Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

For many months now, brother Yater Tant, editor of Vanguard, has commended and defended the Crossroads church of Christ in Gainesville, Florida for its evangelistic program, in spite of the criticisms which have come from various sources who had no opportunity for collaboration but whose testimony agrees and confirms each other. For information regarding the different commendations of Crossroads, please read the following comments in Vanguard: Vol. VI; No. 4, pp. 2-3; No. 12, p. 12; Vol. VII, No. 1, p. 12; No. 12, pp. 2-3; Vol. VIII, No. 10, p. 2; No. 11, pp. 2-3.

During this same period, brother Tant has been appealing for some kind of unity with liberals through a “box in the vestibule” approach to support orphan homes, colleges, old folks homes, recreation, and other things in which the liberals are involved. The January 1982 issue of Vanguard contained an “open letter” to Reuel Lemmons and Guy N. Woods in which this appeal for unity was made. On August 13, 1982, brother Tant addressed the subject of unity at the Crossroads church in Gainesville before an audience of 4,000 people. His speech is presented in this issue.

I would like to present the following background in order that you might better perceive the impact of the Crossroads speech in August. Many of our readers are not aware of the Crossroads church. Consequently, some background is needed in order to fully grasp the impact of the sermon preached.

The Crossroads church is a big, liberal church. Here are some things in which they are involved by financial support and other forms of fellowship:

(1) The sponsoring church arrangement (for example, they sent $600.00 to support the Alan Cloyd restoration ministry in 1982).

(2) A Christian Family Services program which solicits contributions from individuals all over America in order to operate a facility for the adoption of children.

(3) It plans to develop and maintain Fanning Springs Development, a retreat to accommodate 250 people.

(4) It plans to build residential housing for homeless children on Riegel Ranch, a church owned property of 120 acres.

(5) They send the Crossroads Singers all over the United States to perform before and entertain both secular and religious assemblies. They also advertise to sell their records at Christmas time.

(6) They sponsor many recreational outings, including the purchase of block seating for University of Florida football games, an annual “Play Day,” and other such activities.

(7) They use their building for such activities as girl scouts meeting places.

In short, the Crossroads church in Gainesville has been in the vanguard of the movement to pervert the mission and the organization of the church (by their participation in social welfare work, recreational activities, and sponsoring-church projects).

On top of these objectionable matters, the Crossroads church of Christ has become involved in a system of evangelism which is objectionable even to those brethren who accept and agree with them in the matters listed above. The liberal brethren have criticized the Crossroads church and its satellites for the following activities: (1) its prayer-partner system of confession of sins; (2) its disruption of the eldership when it moves into a congregation; (3) its refusal of baptism to adults who request it but whom they judge not to be ready for baptism; (4) its making loyalty to the Crossroads evangelistic methods a condition of faithfulness to the Lord and for fellowship; (5) its participation with the Christian church in growth seminars; and other things. These things stand as barriers to the fellowship of the Crossroads brethren and the mainstream of the liberals.

On 5 December 1979, brother Tant visited the Crossroads church and was invited to speak at their services on Wednesday night. He said virtually nothing which his audience could perceive as pertaining to the issues of the past 30 years and, therefore, received a blanket endorsement from Chuck Lucas, the Crossroads preacher. The liberal convictions and practices mentioned above have continued to this day. For this compromising appearance at Crossroads, brother Tant has been criticized by numbers of brethren. His reply was something to this effect: “But because I respected the Crossroads elders, and did not seize the `golden opportunity’ . . . to `teach the truth’ to the 1,000 who were present the Wednesday night, I now have an invitation to speak to an audience of 5,000, and specifically offer what I believe to be the scriptural way to achieve unity.” The speech reproduced was presented on August 13, 1982 at the Crossroads church to approximately 4,000 people from all over the country.

If you were given the opportunity to address a congregation so steeped in liberalism as the Crossroads church is, what would you say? Would you tell them that unity could be attained and maintained between every child of God so tong as all were content to “walk in the light”? Would you call upon them to repent of their sins of having perverted the mission and organization of the church? For the sake of scriptural unity, would you appeal to them to quit driving the wedge of unscriptural practices between us? Would you imply that these brethren were already in fellowship with God or that their sins had broken their relationship with God? Would you say that liberal preachers who offer no prospect of repentance are building beautiful bridges for the unity of God’s people?- Just what would you say?

Fortunately, we do not have to wonder what brother Tant had to say. Reproduced in this issue is his speech and you can judge for yourself whether or not he preached what these brethren needed to hear.

Do the actions of brother Tant identify with brother Paul in the synagogue and marketplace of Athens (Acts 17) or at Ephesus and “almost throughout all Asia” where he preached “they are no gods that are made with hands” (Acts 19:26)? Would he, having the opportunity, speak of some as being “reprobate concerning the faith” (2 Tim. 3:9)? Paul did! “The faith” is under attack at Crossroads, brother Tant.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 194-195
April 7, 1983

By C. G. “Golly” Caldwell

“Some writers may toy with the fancy of a `Christ-myth,’ but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is an axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not the historians who propagate the `Christ-myth’ theories” (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Downers Grove: Intervarsity press, 1972, p. 119; quoted in Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, San Bernardino: Campus Crusade for Christ International, 1972, p. 83).

Growing out of modernistic, liberal biblical criticism over the past one hundred years or more, some have claimed that much of the history of the New Testament is “myth.” Others have said that the historical figure named “Jesus” and the Jesus presented in the Bible as the object of faith are not the same person. Some have even denied that Jesus lived at all.

To take the position that Jesus never even existed is to deny the overwhelming historical evidences contained both in biblical and non-biblical literature. I believe that Jesus lived because: (a) the testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be successfully refuted; (b) the testimony of historians establishes at least the historical presence of Jesus; and (c) the testimony of reason when applied to the generally accepted character of mythology disputes the argument that the story of Jesus is myth or legend.

Eyewitness Testimony

The writers of the New Testament have testified that they saw Jesus, heard Him, and touched Him (I John 1:1; et al.). If there were eight or more independent writers who were responsible for twenty-seven independent letters or books which were all authenticated as having been written within a certain period of ancient history, and if each writer claimed to have personally seen Julius Caesar, would any serious historian question that Julius Caesar was an actual historical figure? Honorable historical research would demand that the historian presume that the eyewitnesses were telling the truth unless it could be established that they lied or until they were discredited as witnesses. We even insist upon those guidelines for accepting evidence in courts of law.

Were the New Testament writers lying? There were simply no reason for them to lie. They could not expect to receive spiritual reward for lying and from a physical point of view their reward was ridicule, persecution, and martyrdom. These men and their teachings were rejected by Jews, Greeks, and Romans alike. They gave up virtually all material gain and most of them died for a lie . . . if they lied! It is incredible to believe that they suffered so much for a known untruth. On the other hand, these men were honest to a fault. They did not hesitate to tell of their own mistakes and stupid blunders. They even told of their lack of trust in Jesus and lack of conformity of His teachings. They were not fanatics. Their words were intelligible and presented with quiet dignity and simple forthrightness. They gave their testimony from an objective point of view with strong conviction of its truthfulness.

Can the New Testament writers be discredited? That too is impossible by any acceptable standards of ethical inquiry. There are multiple witnesses and their testimony is never contradictory. It is true that some tell some things and others provide additional information, but they all testify as eyewitnesses to His presence and each witness complements, rather than disputes, the testimony of the others. When they do speak of the same events, they independently confirm what the others affirmed. Their written works were penned over a period of several decades and, therefore, no claim can be made that they got together and conspired to perpetrate a fraud. These men simply told it as they saw it. Not one of them can be justly discredited. Remember, to deny the fact that Jesus lived would require not only that one of them be discredited, but that they all be discredited!

The Testimony Of Historians

The ancient historians also testify to the presence of Jesus among the Jews in the first century A.D. Statements from Polycarp, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Justin, Origin, and a host of others could be produced in abundance. It is sometimes said, however, that these men were believers in Christ and, therefore, their testimony is not convincing. Friendship does not deny truthfulness but we will turn our attention to the so-called “non-Christian” writers who also affirm that Jesus lived.

Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in A.D. 37. He was commander of Jewish forces in Galilee and was captured by the Romans. He wrote his Antiquities Of The Jews about A.D. 66. One major reference to Christ (Antiquities, Book XVIII, chapter III, page 11) has been disputed. If the reader is interested in a defense of its authenticity he should read William Whiston, “Dissertation I” in the appendices to his translation of The Works of Flavius Josephus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House), Volume 4, pp. 244-265. The following quotation is not, however, so hotly contested. It is found in a discussion of the high priest Ananus who ordered James the brother of Jesus put to death:

. . . so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James …. (Antiquities, Book XX, Chapter IX, page 140).

Mara Bar-Serapion, who lived about A.D. 73, wt ote a letter to his son from prison. That letter is now in the British Museum. In it he asked:

What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished.

The Talmud, writings of the Jewish fathers and definitely opposed to the Christians, was written over a period of several hundred years (probably between A.D. 100 and 500). It speaks of the Romans handing Jesus on a cross:

On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth). . . they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover” (Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a).

Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian and governor of Asia in A.D. 112. He alludes to the death of Jesus in a discussion of Nero’s reactions to the Christians in Rome at the time of the infamous fire which was blamed on the disciples:

Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberias: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also (Annals XV, 44).

Justin, sometimes called Justin Martyr, addressed a defense of Christianity to emperor Antoninus Pius in which he called upon the emperor to examine the records in the imperial archives which had been placed there by Pontius Pilate to document the activities in Judea during his administrations there. Justin said:

That he performed these miracles you may easily be satisfied from the `Acts’ of Pontius Pilate (Apology, 1, p. 48).

Tertullian (A.D. 197) also mentions the writings of Pilate which were known, read, and reacted to by the emperor Tiberias:

Tiberias accordingly, in those days the Christian name made its entry into the word, having himself received intelligence from the truth of Christ’s divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal (Apology, V, 2).

Even Lucian, the second century satirist who spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians did not deny his existence:

. . . the name who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world … . Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by defying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws (The Passing Peregrius).

Again, let us ask: If a multiple of eyewitnesses affirmed that they saw Julius Caesar, his admirers and followers testified that he dwelt in Palestine, and even those who opposed him recognized that he existed, would we deny that he ever even lived? The evidence is simply overwhelming! These are the same ancient historians who are responsible for our knowledge of the ancient world. If they were irresponsible in reporting about Jesus, can we accept their credibility in reporting on other historical figures? Denying the fact that Jesus lived undermines the trustworthiness of our knowledge of essentially all other characters of history in that time period.

The Most Reasonable Position

Beyond the testimony of the eyewitnesses and the historians, the unbiased student is challenged by the appeal to sound reasoning. Jesus was not only in the minds of a few ancient eyewitnesses but he will always be in the minds of millions of believers. Why is that so? Is it reasonable to believe that the first century evangelists invented Jesus? Is it reasonable to believe that the story of Jesus is simply myth when not one essential element of the story conforms to the nature of all known myths?

For the New Testament writers to have invented a character so perfect as Jesus is incredible. Not only would they have had to invent the man, but they also would have to invent His teachings. The great philosophers of the ages had been unable to construct a system of life that truly met man’s needs. To imagine that a few religionists whose lifetime vocational backgrounds included fishing and taxcollecting would be able to invent His timeless guide to living is unreasonable. They would become not only the greatest dramatists in history creating a character who was so real to be believed by millions for thousands of years, but the greatest theologians and philosophers as well.

These facts are doubly impressive when set against the character of known mythological development. Atticus Haygood in a little book called Man Of Galilee (1889), pointed out several characteristics of ancient myths and showed that the story of Jesus does not qualify as a myth by any scholarly standards:

1. “Myths originate and, as conceptions are complete before written history.” Centuries of Hebrew history were less than forty years from completion.

2. “About all myths there is something grotesque.” In appearance, Jesus was just a man.

3. “Myths reflect their time, place, and race.” Jesus was a “Jew only in blood; he is not a Jew in thought in character.”

4. “In all nations myths defy chronology.” The story of Jesus is set in a definite time frame of Roman and Jewish history.

5. “Myths defy topography as they do chronology.” Almost every story in the life of Jesus is set in specific location.

6. “Myths are not completed at once. They require long time – ages . . .”

7. “All myths belong to the infancy, never to the age of any nation.”

It is clear that the story of Jesus does not conform to any of the standard guidelines to the establishment of mythological legend. If the New Testament writers had created a character to be idolized by the Jews, Jesus would absolutely have been a different person altogether. He was not what Jews had hoped for or expected. He was not the dramatic, regal figure who would save their nation. His teaching went against all that the prominent religionists among them believed. His practice violated their traditions.

All evidence and reason affirms that Jesus lived. I do not believe it as the result of some existential “leap of faith.” I believe it on good, solid historical evidence.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 193, 213-214
April 7, 1983

By Earl E. Robertson

Worldliness is not a popular subject, but it is a Bible subject nonetheless and must be discussed (1 John 2: f 5-17). Churches are going to the devil because they are either filled or are filling with worldliness. This problem renders helpless and powerless either a Christian or a congregation. It is something that must be fought by every God-fearing person with all the panoply of God. If one is interested in going to heaven, he is interested in the subject. Worldliness might be said to be the arranging of one’s life without regard to God.

Improper values are reasons for worldliness with some. Outward appearance is the meaningful thing with too many. The seeking of a certain place in life’s circle, an academic degree, a particular social standing, etc., have all too often stood between a Christian and Almighty God. Jesus 1 told many, “Ye are they which justify yourselves before men” (Lk. 16:15). The enemies of Paul were asked, “Do ye look on the things after the outward appearance?” (2 Cor. 10:7). Having men approve me does not make Christ accept me (2 Cor. 10:18). Seeking the approval of men might well be the very basis of leaving the Lord and becoming worldly (Gal. 1:10). The Jews of Jesus’ day loved the praises of men more than the praises of God (John 9:18-23; 12:42, 43). They wanted to stay in the synagogue! To face the task of telling the truth and being right with God was not of as great value to them as remaining in the right circle of Jews.

Some are worldly because they are indifferent. Some in the church in Laodicea really had this problem (Rev. 3:15, 16). “Indifference” is to regard something as of little or no consequence. People like this concerning spiritual and moral issues became such ignorantly or they are just insensitive to what the Bible says. The word of God impresses upon us the need to care about things of this nature – care with urgency. One cannot be godly without knowing that God requires a positive response to duties imposed by the truth.

Others are worldly because they are unwilling to pay the price for godly living. Godly living requires subjection and the investment of one’s whole life. They want to be popular without consideration for the right standard of conduct (James 4:4). The dividends outweigh the investment (Rom. 8:18).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, p. 179
March 17, 1983

By Dudley Ross Spears

After The “End” What?

Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:24, , “Then cometh the end, when he (Christ) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” The millennialists imagine that when the Lord comes, He will establish His kingdom and reign on David’s throne in Jerusalem for a thousand years. But you will note from the context here that the kingdom is to be delivered up to the Father when the “end” comes.

Christ is now reigning in heaven on David’s throne and when He returns it will be to give up the kingdom to the Father -not to establish an earthly millennial kingdom. Question: how could Christ deliver back to God what does not exist? That is the dilemma the millennialists face. They cannot fit the end of 1 Corinthians 15:24 into their imaginary millennial reign of Christ on earth.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, p. 175
March 17, 1983