Truth Magazine

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

By Wallace H. Little

Baptisms

The work in the Philippine Islands has been especially heartening with a large harvest of souls as indicated by this sampling of my correspondence since my last report. On Mindanao, Virgilio Villaneuva reported two baptisms in Lambayong and Linghanan Sendil seven by Disocoro G. Miparanum in Zamboanaga del sur. Sendil himself converted four including an eighty-three year old woman who strongly desires to serve Christ in the time she has left. Also from the same province, Rufo Samodal reported six baptisms. In still another part of that area, Antonio Gunot wrote of fifteen baptized in a gospel meeting in which a number of preachers participated. Wilfredo Samodal told of a conversion by Brother Jimenez. Philip Gon of Luanan sent a picture of some being baptized in a river, showing several standing on the shore, dripping, several more standing in the river, waiting, and one being immersed. Virgilio Galarn in Tacurong, Cotabato and Felix Abero in the northern port of this province reported on and two baptized respectively.

On the island of Palawan, Alfredo Agbisit wrote of two baptized in Narra, and Jose Ganan reported three in Bongabon, Oriental Mindoro. On the island of Luzon, Noli Villamor baptized five in Quezon, and Carlos Valenzuela another in Olongapo, the city just outside the United States Naval Base at Subic Bay. Sinforoso Pinote baptized one in Quezon City and Victorio Tibayan three in a meeting at Dian, Manila. Antonio Magbanua summarized his work in 1971 citing seventeen baptized while Castorio Gamit for the same year listed eighteen in Angeles City, just outside the United States Air Force Clark Air Base. I was stationed there from July, 1966 through July, 1968 and know well the conditions under which Brother Gamit labors. His results are spectacular.

Restorations

Castorio Gamit also wrote of six restorations in Angeles City in 1971 and his brother in the flesh, David, in Nueva EciJa reported one in early 1972. Sinforoso Pinote in Quezon City mentioned two liberal preachers restored. They ceased worshipping with apostate churches and renounced their support from liberal U. S. churches saying they did not want to be guilty under 2 John 9-11. Out of his own support, one of these is being assisted by Julian C. Felix of Tarlac, Moncada. Linghanan Sendil wrote of another liberal preacher leaving his error because of the Smith-Lacuata debate in 1971 and that harvest is not yet over. Brother Smith has, or is planning to send several hundred printed copies of this debate to brethren there. A number will switch their allegiance to the truth. Manuel Villaneuva in Manila wrote of seven, including two former liberal preachers, returning to their first love.

Truth and Courage

Brother Julian C. Felix wrote, . ..In Quezon City the PBC (branch) which was organized by Brother Gunselman is also getting weaker. There are orgy two (2) boys and several girls who are studying. But most of these are utilizing the school as dormitory for they are studying at the nearby secular colleges and university, hence they are taking advantage of the opportunity. . . .” Our institutionally-minded brethren have touted “Christian Colleges” as the way of spreading the gospel overseas by training native preachers. Question: is the PBC going to endorse “Womens Lib” by using female preachers?

The Philippine Bible College is in trouble. A number of its students and graduates, learning the truth, have deserted. Ken Wilkie, the president, published a plea for money to paint the buildings (judging form accompanying photo, they needed it, too). Moreover, there are faithful saints in the PBCs home town of Baguio under the very nose of the school. To the lovers of that idol, this must be a source of public shame.

Bob Buchanan, a one time member of the PBC staff and now at ACC, is a moral coward. Months ago I mailed him sixteen propositions for debate, that lie might have opportunity to defend the PBC. Cecil Willis and Connie Adams as well as I are willing to meet him in a fair debate on these. He is not even man enough to reply. These are the same propositions I sent him registered, on March 25, 1967 while we were both still in that nation. He gave them the same attention on both occasions-none! It is

characteristic of those in error and who know the Bible does not support their practices, to avoid a public confrontation with truth, especially when this might lead some of their sheep out of their error. In this contest for souls, error has never limited itself to ethical means. Bob Buchanan exactly fits this pattern of cowardice. Nor is he alone in this.

Philippine Preaching Trip

By the time you read this, brethren James P. Needham and Dudley R. Spears will be in the Philippines. I anticipate considerable good from this. Much of their teaching will be aimed at upgrading the capability of young and inexperienced preachers which should prove particularly fruitful in the years to come. They will report their trip in detail after their return to the U. S.

For the past several years, faithful Christians there have asked that several American preachers visit that nation yearly. They want our exhortation, fellowship in spreading Gods Word and to maintain the contact with conservative churches. In 1970 Roy E. Cogdill and Cecil Willis made the trip. Last year it was I Connie W. Adams and J. T. Smith. This year Dudley R. Spears and James P. Needham continue the effort. God willing, Frank Butler and I will make the trip in 1973 and Earl Robertson and Larry Hafley in 1974. These last two groups will need considerable financial assistance. The estimated expenses are $2500. 00 per man, most of which will go for the airline fare to and from, and air travel within that country. We solicit the help of churches and individuals. Please contact us.

Final Note

Especially gratifying to me is the progress in locating support for faithful native preachers. While there, I knew of only three who had support from the United States. Today there are more than sixty. Due to the extremely poor economy of that nation, the churches there are incapable of supporting their preachers. Outside help is necessary. For the same reason, it is virtually impossible for men to support themselves while preaching. As fine as it is to have this number supported, yet there are at least that many more still needing fellowship in this if the full potential of the Philippines is to be realized for the Lord. My experience indicates the Philippine Republic is one of the most fruitful places on the earth today in bringing souls to Christ. While the opportunity lasts, let me hear from you on this. I have detailed information on these men and will put you in contact with them.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 28, pp. 5-7
May 18, 1972