Truth Magazine

By Grant B. Caldwell

We would like to take this opportunity to introduce a series of articles to be published here on the subject of evidences. The series was originally written for The Gospel Teacher, the bulletin of the church of Christ in Hilliard, Ohio. When that bulletin began, it was thought that before anything else was done, a thorough study of “first principles” should be undertaken. With this in mind, the first year was used to discuss the six topics said to be “first principles” by the Hebrew writer. (Hebrews 5:12-6:3) This series was the primary portion of the section dealing with “faith toward God.”

The series was written solely for that bulletin and was not intended for further publication. Within, however, the publication of only a few of the articles, much was being said about giving the articles wider circulation. At the insistence of my wife and brother Earl Robertson (associate editor of Truth Magazine), I discussed the matter with Brother Cecil Willis. The result of that conversation is the publication of the series in this paper.

There are no claims made for originality of material in these articles. Our sole concern is with our mutual investigation of this important question. Many are they who have been and will be taken by the claims of modern philosophy and pseudo-science. (I Timothy 6:20)

Reasons for Such Discussions

Reasons for such discussions ought to be obvious. However, I am persuaded that they are not always as readily seen as they ought to be. Even among many who preach, it is thought that church going people have basic attitudes toward faith and that there is no need to waste time in such discussions. This idea is far from the truth.

First, we may not assume that church going people have basic attitudes and dispositions toward the divine personages and the divine publication. It is almost impossible to go into any congregation and not find that someones faith has given way under the pressures of the society in which we live. How many times we find that all our sermons on Bible doctrine are wasted on some because they are not sure the Bible is indeed the word of God. How many young people are lost each year because there is not enough teaching by their parents, by the preacher, and yes, by the church on basic principles to offset the teaching of the infidel professors that teach them hours each day! How many of us live with doubts in our own minds until finally the unanswered questions become doctrine to us and we lose our faith! And how many of us are troubled because of questions we are unequipped to answer questions arising even from our discussions of the Bible with others!

Second, if we admit that in many there is a basic attitude toward faith, this faith is too often not the faith that Jesus expects us to have. If our faith is based upon the wrong things, then that faith is unacceptable in its nature. Such faith will not stand under the pressures of life. It will prove dishonest, childish, and insecure. If we believe that for which we can show no reason, we are prejudiced. If we believe only that which we have been taught by our parents, we are childish. If we have unfounded faith, we will be as “children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine.” (Ephesians 4:14)

Third, we need to be ready always to give an answer for the hope in us (I Peter 3:15). Our faith should not be blind. If it is, our attempts to help others will only result in “the blind leading the blind” (Matthew 15:14) the result of which action all know. One of the major differences between the faith we have in Christ and that of heathen peoples is that the faith which is had in Christ is based on facts and can be demonstrated. Other faiths cannot be so demonstrated. Faith in Christ can be clear, honest, logical, based on weighty evidence and without prejudices if we will but carefully examine the subjects.

Examination Legitimate

In man, God has placed the ability to reason. Not only has it been placed there, but the divine injunction to use this ability reads “Come now and let us reason together” (Isaiah 1: 18). This ability was used by Gods people to show others the way of salvation. Paul “reasoned,” “alleged,” “persuaded,” and “defended” those things pertaining to the gospel of Christ. (Acts 17:2; 18:4, 19; 24:25; Phil. 1:7) He said that all knew that he was “set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1: 17) and his watchword was “Prove all things.” (I Thessalonians 5:21)

Thus, the Lord is pleased with investigations such as these and we sincerely trust that your faith will be strengthened as has ours by this study. Having thus been strengthened, we can in great courage and without fear of what men might do (Hebrews 13:6), “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3)

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 28, pp. 11-12
May 18, 1972

By Fred C. Melton

Brethren, it is an ill wind that blows no good. There is an attack being made on the “Christian” community at its most vulnerable point – the children. The teaching of evolution to children is certainly nothing new, but the crystallization of evolutionary doctrine among the worlds young people today is increasing at an alarming rate. Not only are school teachers everywhere captives of evolutionary thought, but the mass news media contribute heavily toward a favorable image of the theory. Television especially wields a tragic influence through certain educational programs, panel discussions and even isolated remarks sprinkled through the “kiddy” programs.

England is a terrible example of what the evolutionary theory (together with other irreligious forces) can do to a modern nation. Evolution is an accepted fact among the British school children today–quite beyond question. This is reflected among an adult population of which 94 percent look upon themselves as belonging to a religious denomination (mostly Anglican) while less than 7 percent of these “religious” people care anything at all about their church.

Brethren, the same thing is happening in America and we must wake up to the danger. The cold fact is that we are losing a great number of our own children to evolutionary thought and I am afraid we are largely to blame for it ourselves. It is frequently objected by members of the church that “we are just laymen, and are not qualified to teach our children anything about these scientific matters.” Now, brethren, this is just what the evolutionists want you to think and as long as they can keep intelligent people in this frame of mind, they will continue to infiltrate your childs mind with atheistic propaganda of the worst sort.

Who Is A Layman?

A leading geneticist, Dr. William J. Tinkle, gives the following description of a layman:

“Who is the average layman? Not a school drop-out, certainly not a moron, but a person of ability and intelligence. In fact, every person is a layman outside his own little field of specialization. The developments of science should be made available to such persons…

“A century ago, the facts of science, meager though they were, seemed to favor an evolutionary development of man. But the public failed to appreciate those facts and replied, It is absurd. Now that one discovery after another has pointed to divine creation rather than evolution, the public bows sedately and says, We must agree with the evolutionists because they are scientists. What a paradox!”

Recently, while on tour lecturing at colleges and universities around the world, A. G. Tilney Secretary of the Evolutionary Protest Movement, was asked by a young antagonist, “Sir, what are your qualifications for speaking on the subject of evolution?” “Common sense, young man,” replied Tilney, “common sense.” Indeed, most of us are not scientists and probably not even scientifically minded, but we do have enough “common sense” to read and evaluate to a large extent what learned men of science have written, provided it is not too technical. As Brother Homer Hailey would say, “God is the author of two laws – the spiritual and the physical — and God expects us to find out what those laws are and abide by them.”

Again, good brethren have suggested that the young Christians faith should he strong enough to withstand the onslaught of evolutionary teaching that he receives in the public school systems of the land, and indeed he should. However, it is quite evident that many of our young do not possess such faith. How many times have we seen frail, young Christians completely lose what faith they did possess because they failed to receive the answers they believed they must have. Occasionally, I suspect that some mature Christians are just a little afraid of what “science” might discover. Brethren, it is no longer enough to answer our childrens inquiries with stock quips such as 11 which came first, the egg or the chicken.” These kids want answers commensurate with those they receive from their evolutionary teachers. Spiritual answers first, to be sure, but do not forget that true science is also Gods law and the young must be taught to understand that fact. They need to understand the reasons why the whole rotten hypothesis is a physical impossibility.

The revolutionary (evolutionary) new high school textbooks, Biological Science Curriculum Studies, “Blue,” “Green” and “Yellow,” have been in the American school system now for about ten years and they have already prepared many a young mind for future evolutionary indoctrination at the college level. It was said of these books in 1963 that:

“Little more than the covers of the three B.S.C.S. textbooks would be left if all evolutionary concepts were removed, because in these books the entire subject of biology is intertwined with evolution. The B.S. C.S, books are drastically different than any previous biology text. Conventional college and high school texts relegate evolution to specific portions of the books. Teachers may skip over or enlarge on this subject as they see fit.”

A New Textbook

As a direct result of the 1964-65 textbook controversy over the B.S.C.S. books in Texas, Arizona, and California, the “Creation Research Society” which is made up of a number of prominent scientists and teachers, started work on a high school biology textbook, Biology-A Search for Order in Complexity, which presents the Creationists point of view. This excellent textbook, now published by the Zondervan Publishing Co., is a first class production and should be requested by every Christian to be used by their local school board. There are a number of other scientific books and pamphlets published in England and America that present the Creationists point of view, and they are designed to be understood by the average “layman,” as well as high school and college- students.- A list of suggestions is available from this writer.

According to the press and some leading magazines and school textbooks on biology, every single scientist in the world now believes in organic evolution. Yet, the truth is that an ever-increasing number of eminently qualified men in every field of scientific endeavor either have serious reservations about the theory or oppose it openly.

Brethren, this is a crucial sector of our battle against the sin of disbelief. If we are not very careful, we are going to be weighed in the balances, and found wanting.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 28, pp. 9-11
May 18, 1972

By Dick Blackford

It was my privilege to moderate for A. C. Grider for five nights in the debate at Central City, Kentucky, with Alan E. Highers, March 6-10. It is not our purpose to discuss the debate in detail but only to mention what we consider to have been the main arguments.

The first two nights were on limited benevolence. Brother Highers presented a chart on 2 Cor. 9:13 as his major argument. The chart contained Acts 5:11; 1 Thes. 3:12; I Thes. 5:15 and Gal. 6: 10 which are parallel in construction to 2 Cor. 9:13 (This chart is in The Arlington Meeting, p. 221). His argument was that because each of these verses includes more than saints, that the same must also be true in 2 Cor. 9:13. Brother Grider replied that we must keep a passage in context to determine who was relieved. He presented a chart containing I Cor. 16: 1; Rom. 15:25, 26, 3 1; 2 Cor. 8:4; 2 Cor. 9:1, 12, all of which say it was for the saints. He then asked if Paul misappropriated the funds by giving it to someone other than whom he said it was for. Brother Highers did not deal with the context but stuck to his “parallel constructions” argument.

On the second night when brother Grider again cited all the cases of church benevolence and pointed out that only saints were mentioned in each case, brother Highers replied by trying to parallel Griders argument to a Baptist preacher reading all the verses on faith and concluding that salvation was by faith only. Brother Grider effectively pointed out that there were other scriptures on the subject of salvation which proved that more than faith was involved. He emphasized the point that the Bible did not say sing only, but that it only said sing; that it did not tell us to take the Lords Supper on the first day of the week only, but that it only said the first day of the week: and that it did not tell us to take a collection on the first day of the week only, but it only said on the first day of the week.

Brother Highers presented a chart on Js1: 2 7 and Gal. 6: 10 (appears in The Arlington Meeting, p. 218) in an attempt to show that individual duties are discharged through the church. He paralleled Js. 1: 2 7 to I Cor. 11: 28 (Lords Supper) and said it was an individual duty discharged collectively and that Gal. 6: 10 was collective because it was addressed to churches (Gal. 1: 2). Brother Grider answered this with two charts–one showing that the Lords Supper was both individual and collective (I Cor. 11: 28 and Acts 20: 7) but that orphan care was only individual (Js. 1: 27) and that there was no passage authorizing orphan care on a collective basis. The other chart showed that Gal. 6: 10 could not be collective because of the context-particularly the fact that “they compel you to be circumcised” (Gal. 6:12) could not be collective action. These were the major arguments the first two nights.

The third night was on institutionalism. Brother Highers introduced a chart called “Which Organization?” with the church on one side, the home on the other and such things as 11 provide food, shelter, recreation, etc.” in the middle. His purpose was to show that these were home duties and not church duties. Thus the church could only contribute the money to the home and it could provide these things. Brother Grider again pointed out that it was the individual who was to practice pure and undefiled religion, Js. 1: 27.

Brother Highers presented his “Hobby Wheel” chart in an effort to make it appear that we are just like the anti-Bible class brethren. Brother Grider replied with a chart called “The Hobby Wheel Broke Down.” He pointed out that the brethren who oppose classes are objecting to something that does not exist-an organized Sunday-School society separate from the church. He said if that was what it was, he would oppose it too. He noted that the organized Sunday-School society, the benevolent society, and the missionary society are parallel and that all three are wrong. It was also pointed out that Brother Highers was confusing the word “home” by using it in several different ways without noting the distinction. Grider cited the charter of the Shultz-Lewis Childrens Home showing -that the organization called a “home” existed for the purpose of “providing a home” (another usage) and thus was an institution which could provide a thousand “homes” if it wanted to. He further emphasized that the church helps individuals, not “homes.”

On the fourth and fifth night co-operation in evangelism was discussed. Brother Grider showed what was involved in the sponsoring church system and noted that concurrent cooperation and not joint co-operation was the scriptural kind. Brother Highers did not show where one church sent to another in evangelism but asked by what authority Brother Grider got his salary from the first-day-of-the-week contribution. Brother Grider showed from 2 Cor. 11:8 that it is necessarily inferred that preachers were paid from the treasury and that I Cor. 16:1, 2 is the only passage telling when a collection could be taken. This did not satisfy Brother Highers and became his main argument the final night. On the last night brother Highers admitted that I Cor. 16: 1, 2 was not on evangelism but made a “two wrongs make a right” type argument that if preachers could get their salaries from this passage, he could also get authority for World Radio, etc. Again brother Grider said he did not get his salary from I Cor. 16:1, 2 but that a treasury was necessarily inferred in 2 Cor. 11: 8. He forcefully emphasized that I Cor. 16:1, 2 was the total revelation from God as to when a collection was to be taken and it was specific (first day of the week) and exclusive (first day of the week only). Grider further noted that we must first find authority for spending the money and that I Cor. 16:1, 2 was not authority for spending anything in evangelism and thus was not the passage which authorized a preachers salary.

Good order prevailed throughout the discussion and the atmosphere among brethren seemed to be much better than it had been at previous debates.

Brother Highers remarked that whether we (conservative brethren) “win” in a debate or not, we always “win” when we write it up. Though the same could be said about them, we simply want to point out that we were not seeking a personal victory. Both truth and error were presented. And in spite of Brother Highers outstanding ability as a speaker, one can study the arguments presented and arrive at the truth.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 28, p. 7a
May 18, 1972

By Tom Wheeler

I see in a UPI release in the Tulsa Daily World, October 25, 1971 some things that evidence the title. A group of so-called “churchwomen” and female liberationists reacted angrily to a stand taken by Episcopal Bishop C. Kilmer Myers. It seems that Myers teaches that Christs masculinity restricts the priesthood to men. One thing that puts the pressure on Myers is that previous area Bishop, James Pike, advocated women Priests.

Two truths that show the ignorance of those involved are:

1. All freedom is found in Christ. Those who walk in the light are in him. (I John 1: 7) Freedom is not found in the position of some would-be theologian, but in truth. (John 8:31-36) No man, woman, or young adult is free or liberated from anything until he is willing to submit to the will of God. God has informed woman about her work and man about his. Neither can be liberated from sin in the sphere of the other.

2. All Christians are priests (I Pet. 2:5). This passage is so simple that only those who want to create confusion, or a job for themselves, misunderstand it. I suppose one could be so ignorant of Gods Word that he would not know the passage exists. In such case ignorance is bliss “now.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 28, p. 7
May 18, 1972