Truth Magazine

By Grant B. Caldwell

One reason for believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is that he and others claimed that he was. It would be a mistake to ignore the claims made in behalf of the Sonship of Jesus. One might think this to be an unacceptable proof as to the matter under consideration. The argument (made possibly by infidels and believers alike) would be that the claims made by Christ and by others could be lies and fabrications. Some would say that we are begging the question by saying we believe Jesus to be the Son of God because of his claims and we believe his claims because he was the Son of God. Such circular logic is unacceptable to most and rightfully so.

However, if Christ made no such claims and no claims were made for him, it would be equally fair for the infidel to charge us with an extension on the evidence. Since the claim was made by Jesus and others, we should be aboveboard about the matter. We should look not only for the truth of the conclusion, but the truth of the premises as well.

The Claims of Christ

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. In John 10: 36, he said, “I said, I am the Son of God.” Just back one chapter, he made a similar claim. (John 9:35-37). In Mark 14:61-62, he was specifically asked if he was the Christ, “and Jesus answered, I am.”

Jesus also claimed to be sinless. Such a claim would be the disastrous end of a fraud. But even the enemies of Christ found no fault in him. He challenged any to show sin in his life. (John 8:46)

He claimed to be equal with God. This claim made him as unpopular as anything he did. (John 5:17-18) Yet, even in the face of charges of blasphemy, he claimed to be one with the Father. (John 17)

He allowed his disciples to believe he was the Son of God. (Matthew 16:18) He accepted worship which many desired to give to him (Matthew 8:2; 9:18; 28:9; John 9:35-38; 20:26-29), even though only God should be worshipped. (Matthew 4: 10) He claimed to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah to come. (John 5:39)

It should be noticed that if Christ was not the Son of God, he was not the good man many claim him to be. If he was not the Son of God, he was a liar, an imposter, and a blasphemer. Good men do not conduct themselves in such manner as this. He was a good man only if he was indeed who he claimed to be.

The Claims of John

John the Baptist made claims also in behalf of Christ. He constantly spoke of the one to come after him, “the lamb of God,” etc. Listen to John as he speaks concerning the Christ, “And John bear witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit. And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.” (John 1:32-34)

The Claims of God

“This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17; 17:5) “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” (Psalms 2: 7; Hebrews 1: 5) These claims ought to finish forever the controversy over the Sonship of Jesus. The Father himself claimed that he was.

The Claims of the Apostles

Peter claimed, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:18)

The apostles as a whole claimed “Of a truth, thou art the Son of God.” (Matthew 14:33)

When Saul was converted, the claim remained “Jesus, that he is the Son of God.” (Acts 9:20)

In Pauls preaching, he equated “the Son of God” and “Jesus Christ.” (2 Cor. 1: 19) He boldly affirmed that our high priest is “Jesus the Son of God.” (Hebrews 4:14)

John frequently referred to Jesus as “the Son of the Father” and “the Son of God.” (I John 4:14-15; 2 John 3)

The Claims of Historians

Throughout the writings of the historians of this period, Christ appears as a magnificent character. Writers such as Ignatius, Barnabas, Polycarp, Clement, Hermas, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, etc., all wrote concerning Jesus, the Christ.

Yet more interesting than the ones who made claims of being of the faith as those just mentioned, are those who made no claims to a part in Christianity. These wrote of Jesus as well.

Consider the works of such men as Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, etc. We quote from but one. This is perhaps the most famous of all statements found in secular history concerning Christ Jesus, though its genuineness is disputed by some. From the writer Josephus we read,

“Now there was, about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many of the Jews and also of the Gentiles. This was the Christ (emphasis is mine, gbc). And when Pilate, at the instigation of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him from the first did not cease to adhere to him. For he appeared to them alive the third day, the divine prophets having foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named for him subsists to this time.” (From Jewish Antiquities, Book 28, chp. 3, section 3)

Conclusion

Either Christ was the Son of God or he was not. He claimed he was. Others claimed he was. Both friend (John 11:27) and foe (Matthew 27:54; Luke 4:41) agreed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 36, pp. 6-7
July 20, 1972

By Cecil Willis

Reuel Lemmons apparently could not write two months without contradicting himself, if his life depended on it. Even his fellow-liberal editor, Jimmie Lovell, recognizes that Lemmons has the great ability (?) to be “equally strong on both sides of a question.” Less than one month before Lemmons “Butcher Shop” article, he editorialized under the title “Benevolence and Education.” I wish all his liberal brethren in the Philippines and elsewhere could read what Lemmons had to say in that article.

Let me quote somewhat at length from this article. Lemmons said: “Recent months have seen a revival of the effort to seek church support of our colleges and to put the college in the budget of every church.” Lemmons is referring to the effort recently made by Batsell Barrett Baxter, noted speaker on the Herald of Truth. You see, Lemmons thinks Herald of Truth keynoter Baxter is a dangerous false teacher on the church support of the college, for Baxter is for it, while Lemmons is against it. Incidentally Brother Lemmons, the church support of the college is one of the real hot issues among brethren in the Philippine Islands. The Philippine Bible College at Baguio City is church supported, and faithful brethren are as strongly opposed to this unscriptural practice as is Brother Lemmons himself.

When the Philippine brethren read what Brother Lemmons said in his March 21, 1972 editorial, they are going to think Lemmons is one of those dangerous jungle flaying “hobbyists.” They may even think he belongs to the “anti-orphan faction.” Lemmons is opposed to every institutional orphan home that is under a board of directors, which puts him in opposition to about twenty-five of the institutions subsidized by liberal American churches.

Lemmons said in his March 21st article, “Now, a college board, or an orphan home board for that matter, is larger than the local church and it is smaller than the church universal.” This statement will certainly ring a familiar bell with faithful Filipino preachers. Lemmons continued, “We have never met anyone who would seriously attempt to justify the existence of these boards by the scriptures. . . . Unless a church can support a work that is not its own, through a board which is larger than the local congregation and smaller than the church universal, then colleges are not eligible for church treasury funds.. . . This is the reason why we have opposed the operation of childrens homes under boards rather than elderships…. If it can be done under a board with church support, then let us apologize to the Christian church for opposition to boards. . . . Just address yourself to the task of proving by the Scriptures that boards are a scriptural arrangement through which the church can do its work. If this can be proven, all opposition to the arrangement will cease, and, as an added serendipity, we will, after we have apologized to the Christian church for a century of opposition to them, find ourselves much nearer union with them. These boards are either, scriptural or unscriptural; right or wrong. We ought to be able to decide which. It is not right to ignore the issue because it is the basis of much contention.”

Now Brother Lemmons, your “jungle flaying” Philippine brethren are going to have an awfully hard time telling whose side you are on. Furthermore, they are going to think you have struck very hard at Herald of Truth speaker, Batsell Barrett Baxter, who defends the church support of colleges, and at that noted terror of “Anti-ism,” Guy N. Woods, who defends nearly any kind of liberalism, including church supported human institutions of a benevolent nature (though be opposes church supported colleges). You said: “We have never met anyone who would seriously attempt to justify the existence of these boards by the scriptures.” Brethren Woods and Baxter, why dont you get “serious” about this matter?

Lemmons opposes about half of the childrens homes-the ones under boards. But he says he will not be swayed by opprobrious labels. Lemmons says, “By now, we are used to the old bromide, He is opposed to orphan homes. That is an untruth. We are opposed to boards. . . .” Wonder why Brother Lemmons would want to use an “old bromide” on Brother Cogdill and me? He said in his “Butcher Shop” article that we are “anti-orphan home. . . .” May I borrow your remark, Brother Lemmons? “That is an untruth.” Maybe I ought to make it just a little stronger. That is an outright lie! We also are opposed to “boards,” and to sponsoring churches.

Lemmons pleads, “If brethren cannot come to agreement on these issues they can at least desist from the practice of making raids on each others camps. . . .” (April 11, 1972). Wonder why it is wrong for me to write in Truth Magazine against “boards interposed between the church and its work,” but right for Brother Lemmons to write against them in the Firm Foundation? Wonder why I am a “factionist” and a “hobbyist” when I write against church supported colleges in Truth Magazine, but it is all right for Lemmons to write against church supported colleges in the Firm Foundation? And I wonder why it is sinful for Churches of Christ to support colleges in America but all right for the churches to support the Philippine Bible College.

The truth is Reuel Lemmons has made himself the laughing stock of the whole brotherhood. Guy Woods and Batsell Barrett Baxter know be is inconsistent, and those of us whom he so lovingly labels “factionists” and “hobbyists” also know be is inconsistent. Reuel Lemmons seems to be about the only fellow in the brotherhood who does not know he is inconsistent! A fellow with a mind like his would be a splendid subject for a doctoral study on weird minds.

To show you what other liberals think about Lemmons, let me quote from the bulletin published by W. L. Totty of Indianapolis, Indiana (April 23, 1972 issue). Totty defends both orphan homes under boards and church supported colleges. He is a consistent liberal, though he is consistently wrong. Totty said: “In the April 11 issue of the Firm Foundation, the editor, referring to a trip made by Cecil Willis and Roy Cogdill who are extreme anti-orphan home men, said, What these men actually did was just about stop all the gospel preachers in the Philippines from preaching the gospel and set them to fighting each other. And they called this a missionary journey. Further, in his editorial, Brother Lemmons said, About the most ridiculous thing we can imagine is to go into a foreign, even heathen, land, and preach to natives that they should not support orphan homes and Herald of Truth! Later, in this same article, in reference to Philippine preachers, the editor said, What a tragedy to see these men in later years fall under the influence of hobbyists who turn them from preaching the blessed gospel of Christ to flaying the jungle with denunciations of orphan homes, Herald of Truth, and each other. “

“I can give a hearty amen to those statements by Brother Lemmons, but I cannot commend him for his inconsistency and being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. One time he teaches the truth relative to orphan homes and another time he teaches exactly the opposite and condemns the orphan homes. For example, in the March 24 issue of the Firm Foundation, Brother Lemmons, in his editorial, severely attacked the support of orphan homes under boards of trustees. He said, This is the reason why we have opposed the operation of childrens homes under boards rather than elderships.”

“If he believes it is right to denounce the c orphan homes under a board, then why should he criticize Cogdill and Willis for preaching it in other countries? If it is wrong in the United States, it is wrong in the Philippine Islands and should be condemned. And if it is wrong to denounce orphan homes in the Philippine Islands, it would be wrong to denounce them in the United States. Therefore, either way 4rother Lemmons goes, he finds himself in a dilemma. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt. (Matt. 12:33) If the tree is evil in the United States, it will be evil in any other country… And I repeat: Anything that is wrong in the United States is wrong anywhere else in the world, and anything that is right anywhere else in the world is right in America. “

Brother Lemmons is afraid that Brother Cogdill and I would confuse the native Philippine preachers. Brother Lemmons himself does considerable world travel. I guess he also would call his trips “missionary journeys.” If be preaches elsewhere the jumbled up mess that he writes here, reckon what kind of a confused state he leaves native preacher in? Nobody here understands him. Do you suppose those “Jungle flaying” foreign preachers understand him?

Brother Lemmons is a dignified editor. In fact, he is so dignified that he refuses to make any comments about anything anyone says about him, or so he states. Of course, he is not hesitant to tell “untruths” about Brother Cogdill and me, but to reply to an article like this would certainly be beneath his editorial dignity. I would just be happy (!!!) to have him to publish this article in the Firm Foundation, and I will gladly give him equal space for his reply in Truth Magazine. If ever there was a double-minded man, it is our friend and brother, Reuel Lemmons. And James says a double-minded man “is unstable in all his ways.” (Jas. 1:8).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 36, pp. 3-5
July 20, 1972

By Ray Ferris

In 2 Kings Chapter five, we have the story of a man % ho was of the same mind that many are today — he presumed once to think for God. You recall the story of Naaman; how he was informed the prophet of God in Samaria could cure his leprosy; and that he went to the King of Israel instead of the prophet. When he finally presented himself unto the home of Elisha he had reasoned everything out in his own mind regarding what should be done. Elisha did not (to what he had supposed he would, but merely sent a messenger to tell him to go dip in the Jordan seven times. Notice Naamans reaction: “But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought. . .” 2 Kings 5: 11. Do not think presumptuously. Long ago the Psalmist said, “Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me, then shall I be upright, and I shall he innocent from the great transgression. Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.” (Psa. 19:13-14)

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 36, p. 2a
July 20, 1972

By Owen H. Thomas

The state of South Carolina is virtually a mission field so far as the conservative element of the Lords church is concerned. To my knowledge there are only two congregations in the state which are self-supporting. Both of these have fewer than sixty members. Only five churches have fulltime preachers. I do not know of but about twenty congregations in the entire state that could be considered conservative and most of these have less than twenty-five members. There are several towns of medium size that have no church of Christ in them.

The liberal churches are not as strong here as in many other places but they out number the conservatives by a wide margin. Recently some of the liberal churches in Nashville, Tennessee have been surveying the state and are making plans to send liberal preachers into South Carolina for the purpose of starting more liberal churches.

Columbia, which is the capitol, has four liberal churches but until about a year ago there were no conservative churches there. However, there are two small conservative groups meeting there now. One of these began over a year ago and they now have about fifteen members. They are known as the North Columbia Church of Christ and meet at 928 Columbia College Drive. Brother Bill Brittenham, who was recently discharged from the army, is working with them. He is trying to raise support so that he may continue to work with this small group. They are trying to support him until he can find support, but they will not be able to do this for very long. Bro. Brittenham needs help and he needs it NOW. The other group started in January of this year when about five or six families were kicked out of the liberal Eastside church. They have about fifty in attendance and are known as the Brandon Avenue Church of Christ. They have made arrangements for Brother Gary White to begin working with them about August. I understand he will also need some outside support.

The church here in Camden is small. We have about fifty-six members. At the present time we are sending $335.00 per month to help support four other preachers besides carrying on our local work. Thus, we are not able to answer these other calls for help. We would, if we could but I know there are other churches that can help these men. Will you do it? I believe these men deserve help. The conservative cause in South Carolina needs these men. Columbia, being the capitol, offers the best opportunity for the spreading of the gospel in the state.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 36, p. 2
July 20, 1972