Truth Magazine

By Carl McMurray

The writer of Ecclesiastes is believed by many (including myself) to have been written by Solomon in his later years, after he learned the mistakes of following after one’s own desires. The picture he paints in chapter 12, of that time of life after youth is gone, is certainly not a pleasant one. He speaks of “evil days” with no delight. He speaks of the time when eye grows dim, shoulders stoop, and hands that were once strong, now tremble. He writes of the time when the sweet sounds of this life will go unheard and rest will fly away at any noise. As the head turns white, things which would have been unworthy of consideration in younger years now become fearful, that which seemed most captivating earlier, now is uninteresting. One is drawing near to his eternal home. Is the picture accurate? Certainly! But the Bible teaches that there is more to old age than losing one’s youth.

Proverbs 20:28 is written by the same author. Here Solomon says, “The glory of young men is their strength, and the honor of old men is their gray hair.” Again in 16:31, “a gray head is a crown of glory; it is found in the way of righteousness.”

The Scriptures point out that age (a gray head) should be a time of great honor and glory. Age should be a crown, that when observed by others signifies that the wearer is worthy of respect and honor. Notice that I said, however, age should be a crown. The harsh words, fault finding, and bitterness we often find in this age group give ample credence to Solomon’s words, “I have no delight in them.” There is no crown to being elderly for many. Rather than a “crown,” why is age such a “burden” to be borne by many?

I believe the answer is found partially in the aforementioned Scriptures. The gray head becomes a crown when it is found in the way of righteousness!

When one spends his life gratifying self, then loses the love for those gratifications in later years, that one is left with nothing. No container is so empty as one’s own soul. Again, when one spends his days in fault-finding and criticism, he should not be surprised to come to the end of life without friend or comforter. To have friends, one must be friendly. Sadly, many show little concern and consideration for others for the major portion of their lives, then cannot understand why no one comes running during their time of need. Then there is the older brother or sister that always seems to have an opinion on every matter, but no one ever seems to listen to them. Is it possible that they cannot see that their opinions are usually critical and other people quickly tire of being put on the defensive?

It doesn’t have to be this way, however. As the Scriptures point out, age can be a crown of glory to be worn with respect. The key, however, is that the one must walk in the way of righteousness. The one who lives for himself will grow old by himself while the one who lives for God is part of a great family.

If one walks in the way of righteousness he will spend his life in growth (1 Pet. 3:18). When he speaks, his words will carry the experience and the wisdom of years. He will be listened to because he will have tasted the power of God in his life and can testify to the effectual working of that power in the lives of Christians. This is quite different from the attitude of one who has spent his years pointing out the weaknesses and dwelling on the mistakes of others. When these people speak, others will listen because they will be expecting to hear something which is insightful, helpful, or encouraging. Even correction from an “honorable” gray head is easier to accept and act upon.

One who walks in righteousness will have given of him-self sacrificially down through the years, and while expecting nothing in return, will often find a multitude of children in the faith who would desire to repay them in some way by assisting them in their later years. There will be love given back to those who give love … “pressed down, shaken together, running over, it will pour into your lap” (Luke 6:38). “By your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return.”

One who walks in righteousness will be putting sin to death, as much as is possible, in their own lives. As they go through their lives, attitudes and weaknesses of younger years are defeated and put aside one by one as they draw closer to being conformed to the image of God’s Son. These gray heads will be looked to as examples and role models by younger Christians. They will be asked for their advice in dealing with various problems and temptations of this world. And once again, they will be listened to because of what others are able to see in their lives.

Proverbs 22:28 tells us, “Do not move the ancient boundary which your fathers have set.” The point once again is one of respect, for what has been done in the past by wise and respected heads. Lines drawn in the past have often been drawn for good reason and should be respected. This does not make them infallible, but great care should be given before one still “wet behind the ears” is allowed to tear down tried and proven boundaries. The actions and efforts then, as well as the men themselves, are worthy of glory, honor, and respect. But once more, this is simply because they followed proper standards and did the things which were right and proper and good.

Simply getting old carries no inherent honor. That happens to fool and sinner alike. But growing older under the direction of God’s spirit, through his revealed word, can lead one to a place in life where his age is truly a crown of glory. And that crown of glory is just a taste of the crown of life which is to come to all who walk in righteousness.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 14 p. 23-24
July 17, 1997

By Ron Halbrook

Cecil Willis (March 4, 1932-May 17, 1997) used to say he did not expect to live much beyond forty years, but by God’s grace and providence we were blessed to have him sixty-five years. In the prime years of his work, he was the most devoted, dedicated, and determined preacher of the gospel I have ever known. Like Paul, he truly could say, “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified,” and, “I am set for the defense of the gospel” (1 Cor. 2:2; Phil. 1:17). His every thought seemed to be focused on spreading and defending the gospel of Christ in its original purity and simplicity. Many, many souls will be in heaven because of his dedicated efforts (including mine, if I am faithful to the end).

Tragically, Cecil’s voice and pen were silenced for a decade among brethren generally. A lack of rest broke his health and family stress broke his spirit in 1976-77, which was compounded by an unscriptural divorce and remarriage. Utterly humiliated, he publicly confessed his sins in July of 1986 and ended the second marriage which began in December of 1980. Literally hundreds of letters and other expressions of encouragement helped him continue on the road to spiritual recovery. Little by little his efforts to preach Christ through both the spoken and the written word were renewed. Death has stilled his voice and pen again, but the influence of the truth he taught will continue for generations to come.

Early Life and Convictions

Cecil grew up understanding that sacrifices must be made in order to stand for the truth. His home community was Groveton in Trinity County in the piney woods of east Texas. The church there divided over the introduction of instrumental music into the worship in 1920. The new church met in a borrowed building, then in the Courthouse, and finally in a church building on Highway 94 purchased from the Baptists in 1924. Cecil was born in 1932 and born againwhen baptized in a farm pond by Ned Fairbairn in August of 1945. He worked the whole summer of 1948 helping demolish that old building and erecting a new one in its place.

Cecil was early influenced by men of ability and deep conviction such as Roy E. Cogdill (1907-85), Luther Blackmon (1907-77), and William Thompson. Cogdill often held meetings in Groveton, Blackmon drove out from Houston to preach there for a time, and Thompson moved to Groveton to preach in 1946.

Cecil’s first sermon was preached at the Possum Walk Church of Christ on March 28, 1948. He led singing for many gospel meetings at the Antioch church conducted by Silas Moody from Lufkin. When Cecil himself conducted a meeting there in 1950, the attendance reached 180. With Roy Cogdill’s encouragement and help, Cecil attended Florida Christian College and went into full time preaching, never looking back. He was an excellent pulpit preacher, presenting lessons suited to “the common people,” yet challenging even those with higher education (Mark 12:37; 1 Cor. 1:23-24). His lessons were simple, to the point, and practical. He did not meander up in the clouds trying to impress people without convicting the sinner of his sins. The last time I heard him preach in January of 1997, his lesson on “Speaking as We Ought to Speak” urged preachers to make plain, pointed, specific applications contrasting truth and righteousness with error and sin. Above all, Cecil will be remembered for preaching Christ through the writ-ten word.

Preaching Christ through Truth Magazine

Truth Magazine resulted from the efforts of Leslie Diestelkamp (1911-95) and Bryan Vinson, Jr. in 1956. They designed the paper to be balanced, militant, and evangelistic. From the beginning it had an open door policy toward the discussion of both sides of controversial issues as it focused on the rise of modernism and institutionalism. It also provided a forum for news regarding foreign evangelism. The paper was a monthly under Vinson as editor.

The September 1958 issue was a special edition entitled “Return Ye Unto God,” to encourage the recovery of erring saints. It included Cecil’s first article, “Be Thou Faithful,” which concluded: “His we are; His we ever shall be if we profitably serve Him ‘unto death.’ The next month he defended the inspiration and authority of Scripture in an article entitled, “Holy Men Spoke From God,” followed by three similar articles on Isaiah (May-July 1959). The all-sufficiency of God’s redemptive plan was discussed in a twelve-part series covering the Savior, the Bible, and the church (Dec. 1959-May 1961). In recognition of the quality of his material, Cecil was added to the Staff Writers at the ripe age of 28 in October of 1960.

Just two years later in August, the editorship of Truth Magazine was turned over to Cecil with William E. Wallace as the new Associate Editor, replacing the old staff. Cecil began a series on “Problems in the Church” the following month including sensualism, materialism, and centralization. Under his able leadership, by April of 1964 the circulation of the paper had nearly quadrupled; it topped 4,200 in 1970 and peaked at 5,900 the next year.

Cecil’s deep convictions and leadership ability caused him to seek out sound, strong men to join him in proclaiming the gospel of Christ through the pages of Truth Magazine. Some of the men whose voices were heard include James P. Needham, Connie W. Adams, O.C. Birdwell, Luther Blackmon, Karl Diestelkamp, Earl Robertson, James W. Adams, Roy E. Cogdill, Ferrell Jenkins, Larry Halley, and Irvin Himmel. The journal’s influence for good further increased when it became a weekly publication (Nov. 6, 1969). Reaching out to a new generation, Cecil added younger writers to the staff: Bruce Edwards, Jr., Ron Halbrook, Jeffery Kingry, John McCort, Harry Ozmont, and Steve Wolfgang (Nov. 7, 1974). When I submitted my first article for such a journal in 1964, en-tided “Immorality Won’t Work,” he said, “I have 500 pages of manuscript now on hand,” but published it the next spring (Willis to Halbrook, Nov. 11, 1964). While some of these men disappointed Cecil later, he was gratified to see several others become editors of other journals (May 31, 1973). William Wallace and James W. Adams edited the Gospel Guardian at separate periods; James P. Needham edited Torch Magazine; Connie W. Adams edited Searching the Scriptures.

1960s: The Institutional Battle

Only eternity will reveal how many precious souls were saved from the dangers of institutional liberalism through Cecil’s work in Truth Magazine. The innovations which swept the country after World War II involved centralization and social gospel concepts (churches donating money to such human institutions as colleges, child-care agencies, and retirement centers; elderships of larger churches transforming themselves into boards which sponsored evangelistic projects with money from other churches, such as the Herald of Truth Radio Program; churches providing social meals, “fellowship halls,” gyms, and all sorts of social and recreational services; churches donating money to needy people who are not Christians). Cecil was a major participant in this battle as it continued to rage in the 1960s.

His two oral debates with Clifton Inman were reported and his two written debates with William L. Carrell were published in the paper (Jan. 1967; July-Sept. 1967 and Dec. 1968-Feb. 1969). Cecil contrasted truth and error in the plainest terms, yet these debates were conducted on the highest plane: “His preparation for these discussions was very evident. His part … was also carried on in a very fine spirit of brotherliness, and high esteem for his opponent” (James P. Needham, Jan. 1967, 77). Scores of articles on the institutional issues were published by many able writers under Cecil’s editorship.

1970s: The New Unity Movement

In the decade of the 1970s, conservative-minded brethren were shaken by the rise of a generation affected by the cultural winds of the time. A social and moral upheaval occurred in America beginning in the mid-1960s. It was driven by a spirit of anarchy, hatred for all symbols of authority, and rebellion against traditional standards in morality and religion. This new generation blurred the line between right and wrong, tried to erase all rigid standards on moral issues, and advocated peace at any price on religious differences. This was the age of situation ethics and the ecumenical movement.

Among conservative churches, this new generation denigrated rather than appreciated the battles fought by their fathers. Their fathers were caricatured as too rigid, too traditional, too authoritarian, and even mean-spirited, which caused the institutional division. The new generation imagined themselves as forging new trails to peace, unity, love, and rapprochement with alienated brethren. The fact is that this new ecumenical spirit was another disguise for compromise, but it affected many brethren  not all of them young. My wife and I once listed forty preachers known to us who were seriously affected by this error, most of whom eventually joined liberalism, denominational bodies, or cults. Many others affected were unknown to us.

Cecil Willis immediately saw this “new unity” or “grace-unity” movement for what it was, another form of apostasy. Carl Ketcherside (1908-89) and Leroy Garrett, once noted for their divisive extremism, embraced an ever-widening spirit of ecumenical compromise in the 1950s. They separated “gospel” from “doctrine” in the New Testament, applied Romans 14 to contradictory beliefs and practices on moral and doctrinal issues, and popularized the concept of doctrinal “unity in diversity.” They said the New Testament is a “love letter,” not an exact pattern of truth. As they broadened the borders of unity and fellowship, they also broadened the realm of grace and salvation to include all “wings of the restoration movement”  The Disciples of Christ, independent Christian churches, and all professed churches of Christ (one-cup, no-class, premillennial, institutional, etc.). Next, they widened the circle to include the Protestant denominations and sects, various branches of Catholicism (Roman, Greek Orthodox, etc.), and even people in pagan idolatry.

Ketcherside and Garrett influenced Edward Fudge and a few other young men among us in the late 60s and early 70s, which became a dangerous leaven, but the strongest factor in the spread of this movement was the anti-authority, anti-tradition atmosphere of the social climate. Peace at any price was simply an idea whose time had come and many among us were caught up in the spirit of the time (Rom. 12:2). As early as July of 1962, Leslie Diestelkamp warned against “The Ketcherside Unity Plea”: “Toleration is his theme . . . not only with regard to men but with regard to principles. The actual crux of his appeal is not only that we be patient with men in error, but that we be tolerant with the error they advocate and practice” (194). Roy Cogdill pointed out that Ketcherside and Garrett had swung from being “nothingarian” to “anythingarian” (Nov. 13, 1969, 20).

In recognition of the seriousness of this spreading error, James W. Adams began a lengthy series with “The Birth of a Movement” in the March 22, 1973 issue. Cecil’s “Editorial Note” added that 1,000 extra copies of each article in the series was being printed for wider distribution. Beginning later that year, under Fudge’s influence as Associate Editor, the Gospel Guardian professed that no new unity movement existed, the discussion was politically motivated, lies were being told, and second generation preachers were turned off by the whole thing. Knowing that many younger men were upholding the truth, Cecil’s editorial on June 14, 1973 responded, “Turning Off `Which’ Second Generation Preachers.” After an introductory article, I wrote a five-part series as “An Appeal in Love to Edward Fudge: Clarify Please,” quoting extensively from his own pen (Sept. 20-Oct. 25, 1973). As a result, my character was attacked as being dishonest and dishonorable, but Cecil felt these articles provided documentation of “the erroneous positions of Edward Fudge, but which documentation we did not have readily accessible” (Nov. 7, 1974, 8).

These were dark and difficult days for Cecil, myself, and others directly involved in this controversy as our motives and character were constantly impugned. Cecil was a stabilizing force because of his calm, consistent, persistent appeal to the text of Scripture and his refusal to be sidetracked from the Bible issues confronting us (1 Pet. 4:11; 1 John 4:6). Though he was painted as political, arrogant, and mean-spirited, I saw up close through constant contact the heart of a man whose only desire was to up-hold the truth of the gospel of Christ. While some said his motive was to increase the circulation of the paper, some of these battles actually cost us subscriptions, but he was willing to press the battle for truth if it meant the death of the paper. He commented,

I deeply resent the fact that some naive brethren think we are pressing this issue to gain some kind of financial ad-vantage…. I am resolved that brethren who misunderstand what we are trying to do, or who see no need for what we are doing, will not stop the effort being made. . . . I am not afraid of this fight tarnishing our reputation; that is a part of the price of spiritual warfare (Willis to Halbrook, Nov. 14, 1973).

Maintaining an Open, Balanced, Evangelistic Posture

Cecil also maintained the open door philosophy of the paper instituted in its beginning, not as a matter of mere policy but because openness to study, discussion, and de-bate is essential to biblical faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-7; 17:11; Gal. 2:11-14; 1 Thess. 5:23; 1 Pet. 3:15; 1 John 4:1-6). If the paper ever lost its commitment to militant evangelism with open debate of current Bible issues, Cecil believed it deserved to die. While meeting the issues of institutionalism and the new unity movement, he also worked hard to maintain a balance with a wide range of subject matter, as a review of the annual indices abundantly demonstrates.

To encourage evangelism in the U.S. and abroad, Cecil published a constant flow of reports from “Japan, South America, South Africa, Ireland, Nigeria, Rhodesia, Philip-pine Islands, Mexico, Norway, Canada, England, Vietnam, India, Australia, Italy, the Bahamas and perhaps other lands that do not readily come to mind” (July 8, 1971, 531). So great was his interest that he made two trips to the Philip-pines, first in 1970. It is some measure of the good effect of that trip that the liberals bombarded him for years after-ward in the Philippine Christian, and he answered at times through another Philippine paper, the Gospel Preacher edited by Romulo B. Agduma.

Cecil’s doctor warned him not to go to the Philippines and Australia in 1975 just before he left because of “involuntary shaking” caused by “dangerously high blood pressure,” but he went any way “and was ill at nearly every place I went.” After cutting short this trip because he was so ill, he tried to hold a couple of meetings and finally checked into a hospital in St. Louis, Missouri, where he learned he had suffered two strokes. The doctor required him to cancel all his work “for the remainder of this year” and he was told he needed a year’s bed rest. Cecil explained all this because an American liberal named Bob Buchanon at the Philippine Bible College was saying Cecil was so afraid to debate him he was visibly shaking (Willis letter to Luis Calipayan in the Philippines, Nov. 21, 1975). Actually, Cecil’s repeated efforts to get Bob to debate had been rebuffed for years. Over the years, Cecil spent and sent thousands of dollars out of his own pocket, and raised much more from others, to provide literature and support to Filipino brethren for the spread of the gospel. Such efforts continued until his death. Only God knows how many Filipino children have been named for him because of his love and generosity for the cause of Christ. He will be sorely missed there as here.

Beset by failing health and family problems, Cecil formally resigned the editorship of Truth Magazine on April 1, 1977 at the age of 45, having served for fifteen years. His son Steve and his brother Mike had already been helping with editorial duties behind the scenes. As its next editor, Mike kept it on a steady course as a well-balanced, militant, open, and evangelistic paper. After returning to the Lord, Cecil wrote only occasionally, including “Can Sin Be Inherited?”, an expression of “Gratitude to Brethren,” “A Report on James P. Needham’s Health,” and a few other news items about his work (Jan. 1, 1987, 17-18, 21; Mar. 19, 1987, 179; Apr. 7, 1994, 211).

The Written Word in Tracts, Workbooks, and Books

Time and space fail me to give an adequate survey of the work accomplished by Cecil Willis in proclaiming the gospel of Christ through the pages of Truth Magazine. In addition, his proclamation of the gospel was extended over land and sea by reprinting many of his articles as tracts  thousands upon thousands of them through the years on such subjects as Can We Understand the Bible Alike?, What is Conversion?, What Must One Do to be Saved?, Reviewing a Baptist Tract, The Law of Moses and The Gospel of Christ, But What About the Thief on the Cross?, What Is Wrong with Denominational Baptism?, Scriptural Worship, Church Discipline, Is the Herald of Truth Expedient?, The Tipton Home Story, The Tap-root of Digression: “No Pattern-ism,” Dancing, and The “New Morality” Reviewed.

Another far-reaching effort was “The New Series of Bible Class Literature,” a project announced November 27, 1969 and presented as complete on July 12, 1973. Not only was the old “Journeys Through the Bible” revised as “Walking With God,” but also a great number of brethren  many connected with Truth Magazine  worked to produce the all new “Truth in Life” series. Ferrell Jenkins and Cecil worked as Associate Editors of “Truth in Life,” and Cecil wrote an excellent Senior High book suitable for adults as well, entitled “How to Study the Bible.”

Three books by Cecil were published. His 425 page biography of W. W. Otey: Contender for the Faith, subtitled A History of Controversies in the Church of Christ From 1860-1960, appeared in 1964. It contains the most extensive account of the institutional division to date. In 1968, the first of two oral debates with Clifton Inman over institutionalism in 1966 was published as The Willis-Inman Debate: A Discussion on Congregational Cooperation and Benevolent Organizations. I have always regarded it as the clearest and simplest of the debate books on these issues. His 1974 debate with Jesse G. Jenkins appeared in 1976 as The Willis-Jenkins Debate, in which Cecil de-fended the right of individuals to conduct “liberal arts educational enterprises, in which the Bible is taught as a regular part of the curriculum (as is practiced by Florida College).” Each man submitted his personal conscience and conviction to this test without dividing churches over it, and so the matter rests to this day, which is a credit to them both. Cecil also wrote a chapter on “The Churches of Christ in Trinity County” in Trinity County Beginnings (1986), which includes some family history along with church history.

Reflecting on Cecil Willis’ work renews precious and powerful memories which strengthen my faith and which I will take to the grave. Our gratitude to Cecil extends to his family who shared his sacrifices, triumphs, and tragedies. His use of the written word to spread and defend the gospel of Christ will continue to bear fruit for time and eternity.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 15 p. 6-9
August 7, 1997

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