Truth Magazine

By Donald P. Ames

A great deal of publicity has been given the Shroud of Turin in the past few years. Some claim the evidence is “overwhelming” that it is the actual burial cloth used on Jesus On. 20:6-7) and that some sort of brilliant flash at His resurrection produced an actual negative of the body of Christ on the cloth. It is claimed that it shows the blood stains, the whip marks, and even the Roman coins of the time of Christ (if you have a good imagination). Catholics have made much of this “evidence,” and feel great pride in their “find” and the money and publicity they are getting from it.

Several have asked me what I thought about it; I suggested they be patient and just wait before they jump to any conclusions. The Roman Catholic Church has a great track record of producing “great finds” with “positive proof,” only to have them later exposed as a fraud. There were just too many unanswered questions about this to convince me that it was all that conclusive. And, the information is not all one-sided. More is now coming to light to show the highly publicized shroud is just another of those fakes.

For those who would like detailed information on this expose, may I urge you to take a trip to your local library and look at the November 1979 issue of Popular Photography, p. 97. Joe Nickell has an article there entitled “The Turin Shroud: Fake? Fact? Photograph?” It is well worth reading!

Mr. Nickell points out the cloth first appeared in the mid-1350’s at a new little church in Lirey, France, and the deCharny family (who owned it) began raking in the funds from pilgrims who came to see it. However, the artist who actually produced it was soon located, and “he confessed to forgery.” The issue was quickly and quietly dropped until 1452 A.D. when the granddaughter of the original owners sold it to the Italian monarchy. Repeated attempts to exhibit it as a genuine relic persisted, and so did the refutation and scandel. In 1532, it was nearly destroyed in a fire, and then faded from view until 1898 when it was first photographed, and the positive picture of a man developed. Several theories (none of which could be supported scientifically) were advanced to “explain” how it was possible for the negative on the cloth to be created and how it was “impossible” for it to be a fake – despite the admission of the original artist who created the forgery in the first place!

Mr. Nickell went on to show why the claims to the cloth being a “perfect negative” were invalid (if a true 3-D representation, the features turn out to be way out of proportion to the relief in the shadowing). He further noted some of the original photographs were actually reproductions of pictures from books and not actual photographs at all. The “blood stains” were tested by a secret commission (1969-76), and their report (now revealed) said there was no blood but “probably was the result of painting.” Of course Catholics point out that the image itself was not painted, but nothing is said about the “blood.”

Finally, using 14th century technology (in harmony with Biblical information), he began in 1978 and reproduced the same results on another piece of cloth. Using a bust of Bing Crosby, he even explains how you can produce a shroud as valid as the Shroud of Turin! His expose was also published in The Humanist (December 1978), and referred to briefly in Science News (December 23, 30, 1978). He has been invited to present his research on a nationwide TV program on the shroud (per Popular Photography).

Catholicism has sought many relics to make money off people who pay first and investigate later. Nearly every one has turned out to be a fake. Be cautious about believing such claims, and you may avoid embarrassment later.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 27, p. 443
July 10, 1980

By Sylvia Wheeler

As we travel the roads and highways of this country, we are impressed with the carelessness and unconcern of society. Huge sums of money are spent each year to clean up the trash and garbage we throw out the windows of our cars as we go on our merry way.

There are a few things we need to think about. We may say, “What harm can one little gum wrapper do?” We have a civil law against littering in this country and when we break this law we are breaking God’s law (Rom. 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13, 14). What example are you setting for your children? It amazes me how Christians can ride along and toss things out with no thought at all as to what they are doing.

This carelessness has carried over into our care of the church building. Today, when more and more congregations are hiring a janitor to clean the building, young mothers are missing out on a lot. It would be very educational for some mothers to have the responsibility of cleaning up after the services. So often it looks as if we have had a ticker-tape parade and banquet combined, with paper torn up all over the seats and floors and food crumbs everywhere. We would be embarrassed if a fellow member dropped by our house for a visit and found trash and food scattered everywhere. Yet, we fail to realize that Christ is with us at our worship services (Matt. 18:20). Where are our priorities?

If every mother would take a moment before leaving the building to pick up after her children, it would make a big difference. Think of the example you would be setting for your children. We all know children are copycats! They would soon learn as they grow up, that they have some responsibilities to clean up after themselves. Mothers, let’s think on these things and care about pleasing God.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 27, p. 442
July 10, 1980

By Ron Halbrook

Since the miracles recorded in Scripture are above and beyond the pattern of natural forces, Modernism finds those miracles irrational. We raise the question whether it is not Modernism itself which is irrational. Modernism embraces self-contradictory notions. How these notions can be true without destroying intelligence, appeal to rational evidence, and all the higher motives and capacities of man, is a miracle indeed! Let us look at some of the many miracles of Modernism.

Literary Miracle. In denying the verbal inspiration of Scripture, Modernism is thrown back on explanations for the existence of the Bible to an approach which appeals to the normal course of human life. Once it was said that the prophecies of Scripture were written after the events predicted had occurred, but extant manuscripts now disprove the theory. “It has been related that Voltaire, the great French infidel, said if he could be convinced that the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is genuine, he would concede that at least one prediction of the prophets was fulfilled” (McGarvey, Sermons, p. 128). In addition to the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament made about 250 B.C., we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls which are copies of the Old Testament dating before the time of Jesus. Voltaire’s challenge has been met and Modernist doubts about predictive prophecy have been answered. The Modernist is left with passages such as Isaiah 53 which accurately predicted future events and were written before, not after, the events. He must explain how, men predicted these events without a miraculous revelation from God. A naturalistic explanation of such a supernatural feat will itself be a miracle!

The Modernist has a literary miracle when he tries to reconstruct the life and teaching of Jesus from the New Testament so as to eliminate the miraculous. Modernism tears up the New Testament accounts of miracles, throws away the miracles, reshuffles the remaining material, and postulates what the life and teaching of Jesus may have been. But, when are the New Testament reports to be accepted and when rejected? This opens a Pandora’s box. The Modernist can no longer argue that so-called literary criticism is needed to determine what the original records said; textual scholarship has come so close to the original manuscripts as to discount such an approach.

The interval . . . between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology, pp. 288-289).

The New Testament documents are primary-source material pointing like a knife at the throat of Modernist speculations about what “might” have “really” happened! Attempts to explain away such miracles as the bodily resurrection of Jesus “invariably demand more faith than the Resurrection itself, for they fly squarely in the face of the primary-source material” (Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology, p. 39).

Moral Miracle. The Modernist has often argued that God is at work in all the experiences of man. This would mean that God is working in man’s experience when he defines his own morals. By the same token, God would be just as much at work when man breaks that moral code or discards it for a new one. In fact, situation morality as espoused by many Modernists argues just that. What is moral changes with the different circumstances and experiences of a man; breaking his own moral code may be the most moral thing he can do in some situations.

The very expression “situation morality” is self-contradictory. Morals are unchanging principles of right and wrong which do not break down under the pressure of “circumstances.” Situation morality is no morality; it is the search of a blind man in a dark cellar for a black cat which is not there, against which we are warned (Col. 2:8 – taken captive through philosophy and vain deceit). The nation of Israel suffered chaos and recurrent apostasy when “every man did that which was right -in his own eyes” (Judg. 21:25). The moral miracle of Modernism is that God is at work revealing His will in a man’s experience when he acts first in one way and then in the opposite way. The first absolute rule of situation morality is that there is no absolute rule of morality.

Another moral miracle for some Modernists is involved ,in their explanation of the Gospel accounts of Jesus. The most extreme Modernists have argued that Jesus was a great and good man but not the Son of God in a unique and supernatural sense. How shall we then deliver Jesus from the charge of lying about His nature (John 3:16 “only begotten Son”; Jn. 8:58 – “before Abraham was, I am”)? The answer is that the Jewish authors made up stories about the miracles, the claims, and even perhaps much of the teaching of Jesus as embellishments to the true story. But, this solution involves a moral miracle. How did first-century Jews of the working class so completely transcend all the prejudice and pettiness of first-century Judaism in order to paint the picture of Jesus Christ? Water does not rise above its source. Nothing in the moral character of the Apostles – who argued over which of them would be greatest and who fled when Jesus was arrested – qualified them to produce the moral character of Jesus Christ!

Ethical Miracle. The ethical miracle of Modernism is that proponents are not required to reveal their true convictions, but in fact may conceal them by proclaiming their doctrine in the language commonly used to express the opposite convictions. Baptist minister W.S. Morgan attended Yale Divinity School and subsequently went into Unitarianism. He advised those going through the same transition but who feared the loss of their pulpit, “Don’t label your heresy . . . . Do as I do. Give them heresy in such a fashion that the very saints will not suspect it. Bad ethics, you say! 1 say, very bad! But this is the only way in which hundreds of orthodox pulpits can be held” (Morgan, American Unitarian Association tract No. 223, quoted in Gordon, The Leaven of the Sadducees, p. 96). Another Liberal acknowledged that this approach to the conflict between traditional and modern creeds had been often used but lacked “honesty and frankness.” In discussing “Two Creeds for Every Church,” William Pepperell Montague said,

One solution of the problem more often put into practice than defended in theory is the “double standard” of truth -one for the person, the other for the congregation; or at least for the more simple of its members. The latter are to be allowed, if not encouraged, to take the creed literally; while the minister takes it with reservations. It is difficult to defend this policy against the charge of bad faith and deception in a matter where, if anywhere, absolute honesty and frankness should be required. Sooner or later the minister will be asked point-blank by one of his flock, who is assailed by doubt, as to the truth of some article of doctrine. He must then either tell an outright lie or else let the cat out of the bag and abandon his double standard of truth (Chapt. IX of Roberts and Van Dusen (eds.), Liberal Theology, p. 157).

Montague advocated “the ideal solution” of adopting two “widely divergent” creeds. “The one creed will be sung, the other will be said,” thus satisfying the whole range of “religious experience,” from the “emotional” to the “cognitive” (Ibid., pp. 159, 162). In other words, we will believe and preach the Modernist faith but will sing and rejoice in the ancient faith. This solution internalizes the bad ethics in the individual: self-deception is practiced for the sake of feeling a false sdnse of continuity between the ancient and modern faiths. The Modernist’s ethical miracle is that of doubletalk “in a matter where, if anywhere, absolute honesty and frankness should be required.”

Intellectual Miracle. The intellectual miracles of Modernism are many. We have already seen that what is moral one minute may be immoral the next, and vice versa, but God is at work in all these experiences. Furthermore, the truth which is not subject to question is that all truth is subject to question. Modernism treats all truth as relative, expanding, ever changing: there is no final truth, yet this very truth is itself final, not relative, and unchanging. In explaining “The Meaning of Liberalism,” William Ernest Hocking asserted that “liberalism is not to be identified with any particular dissent . . . but only with dissent from the view that any version of Christianity is all final” (Liberal Theology, p. 57). The Bible, then, is not a complete, final, and all-sufficient revelation of God’s will to man; nothing about the Gospel of Christ is settled and certain for all times. We are thus asked to believe that the one revelation which is “all final” is that no revelation is “all final.” Montague advocated that the “intellectual creed” – the one we really believe and preach, the Modernist creed – “will be regarded in the first place as probable rather than certain” (Ibid., p. 159). He did not mention that this raises the question whether what he thus advocated is itself “probable rather than certain.” In Modernism, the one truth which is absolute is that no truth is absolute, the one truth which is not relative is that all truth is relative. The miracles of the Bible do not hold a candle to the miracles of Modernism, if the preeminent objection is that we are asked to believe the incredible!

Miracle of Origins. Modernism rejects miracles recorded in Scripture that have to do with the origin of the world, of man, of Jesus Christ, of the church, and of the Bible itself. But, Modernism accepts its own miracles when it comes to the question of origins. The theory of evolution became an all-encompassing answer in answer to all questions of origins for the Modernist; God works through evolution, we are told. How did one form of plant life, say ferns, produce another form such as Redwood trees? And how did plant life evolve into animal life? How did an animal such as a snake or an insect such as a fly produce elephants and eagles? How did the animal kingdom which is amoral produce man with the capacity for moral understanding and choice? How did a male evolve into a female, or how long did the first male have to wait until the animal kingdom could evolve a female? None of the missing links which are the very keys to the theory of evolution have been found, but we are asked to put our faith in the non-miraculous miracle of evolution. The law of evolution has been spoken from Mount Science and woe be to the man who does not tremble at this word.

We have already shown that Modernism cannot account for the origin of the moral character of Jesus Christ; Modernism’s own supposition is that a motly band of Jews who all taken together could not represent one-tenth of the character of Jesus is responsible. The Modernist has no better explanation for the origin or the New Testament church. After the church’s existence is acknowledged, he may point to Paul as the great organizer and evangelist to the Gentiles. But, then, the Modernist must account for Paul’s conversion by rejecting his own account and explaining how he was converted without the miraculous appearance of the resurrected Lord. As for the Bible itself, Modernism is left with the problem of explaining the origin of predictive prophecy, which was discussed earlier. An explanation of such prophecy in the Bible without the miraculous intervention of God would itself be a major miracle.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 27, pp. 440-442
July 10, 1980

By Ben M. Shropshire

In our previous article on this subject, we showed the need for studying this topic, defined the word “judge” as used in the New Testament, discussed at least six different kinds of judging which the New Testament requires us to, do, and, finally, noted that, in all of the judging required of us, we are never allowed to use our own opinions, ideas, wisdom or suppositions as the standard for our judgments, but always must use the word of God, correctly understood and applied, as the basis for any judgment we make.

To continue the study of this subject this week, we want to take a look at the kinds of judgment which we are forbidden to do as in Matthew 7:1 – “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

We are never to judge another on the basis of our own law, or when we make our own life and beliefs the standard of judgment. This is what is being condemned in Matthew 7:1-5, Romans 2:1-3, and in James 4:11, 12. While most of us would quickly say that we would never do this, the fact is that we often do it in several different ways. One way in which we do this is described by Jesus in Matthew 7:1-5 in which we are extremely zealous to condemn another for a violation of the law of God, while we condone in our own life a more flagrant violation of the same law. This shows that we really do not respect the law of God ourselves, and are simply using it for our own purposes in castigating another. Our standard of judgment, then, is not the law of God at all, but our own perverted form of divine law and hypocritical application thereof. To all who do this Paul said, “Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doth practice the same things” (Rom. 2:1). While this passage condemns such unfair judgment as being sinful, it implies at the same time the correctness of a proper kind of judgment of another when the standard of God’s law is properly applied to oneself as well as to the other person: “Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye” (Matt. 7:5). Being able to determine that a brother has a mote in his eye (has committed some kind of wrong) necessitates a judgment on our part; but we must also judge ourselves first by the same law to see whether there is a beam (or even a mote) in our own eye that needs to be removed (Gal. 6:1).

We also are guilty of making ourselves and our ideas the basis of judgment when we speak against a brother without any cause, as occasioned by malice and hatred in our hearts. We are taught that, in doing this, we are guilty of making ourselves a law giver: “Speak not one against another, brethren. He that speaketh against a brother, or judgeth his brother, speaketh against the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judgest the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge” (Jas. 4:11, 12). The “speaking against” which is forbidden here is defined as “to speak down of a person, to speak evil of, to slander, or, to insult a person.” When we speak evil of another person and have no basis for doing so (no violation on his part of God’s law), other than the hatred and malice we have in our heart for him, we have made our own law and are using it to judge him rather than judging him with God’s law. Such judgment on our part is sinful and forbidden.

An additional way in which we use our own standard in judging another is when we make a judgment of another person’s motives. We do not have the ability to know what are the motives of another person, and when we profess to know them and judge him based thereon, we are making an improper judgment, based on what we think rather than on what God’s law says. Of course, we may be applying God’s law to what we think are his real motives, but we must realize that what we think about his motivation play a more important role in our judgment of him than the word of God does, and, again, we have ultimately made our opinion the basis of our judgment. When a person does something which is right within itself for him to do, but we think he has done it with a sinful motivation and on that basis we condemn him, we are wrong. We have no right to assume that a person is doing something for any other than a proper reason, or the reason which is may specify as being his motivation, because we cannot know his heart (1 Cor. 2:11). This is difficult not to do because we often allow our prejudices, malice, jealousy and hatred to color our thinking about why another person does something. Again, when we do this we are putting ourselves in the place of God, the lawgiver, usurping a power that really belongs only to Him. “The Lord seeth not as a man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart” (1 ‘Sam. 16:7). “Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart” (Psa. 44:21). “I the Lord search the heart, I try to reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doing” (Jer. 17:10). These, and many other scriptures like them, imply that only God has the ability to know the heart of a man and its motivations; that no man has such powers. For a person to claim such a power (to know the heart of another) and judge a person on this claim is for him to be guilty of the kind of judgment which is condemned in the Bible, but it is still done far too often.

A final way in which we allow our own law to become the-standard in juding another is when we misinterpret or misapply the word of God in doing so. Again, it is our perversion of God’s law that we are using to judge another, not the law of God itself. The Judaizing teachers of the New Testament age often did this, and Paul told the Colossian Christians to not allow such false teachers to improperly judge them (Col. 2:16, 17). Thus, when we find it necessary to judge another person in order to obey God (in the kinds of judgment we discussed in last week’s article), we must exercise the greatest possible degree of care to be sure that we are properly interpreting and applying God’s law to his situation. In requiring us to judge, the New Testament presumes that we are capable to doing such, and we ought not to so fear the possibility of our making an error of doing so that we fail to obey God.. To fail in this God-given task of judging others properly is to risk failing to teach them what they need to know and leaving them in jeopardy of their being lost without being aware of it. “Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to thyself, lest though also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1). (Concluded next week.)

Truth Magazine XXIV: 27, pp. 439-440
July 10, 1980