Truth Magazine

By Jim Gabbard

The debate between the naturalist and the supernaturalist has been going on for centuries and will probably continue to the end of time. Who is right? And how can we know?

We cannot know of an absolute certainty until the end of time, but we can look at the great overwhelming body of evidence and then come to an intelligent conclusion if we do so diligently and without prejudice. And let me just note that the naturalist/evolutionist looks at the exact same evidence that we do. There’s only one set of evidence.

It would be useful at this point to look at some definitions.

Naturalist

A naturalist is one whose philosophical theory affirms that all beings and all events in the universe, whatever their inherent character may be, are natural, and can be explained by scientific method. He believes that all knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation. He totally denies the existence of any supernatural being and he believes that there is no other world reality of any kind. Paul mentioned the naturalist in 1 Corinthians 2:14 in these words, “But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” By definition the naturalist cannot accept the things of the Spirit. In order to do so he would first have to be converted from a naturalist to a supernaturalist and that would require a type of learning which would go against his strong prejudices.

Supernaturalist

A supernaturalist is one who believes that there is a supernatural being. He also believes that there is another world realm. He believes that there is more than science can tell us. Christians are supernaturalists.

Now to the Evidence

First, it would be useful to define “evidence.” Evidence is the result of accumulated circumstances that seem to justify a reasonable inference, or if strong enough, to constitute proof.

Two Kinds of Evidence

There is first analytical or mathematical evidence. Analytical evidence means that things are true by definition. Who would argue that 2 + 2 does not = 4? No question about that. Also there are such things as shapes, sizes, colors, measured distances, solids vs. liquids, etc.

Second there is empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is systematic proof which deals with a proposition or issue that is true based on a preponderance or superior amount of circumstantial evidence. The evidence is examined to see if the evidence is sufficient to support a claim. Unlike mathematical proof, knowledge derived through empirical means can never produce 100% certainty.

Almost everything we know came to us from empirical evidence; science, medicine, history, law, and just about everything else rests upon empirical proof. When our doctor makes a diagnosis, he does so based on empirical evidence in the overwhelming number of cases. When a jury reaches a verdict, it does so based on empirical evidence. When a man says that man ascended through a process of evolution he does so based on very flimsy empirical evidence. We see overwhelming empirical evidence that man was created by the Almighty God of Heaven. It takes more than some imagined anatomical similarities and a few fossilized bone fragments to convince me of such a momentously important topic, on which so very much is resting.

A Look at Some of the Evidence

The Design or Teleological Evidence. Everything in the universe and the universe itself exhibits great design. It is thus axiomatic that there is a great designer. The sharpest critics agree that the universe could not exist without order. Since the universe has design and order, it follows that there must of necessity be intelligence behind it. (A chaotic happening, such as a big bang, would destroy, rather than cause design and order).

The Ontological Evidence. This was first expressed by a man named Anselm, an Italian born British church man (Archbishop of Canterbury) in 1088. It basically says, “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” (Prosligium or “Address” or “Allocutin”). That is really a very profound argument. If nothing greater than God can be conceived, then there is nothing greater than God.

The Cosmological Evidence. Since there is change in the universe, and since every change is the effect of some cause, then there is a great chain of cause and effect. That chain moves in a series that either never ends or has a first cause. It is totally irrational to think it had no starting place. Therefore it had a first cause and we believe that there is sufficient evidence to strongly believe that first cause was God.

The naturalist can go no further back than his imaginary big bang which he admits had to have a cause. But which he also admits he has no idea what that cause was.

The Moral Argument

This argument was put forth first by the Greek philosophers, but most eloquently by the apostle Paul in Romans 1:18-25. Verse 17 tells us that God’s righteousness is revealed from faith to faith, meaning that we learn God’s righteousness from the gospel, that great body of truth (the faith) which produces subjective belief or faith in us, thus from faith to faith. Verse 19 tells us that the human predicament is not the result of ignorance which could be remedied by learning or education. Verse 20 tells us God has made knowledge of himself available through the creation. While the natural man is aware of a divine being, God limits his knowledge to eternal power and divine nature.

Instead of honoring and worshiping God and giving him thanks for supplying them with everything they had or needed, including life itself, they fell down on their knees and worshiped the creeping, crawling creatures. That’s exactly what the naturalist/evolutionists do today.

The moral argument was stated in philosophy by Immanuel Kant in 1750. It basically rests on obligation or moral duty. All people everywhere, in all times, feel very similar moral obligation. Why? Paul argues that all can know moral duty from observing what God has done. Kant said that obedience to obligation coincides with happiness.

Verse 18 tells us man’s unrighteousness suppresses the truth. People want to be happy and they constantly search for happiness. A very great many people are searching in the wrong places, out chasing illusions. Happiness is within the reach of every man, woman and youth. All one has to do is learn his duties (all his duties, including the duties to God) to do them diligently, and happiness will come to him. Solomon, the wise king of Israel, says come to the house of God and be quiet and listen (Eccl. 5). Don’t come rushing in like a fool trying to tell God and all mankind how it is or ought to be. Come and listen quietly and you’ll learn what your life means.

We have not mentioned the greatest of all evidence, the Bible. It is a very reliable source of evidence, if for no other evidence, its superior age and availability in ancient manuscript forms compared to all other kinds of literature known today.

There is good and sufficient evidence to believe in God.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 14 p. 14-15
July 17, 1997

By Frank Jamerson

When brethren make such statements as: “Jesus did not come to establish a covenant which was different from any previous arrangements,” and “Jesus is the covenant victim, not a covenant maker or law-maker,” it indicates a dire need to get back to basics. When men are confused about the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and affirm that God has only one covenant, it is time to get out the Bible dictionary and concordance and study God’s word instead of listening to men.

Though a dictionary definition is not to be accepted as inspired of God, it often helps to understand a subject. Thayer defines diatheke (covenant) as: “a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid . . . a testament or will . . . a compact, covenant . . . we find in the N.T. two distinct covenants spoken of (Gal. 4:24), viz. the Mosaic and the Christian … This new covenant Christ set up and ratified by undergoing death . . . by metonymy . . . diatheke is used in 2 Cor. 3:14, of the sacred books of the O.T. because in them the conditions and principles of the older covenant were recorded” (136, 137). He defined nomos (law) as “anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, usage, law . . . a law or rule producing a state approved by God” (427). When we examine the uses of these words in the Bible, we can see that Thayer has basically described what we read in God’s word.

The first time the word “covenant” appears (though not necessarily the first covenant) is God’s promise to Noah, “But I will establish My covenant with you …” (Gen. 6:18). Later, God said, “Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth,” and the “sign of the covenant” was the rainbow (Gen. 9:12, 13). The next covenant is the threefold promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3). The land promise is specifically called “a covenant” (Gen. 15:18), and an “everlasting possession” (Gen. 17:8). God kept his covenant with Israel (Josh. 21:43-45). The nation promise also is called an everlasting covenant. “And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you” (Gen. 17:7). They became a “nation, great, mighty, and populous” while they were in Egypt (Deut. 26:5). As a “sign of the covenant” God commanded that descendants of Abraham be circumcised (Gen. 17:10,11). Later, circumcision (Lev. 12:3) and the Sabbath (Exod. 31:16, 17) were given as a sign of the special relationship between God and Israel. In one sense both these things were covenants and in another they were signs of a special covenant with Israel. The seed promise is called a covenant in Galatians 3:16, 17. This covenant was fulfilled in Christ and includes all nations (Gen. 22:18). That was not true of the nation and land covenants with Abraham.

The Old Covenant

There are many other “covenants” mentioned in the Old Testament. In fact there are half a dozen that are called “everlasting” (Gen. 9:16; 17:8,19; 48:4; Exod. 40:15; Lev. 16:34; Num. 25:13; 2 Sam. 23:5; 1 Chron. 16:17). These, and more, are included in what is called the Old Covenant which God gave to the nation of Israel. The covenant given on Mt. Sinai was ratified by the blood of animals. Moses “took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, `All that the Lord has said we will do, and be obedient.’ And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, `Behold, the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you ac-cording to all these words”‘ (Exod. 24:7, 8). This is also called the Law of Moses, the Law of God, or simply the Law (Neh. 8:1, 8, 13). When Hilkiah found “the Book of the Law in the house of the Lord” (2 Kings 22:8), Josiah learned about it and “read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the Lord” (2 Kings 23:2). Obviously, not every “covenant” is a law (in the sense of being a rule to be followed by men). The covenant God made with Noah (Gen. 9:12, 13) did not demand any action on the part of man, but the covenant of circumcision (Gen. 17:13, 14) was a law (Gal. 5:2, 3), and to deny that the “Book of the Covenant” was also the “Book of the Law” is to deny plain Bible statements in order to maintain a false theory.

The New Covenant

The Messianic prophet said that “in the latter days” the law would go forth from Zion (Isa. 2:2, 3). In the forty-second chapter, God said: “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles . . . He will not fail nor be discouraged, Till He has established justice in the earth; And the coastlines (Gen-tiles) shall wait for His law” (vs. 1, 4). The law that went forth from Zion was the law of “My Servant, My Elect One”! (To deny that Jesus was a law-maker is to argue with Isaiah!) It is called a better covenant, which was established on better promises (Heb. 8:6), the second covenant (v. 7), a new covenant (of which Jesus is the mediator, 12:24) and the everlasting covenant (13:20). It is also called “the faith” which was revealed after the law had accomplished its purpose (Gal. 3:23-25). It is “the new covenant . . . the ministry of the Spirit . . . the ministry of righteousness” and those who do not see a difference between this and “the Old Testament (or Covenant)” have “minds that are hardened” (2 Cor. 3:6-14). It is “the law of liberty” by which we are blessed, and by which we will be judged (Jas. 1:25; 2:12). It was ratified by the “blood of the new covenant” (Matt. 26:28). The fruit of the vine was “the new covenant in My blood (not the old covenant, Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). The Old Covenant was ratified by the blood of animals, but “the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these” (Heb. 9:19-23). In his sacrifice, Christ took away “the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:9, 10). (Those who say the only thing taken away at the cross was sin must be saying that he took away the first sin to establish the second sin! Those who say he took away the first priesthood to establish the second, have not helped their cause, because the change of priesthood demands a change also in the law, Heb. 7:12.) When this covenant went into effect, sins were genuinely forgiven On contrast to the first covenant, Heb. 10:3, 4), and “there is no longer any offering for sin” (Heb. 10:16-18).

The fact that there are many similarities between the two covenants does not prove that we live under the old covenant. (There are many similarities between my right hand and my left, but they are two different hands!) Have we for-gotten: “God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds” (Heb. 1:1, 2)? If it is not in the New Covenant, which was dedicated by the blood of Christ, we cannot do it and please God.

(Next  Did Jesus come to perpetuate the law or to fulfill it?)

Guardian of Truth XLI: 14 p. 11-12
July 17, 1997

By Mike Willis

We use the phrase “feet of clay” to remind ourselves of the weaknesses in a man’s character. The phrase may be drawn from the image that Daniel saw in chapter 2 which had feet part of iron and part of clay. He explained that the image meant that the kingdom under consideration would be “partly strong, and partly broken” (Dan. 2:44). Whether or not that is the origin of the phrase, we understand that even the best of men have “feet of clay.”

Bible Heroes of Faith Had Feet of Clay

The book of Hebrews enumerates many heroes of faith. One has to search very little in Scripture to see the feet of clay that these men had. Noah, whose faith moved him to build the ark, became drunken and lay exposed before his children (Gen. 9:21). Abraham, the father of the faithful, was afraid for his life when he and his wife Sarai conspired to lie to the king of Egypt about their marriage relationship (Gen. 12:12-13). Moses demonstrated his feet of clay when he glorified himself and Aaron and then smote the rock to bring forth water for the thirsty Israelites at Meribah (Num. 20:10-11). David showed his weakness in his sin with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11). Peter denied his Lord at the trial of Jesus (Matt. 26:69-75) and later withdrew from the Gen-tiles in Antioch because of his fear of the Jewish saints from Jerusalem (Gal. 2:11-14).

Even the greatest of men among us have feet of clay. Some-times one admires a man so much that his faith is shaken when he becomes aware of some of the weaknesses of the man’s character and of the times that he stumbles into sin. Were Cecil living today, he would agree with this assessment of men and with bowed head acknowledge his own failures.

As I reflect on the life of my fleshly and spiritual brother, I am painfully aware of his “feet of clay.” What happened to him occurred in such a public way that one would not be honest in giving an assessment of his life and achievements were he not to acknowledge his sins. He might as well try to write the biography of Richard M. Nixon without mentioning Watergate as to comment on Cecil’s life without acknowledging his weaknesses.

Some Things Were Not His Character Weaknesses

Some of the things that men thought were his weaknesses were not weaknesses. Many thought that Cecil was too hard and pointed in exposing error. He was fearless in con-fronting false doctrine. Cecil had an ability to attract others to help him do the things he wanted to get done. One of the first tasks he asked me to help him do was to listen to the tapes of the Willis-Inman debate in Parkersburg, West Virginia (held in 1966) to verify that the transcription was accurate. I was impressed with the gentlemanly tone of the debate, but still Cecil plainly exposed the weaknesses and errors of the sponsoring church and church support of human institutions. I frequently read his reviews of printed articles by men who were moving away from the truth. These reviews were not his weaknesses, as some might imagine, but his strengths. He had an analytical mind that could see through the illogical arguments of error and ex-pose them so that the common man could understand the danger of apostasy.

He was not political in his opposition to error. In the grace-unity conflict, the public charge was made that Cecil was the “political Mr. Willis.” In the charges against him, the impression was left that Cecil thought of himself as the pope and that his dictums were as binding as Scripture it-self. Cecil never had such an impression of himself. Those of us who knew him well know that he did not “hold his finger to the wind” to decide where he stood. He was more like John the Baptist  he was not a reed shaken by the wind (Matt. 11:7). In participation with him in the discussions of the Board of the Cogdill Foundation, I never saw anything that made me think his opposition to a man’s teaching was based on it being an opportunity to make himself more popular, to oppress a brother while he was down, to enlarge the circulation of Truth Magazine, to increase the financial base of the Foundation, or any other sinister motive. One thing motivated him  his love for the truth of the gospel.

Some men might think that Cecil’s “feet of clay” was his cold-heartedness. These men did not know Cecil. Cecil was willing to share what he had with those in need. One of the things that was characteristic of Cecil was his liberality. I know of many instances when he made contributions to poor brethren in the Philippines as well as helping many in the States. If there was a need, Cecil used his good influence to arouse others to help. Cecil was not one who violated the words of John who said, “But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?” (I John 3:17).

The compassion that Cecil felt for the sufferings of others could be seen in his friendship with O.C. Birdwell. Brother and sister Birdwell lost a son in an industrial accident. Their son was underneath a train car opening its drainage spout when another car hit the train, causing the car to run over him. He died soon thereafter. Cecil was in a meeting nearby when he heard the sad news. He rushed to their side to attend their needs during this time of grief.

Cecil’s Clay Feet

Yet, there certainly were moral blunders (sins) and other weaknesses in Cecil’s character. We acknowledge them here in the effort to be honest in our evaluation of his work.

Sometimes Cecil appeared aloof and detached. He was so caught up in the things that he was interested in that frequently he manifested little interest in what was important to others. I know Cecil as a brother and have witnessed this on more than one occasion. Sometimes, he was rude, calling brethren at all hours of the night to tell them what he needed them to do the next day. Many of his closest friends have received calls well after midnight. He was still up working and apparently thought that others were (or ought to be) as well. While the thought was still on his mind he would call to talk. Sometimes as he visited in the home, he was so absorbed in editing Truth Magazine or other publications, answering correspondence, or reading that he was did not relax and visit with the family in whose home he was staying.

Cecil’s absorption in his work contributed to the break-down of his marriage. I will not pretend to explain why his family fell apart, for only God knows for sure. However, I know that he was sometimes gone 20-30 weeks a year in gospel meetings, debates, lectureships, or other activities. When he was home, he was always under pressure to catch up on his work from the times he was away. His absorption in his work took him away from the family both in body and in mind. I kept thinking of the statement in Scripture, “Zeal for your house will consume me” (John 2:17). Cecil’s zeal for the Lord’s church so monopolized his time that there was little left for his family.

Cecil and his wife separated in December 1976 and some-time later were legally divorced. Cecil wrote a statement on the occasion of his separation that was circulated to several of us which explained that neither he nor his wife was charging the other with sexual immorality at the time of their separation. He understood that he did not have the right to remarriage at that time. Cecil was publicly embarrassed by the breakup of his marriage and was emotionally shattered by it. When he left Marion, Indiana in December 1976, he wanted to go to some isolated part of the world to “lick his wounds.” He moved to work with the church in Hawaii, but that was a disaster because of his physical and emotional condition. He flew home to Texas a sick and broken man.

In his despair, he did not think that his reputation could be hurt any more than it already was. He began doing things together with women, such as going out to eat and to events together, that were inappropriate because they were viewed as “dating.” Sometime later, he moved to work with the Huntsville, Texas church and a similar situation occurred while he was there. The elders of that church withdrew from Cecil for “dating” with the intention of marrying the lady. When I spoke to Cecil about their withdrawal, Cecil belittled the elders for their conduct. However, they perceived what was going on with Cecil better than he did. Within two or three months, Cecil had married the lady and in time a child was born in a marriage that was unscriptural. During his years that he was in the unscriptural marriage, Cecil worked as a prison guard at the Huntsville State Penitentiary. Cecil resisted the temptation to defend his unscriptural marriage by adopting some false doctrine on divorce and remarriage.

Cecil finally left that marriage in 1986 and was publicly restored on July 23, 1986. His confession was published in Guardian of Truth on September 4, 1986. When Ron Halbrook and I talked to him about leaving his unscriptural marriage in the Sumpter Cemetery, just a few miles from my parents’ home in Woodlake, Texas where his body now rests, he expressed his intention to leave. Later, he explained that he realized that he would never be able to do in the kingdom of God those works that he had done prior to his falling into sin, but that he felt like the psalmist who said, “For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness” (Ps. 84:10).

Conclusion

The aura of self-confidence that had characterized Cecil’s early years was broken and destroyed by his sin. I never got used to seeing Cecil in this broken condition. His strong faith, self-assurance, and confidence in the truth had always inspired others to follow his lead, though he never sought any sort of personal following. Still, his drive and self-confidence made him a natural leader of men in the work he did. In that respect, he was somewhat charismatic. The Devil took that from Cecil by seducing him into sin.

We do not honor Cecil as a perfect man. He was a sinner saved by the amazing grace of God. We rejoice that Christianity is not a system of salvation by perfect obedience, for in that case neither Cecil nor any of the rest of us could be saved. Christianity is a system of redemption, a remedial system. Cecil fled to Christ to find refuge in the grace, mercy, pity, kindness, and love of God. He did that as a young man when he was baptized into Christ. He did it many times along the way, but especially when he was restored in 1986.

Many brethren never felt comfortable using Cecil in gospel meetings after this. Cecil was not bitter, for he understood that brethren need to use men of impeccable character and reputation in such services. However, he was grateful for those who gave him an opportunity to preach after his restoration. I heard him preach in Connersville, Indiana in a gospel meeting last fall. He spoke on that attitude of brethren who want to preach Christ instead of the church. He cited the number of references in the gospels where Jesus preached the “kingdom of heaven” and showed that one cannot preach Christ without preaching what the Christ said about his kingdom. It was the best sermon I heard anyone preach all year.

I will be forever grateful for how Cecil influenced my life and the cause of Christ during the institutional and grace-unity controversies. He stood for the truth in the face of much opposition from liberal brethren. He was the victim of malicious words, the impugning of his motives, and such like things. He bore the malice of the enemies of truth with-out becoming bitter and continued to stand. He was a man of great influence, especially during those years, but as his life unfolded, we were reminded that he was but a man with feet of clay.

A quotation from Teddy Roosevelt fits the life of Cecil. Roosevelt spoke at the Sorbonne in Paris on April23, 1910. A portion of his speech was quoted by Richard M. Nixon upon resigning the office of President after the “Watergate” scandal. Cecil’s son, Steve, sent me this quotation saying, “When I read it, I often think of my Dad and his work.” The quotation reads as follows:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes out again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumphs of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 15 p. 2
August 7, 1997

By Lewis Willis

The journey that ended in the front seat of my automobile early in the afternoon of May 17, 1997, had its beginning over 65 years earlier in a small sawmill community called Groveton, Texas. I must confess that one would have had to look long and hard for any person who might have given that little boy much of a chance to succeed in anything he might have ever chosen to do.

He was the first child  the first son  born to O. J. and Wilhelmina Willis. My parents were very poor folks! My mother has often said, “We were poor, but didn’t know it  everyone we knew was also poor.” Dad was a truck driver, a logging contractor in the beautiful Piney Woods of Eastern Texas. He had married Mom three days after her 15th birthday. Cecil was born just a few days after their first anniversary. Mom was 16! Someone has said that Mom and Cecil “grew up together” and there is more fact than fiction in that thought. On December 6, 1941, Dad moved his family to Woodlake, Texas where the family lived until a year ago.

Our parents were essentially uneducated. Dad only attended school through the sixth grade and Mom through the ninth. But they insisted on us going to school. Cecil graduated from high school in 1949. Importantly, during the years of his secular education, it was primarily Mom who made it her mission to assure him a spiritual education as well. She took all of her children to Bible study and worship, even to the Ladies Bible Class on Wednesdays!

As Cecil entered high school, the local church hired a young preacher named Bill Thompson who showed a special interest in Cecil. Bill began to talk to him about preaching and Cecil was soon speaking by regular appointments in small area churches. Don was only two years behind Cecil and he, too, was preaching. On Sunday mornings, before the family left for worship, Cecil and Don would leave for their preaching appointments, each driving one of Dad’s log trucks! That must have been a rather frightful sight to behold!

After Cecil graduated from high school, he enrolled in Florida College. He graduated four years later. In the summer of his freshman year in college, he held a meeting at the home congregation in Groveton, Texas on the dates of June 1-8, 1950. In that meeting, our father was restored to duty after many years of unfaithfulness. (Dad is nearing his 90th birthday and he has never strayed from the commitment he made to the Lord during that meeting.) Now, both Mom and Dad were finally involved in the spiritual training of their children. Also, in that meeting, Cecil baptized me when I was 12-years-old. I was the first person he baptized.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 15 p. 1
August 7, 1997