Philippine Report (III)

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

Is Jesus the Christ, the Son of God? (V)

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

Think

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

EDITORIAL — Denominationalism Additional Compromises

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