. I want you to know that I sincerely appreciate the Christian vigilance and courage which you have and are manifesting, and I am with you 100%. If I can help you in any way, please let me. . . .”

Then follows Clevengers letter addressed to David Stewart who then was Director of Publications for the Sweet Publishing Company of Austin, Texas, the publishers of the Living Word Commentary.

“Dear David: This is to inform you that I have decided not to write the Living Word Commentary on Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon for the following reason.

“I was conscious from the beginning that many of the writers of this commentary were theological liberals, but I thought that if men like Frank Pack, Raymond Kelcy, Neil Lightfoot and a few others could join with you in this effort, I could too. However, after considering the matter carefully, I have about concluded that the liberals have gained control of the R. B. Sweet Company, and my opinion is that you have a few conservative brethren as writers to make the set respectable to a broad segment of the brotherhood.

“I have decided not to have a part in this cooperative effort with such liberals as Everett Ferguson, Abe Malherbe, Tony Ash, Dick Batey, Bob Johnson, Pat Harrell, Don McGaughey, J. W. Roberts. The time is fast approaching when the position of such men as are on the Bible faculty of Abilene Christian College must be made known to the brotherhood, and I have decided that I for one, will do what I can to expose the liberalism that prevails in the Bible Department here at ACC.

“I ask you, therefore, in view of my feelings on the subject and in view of what I plan to do in exposing some of these brethren, to withdraw my name from the Living Word Commentary. I may add, if anyone wants to know the reason for this withdrawal, you are at liberty to tell them what I have said in this letter. Sincerely yours, (s) Eugene W. Clevenger.”

Rice then wrote Clevenger in reply, in the course of which letter, Rice stated: “The evening your letter of October 5 reached me (being relayed to me in Nashville by -my secretary in Dallas), the family and I had been invited to dinner at the B. C. Goodpastures. Since I was leaving the following morning for my next World – Missions Workshop (at Karnes / Knoxville, Tennessee), I took it along with me to discuss with Brother Goodpasture. In handing it to him, I commented that this may be the break-through, which is sorely needed, to get those who really believe sound doctrine to stand together against the rising apostasy. When he had finished reading it, he agreed.

“In fact, he asked me if it would be all right for him, too, to write a word of appreciation and encouragement to you. I told him I thought this would be most appropriate. Perhaps by now you may already have heard from him.

” . . . I just must not let another day go by without telling you how grateful I am for your stand and your willingness to stand up and be counted on the side of truth. Please tell Brother Neil Lightfoot that I honor him for having withdrawn from the Commentary. God bless you both.

“In your writing to me, may I assume that I am free to publish and/or quote from your letter and enclosure? This would go far toward encouraging the brethren generally to take a stand….

“In looking through the list of those you had named to Brother David Stewart as liberals, I knew all of them to be such with the exception of two — Bob Johnson and J. W. Roberts. I have documentation on most of the others. I just dont know Bob Johnson well enough to say what his views are. And I was unsure concerning brother Roberts.

“Gene, any documentation you may have regarding the views of any of these brethren, please let me have it. I would not wittingly misrepresent them or any one at all. I do not fear to publish what I can prove. However, I have had to withhold several names so far simply because I could not prove what I really believe concerning them. As documentation comes to hand, one by one their hands must be called. There is no compromise possible between truth and error. I know you will help on this all you can….”

Well, to say the least, there is a wide diversity between what Brother Clevenger said he saw in the ACC Bible faculty and what our young brother said he found there. More will be said about this situation next week.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 39, pp. 3-5
August 10, 1972

By John W. Hedge

The church which Christ promised to build (Matt. 16:18) was built in the first century and individuals became members thereof. (Acts 2:47) The time and place of its establishment were foretold by Old Testament prophets (Is. 2:24; Zech. 1: 16) along with its permanency. (Dan. 2:44) It was said to have been purchased by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25) and that God was to be glorified in it “throughout all ages, world without end.” (Eph. 3:21)

These passages of scriptures establish the value or importance of the church of the first century. To say that it was brought into existence at the cost of the life of the Son of God, and yet hag nothing to do with the saving of mankind, is equal to saying that the Lord paid too high a price for a non-essential. It is significant to notice that everything which Christ has done for the individual to the end that he might be saved, he has done equally as much for the church. Did he love the individual? The New Testament tells us that “he loved the church and gave himself for it.” (Eph. 5:25.) Did he purchase redemption for the individual? Did he not purchase the church? (Acts 20:28) And the apostle speaks of “the redemption of the purchased possession,” which is the church. (Eph. 1: 14.) So, since Christ has done as much for the church as he has for the individual, it must follow that the church is all-important in the scheme of redemption. Without it Christ would have no “Bride.” Without it there would be the Shepherd and the sheep but no “sheepfold.” Without it Christ would be “head” but without a “body.”

In the beginning of the church of the first century, it was never referred to as a denomination or combination of such. It was in existence for many, many centuries before denominational churches were heard of. Today the common idea prevails that “the Church of Christ” is composed of all the “Christian Denominations of Christendom.” Well it was not composed of such in the beginning, and if “the church of Christ” did exist in its beginning separate and apart from denominational churches, I wonder when God began to use another and different kind of material to constitute “the church.” The church of Christ is “one Body” and Christ is head of it, while denominational churches are many bodies with many religious “heads” or religious leaders. Thus the church of the first century is the very opposite of denominational churches.

The church of the first century represents the power and wisdom of God in bringing it into existence. To place it on equality with the denominational churches founded by men is equal to recognizing men as being equal with God. No man can equal God in wisdom and works; otherwise he would become a god himself. To say that man can establish a denominational church which is “just as good” as the one which Christ built in the first century is not only unscriptural but is unreasonable as well. Just as Christ “was in the world and the world knew him not” (Jno. 1: 10), so the church which he built in the first century is “in the world” today but the world knows it not. There is no good reason why men should be blind to its existence, and they will not be if they will turn to the New Testament in which both Christ and his church are revealed. The church that Christ built in the first century is as enduring as Christ himself for he is the Head and Savior of it. The institutions of men come and go with the years, but there is a kingdom which cannot be shaken or moved-the church of the first century.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 39, p. 2
August 10, 1972

By Dudley Ross Spears

During the second week of our stay in the Philippines we went to Baguio City. Baguio is one of the most beautiful places in the Philippines. It is the summer capital and one of the finest resort and tourist areas. Brother Needham and I were the first two American preachers to visit this city who are of the conservative persuasion. In Baguio, the institutional churches have established the Philippine Bible, College (PBC) which is responsible for many of the native preachers. As expected, several of the students from PBC attended our studies.

Brother Andrew Gawe lives in Baguio City but preaches at several locations in the vicinity of Baguio. His father, Juan Gawe, is the preacher for the local church there in Baguio. In preparation for the meeting, Andrew and others distributed about 4,000 invitations. A large banner was strung up in front of the meeting house. Many came from all over the area around Baguio. Brother Andrew did everything he could to make our stay as pleasant as possible. We shall always be thankful for such a man. The average attendance for the day studies ran in the neighborhood of 75 and this consisted of classes both morning and evening. The evening sessions averaged over 100. Each night there was standing room only.

The basement auditorium of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP) was rented. That is the legal and official name of the denomination from which we rented the hall. In the Philippines, churches must register under a legal and official name with the Securities Commission in order to be officially recognized by the government. The rent on the hall ran somewhere around $8.00 per night.

After an exhausting bus ride from Bagbag and a late arrival in Baguio, we found it impossible to speak the first night. Brother Andrew Gawe spoke on the subject of the church, dealing especially with the work of the church. Brother Julian Felix, a man both of in came to admire greatly, spoke next on some of the issues that divide brethren there in the Philippines. Following the speeches, a question and answer period was conducted that lasted well into the night. Some of the PBC students and faculty (not American faculty members) were present and they asked many questions. It was reported to us that they came to the front, many of them, to speak up from the speakers stand and abused the privilege our brethren granted to them. Brother Gawe wrote me the following, “Unfortunately, they abused the privilege by intentionally saying more than what should be said, thus delaying the time and blocking the chances of interested non-members from asking questions.” It became necessary to stop them from taking over the meeting.

The next morning our regular sessions began, Inasmuch as brother Gawe kept an accurate record of all that happened and has written it all down, I am going to insert just here what he said.

“The morning sessions began at nine with brother Needham lecturing on Preachers and Preaching followed by Brother Spears on the subject of Denominational Dogmas. Inasmuch as this was held primarily for members of the church, especially preachers, the, general public was not invited. Nevertheless, attendance was 85 when dismissed. The way the meeting was conducted should serve as an example for others to emulate. Practically all ministers were taking down notes in spite of the assurance of brother Spears and brother Needham that they would send us each a printed copy of the notes used in the subjects being discussed. The lectures on preachers, their personalities, importance of the work, qualifications, duties and the beginning of denominational dogmas, etc. were practically accomplished in a few sessions. This task could Dot have been accomplished in weeks of classroom studies bad these brethren not been well prepared for it. My eternal thanks to God for utilizing them for the good of the greatest number.

“Brother Needham opened the afternoon session lecturing on the Organization of the Church, followed by brother Spears on Scriptural Authority. These two topics were the bombs that crystallized the fading faith of many and tore to shreds the doubts of others. On the other hand, God knows, the members of Christs Church in this city wished to convey their heartfelt thanks to brethren Needham and Spears for their strong stand in exposing the evils of smoking- as I always do. Members of, the church, especially ministers, should be made aware that smoking will get them nowhere but destruction. Commendation is again due them for their determination in threshing out the, seemingly deterioration of conduct among supported preachers, their failure to work as they should. Personally, I stand 100 70 behind working full time when being paid full wages. Slackness in His kingdom is without excuse. The afternoon session was attended by 102.

“The evening session began at 7 p.m. and will live a long time in our memories here in Baguio. There were 154 present. The seriousness of the topic, New Testament Church in the 20th Century, delivered by brother Needham inflicted the final blow in convicting the three who came forward and another five that followed the next morning. Thus a total of eight (5 females and 3 males) were baptized into Christ. I announced that the baptisms would be done the next morning as the place of baptism nearest us was 8 kilometers away down a long steep embankment.

“After the announcement, brother Needham opened the floor for questions about his sermon. An Anglican priest was present. Also a minister of the Seventh Day Adventist Church and a minister of the UCCP were there. These denominational preachers asked several questions. Then brother Spears took the floor to conduct the first evening open forum. The first few questions and answers all went smoothly until the students of the PBC and four of their faculty members began asking the same set of questions they had asked the night before. It became clear that they came with their minds already made up and with a pre-arranged plan to disrupt the meeting by planting confusion and prejudice in the minds of all who were there. On the second night another group of students were delivered to our meeting hall by Brother Kenneth J. Wilkey, the titular head of PBC, but he did not bother to come himself. Nearly all the PBC students that came were intent on making trouble-not to learn. I am glad that they showed their true color for now, the members and some students who voiced their disagreements are coming to us for further study. In fact a fellow minister and one time faithful member of the liberals, after a series of studies with me is now standing for the truth. He wants to preach full time. He is Brother Jesus Bejagon. There will be more, God willing.

“The meeting ended at 11 p.m. with the liberals still arguing just for the sake of more debate. It came to the point of no return when they challenged our brethren into a fist fight, which is never becoming of a true Christian.

“The last day of our studies was on April 12. The morning session was cancelled because of the baptisms 8 kilometers (approximately 5 miles, DRS) away in the Irisan River, Naguilan Road. Eight souls were immersed. We came back to the city at about 12 noon. In the afternoon, brother Needham continued with his previous lectures on the subject of preaching. This is needful meat that preachers really would give anything for. The know how of preaching and the life of a preacher are the things that we preachers can not afford to let go. I admire these two for the priceless gem of information that they passed on to us.

“In the evening session, brother Spears spoke with confidence and determination on the subject “of The Gospel Plan of Salvation. There were no visible results by way of baptisms but I am convinced that the seed was properly planted and will bear fruit even yet. Two will be baptized very soon and six came to see me for further enlightenment. These and many more are direct results of these meetings and of this particular subject.

“Brother Needham conducted the open forum. In this session there were more than 70 outsiders who came primarily to learn and to have doubts clarified, so when students from PBC again tried to disrupt the meeting, brother Needham insisted that they not ask questions that had already been answered and not try to take over the meeting. It was a shameful thing for them to want to discuss internal issues with such a violent attitude in the presence of so many non-Christians. I personally commend brother Needham for the fine work he did in handling this open forum. Indeed, many of the visitors asked fine religious questions such as what is the solution to the problem of denominationalism and other similar questions. One asked how unity could be achieved, etc. Thus it was that the meeting ended in peace with all having learned something and may our Great God see to it that the truth be allowed to grow in us and change the lives of souls in darkness.

“The eloquence of these brethren in speech and ability to speak in terms that we all understood made all the difference between failures and success. This meeting was a success in every sense of the word. The seed was planted in fertile hearts. Preachers and members were made aware of their duties. Sinners (at least 8) were converted. Baguio City people now know of us and what we stand for in religion. And last, denominationalism now fears the fangs of Gods word. These, to me, make for success and I thank God.

To summarize the outcome, 8 were baptized, a family of Christians came to know our presence in the city and are worshipping with us, three liberal preachers have made up their minds to preach the truth with us, two congregations (one in Bagbag, La Union, and Balatoc Mines, Tuba, Benguet) are established and a debate with the liberals of this city is to be scheduled,”

I might add just a word or two in conclusion to what I have quoted from Brother Andrew Gawes report. The evening sessions were rather stormy as the students of this liberal school demonstrated more rancor and ugliness than I have witnessed in many years. The PBC has become more of a missionary society than anything else. It is supposedly under the oversight of the elders of the church of Christ in Inglewood, California. Yet, with money the school in Baguio receives, native preachers are paid in the Philippines. The school engages in secular education, trains preachers, then sends them out and furnishes their salary. This is the same operation of the missionary society except for the delegate representation of contributing churches. Those who are directly involved in this operation deny this with a clever dodge saying that the head of the school sends the native preachers out and furnishes their salary with his own money-but that is merely a dodge.

I appreciate the report Brother Gawe made of our work. It is accurate and perhaps a little too much in its praise of brother Needham and me, but it does convey the work we did in this city. In the next installment I will relate what occurred during our visit to Mindinao and Cotabato.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 38, pp. 10-13
August 3, 1972

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