Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The world around us is becoming progressively more morally degenerate. Perhaps a statement like that needs to be tempered by some modifying phrases such as limiting it to these United States as, obviously, my experience is limited to what I see and read in the papers. Or, perhaps this reflects a view of life: the belief that the world must become increasingly more corrupt immediately prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ. Certainly, this latter does not express my attitude toward morality. Yet, I cannot ignore the things which I see about me.

I am not a pessimistic person; yet, the moral degeneracy which I see about me is conducive to producing a gloomy outlook on life. Everywhere one looks, he sees righteous conduct being ridiculed and ungodliness being portrayed as something acceptable and desirable. Things which were done in the shades of darkness when I was a youth are now being practiced in broad daylight. Things we were brought up to believe were even socially unacceptable are now being given social acceptability.

One who had a baby out of wedlock was crowned with shame for the rest of her life when I was a child. Today, having a baby out of wedlock is no shameful thing in the eyes of many people. Homosexuality used to be a word that was hardly even whispered. Those who were homosexual never admitted it and only practiced it in a hidden fashion. Today, homosexuals are clamoring for social acceptance. Similar comments could be made about many other forms of immoral conduct.

An Absolute Moral Standard

In the midst of a culture which is presently changing its morals, the Christian might tend to think that what was wrong twenty years ago for him are now acceptable in the sight of God as well. No doubt some of the changes which have occurred in religion have added credence to the idea that our own moral values are subject to change. The Catholics have changed their laws pertaining to eating meat on Friday; the Mormons have changed their laws pertaining to blacks entering the priesthood. Hence, the Christian is being bombarded from every direction with the idea that God’s laws are changeable.

In the midst of a world advocating such changes, the Lord’s people need to remember that God’s word does not change. The Psalmist said, “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven” (119:89). God’s word does not change; the Bible still condemns sin and exalts righteousness. What was considered to be sinful on the day of Pentecost is still considered sinful today, regardless if every person in the world decides to call it righteousness!

The Bible is the word of God. As the word of God, it reveals to man what is sinful. Sin is nothing other than the transgression of the law of God (1 Jn. 3:4). Inasmuch as the Bible has not changed since it was completed at the end of the first century after the death of Christ, what is sinful has not changed. The things which were considered sinful in the first century are still sinful today. The fact that two thousand years have passed and cultures have come and gone has not changed the word of God in any way. Sin is still sin.

As we consider this point, we need to be reminded that Christianity is not tempered to fit into the mold of the various cultures to which it is taken. Rather, Christianity takes the word of God into a given culture and tries to reshape that culture to bring it into conformity with the revelation of God. When Paul preached in Corinth, he did not water down the gospel to make it more acceptable to the loose moral standards of that community. Instead, he taught those in Corinth who were living with such loose moral standards that they needed to repent of their wickedness and seek the Lord’s forgiveness. Hence, the gospel does not change to fit the world; the world must change to be acceptable to God.

Application to Today’s Society

1. Divorce and Remarriage. There seems to be a tendency among many Christians to treat the standard of God’s word as expressing a morality too high for twentieth century Americans. Therefore, we are being taught to accommodate God’s revealed religion to the standards of the world around us. Hence, if a man has divorced his first wife because she burned the toast, remarries that sexy little thing down at the office, and later decides that he wants to become a Christian, some want us to believe that he can stay married to this second wife. The Bible says otherwise. Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Mt. 19:9).

What Jesus described in Matt. 19:9 is exactly what is taking place in our society on every hand. He labeled the resulting marriage adultery; some of my brethren do not believe that such a relationship is adultery. Rather, they are accommodating the morality of Christianity to the immorality of our present age. God’s standard has not changed. If such acts were adulterous in the first century, and Jesus said they were, they are adulterous today.

2. Drinking. Some among the brethren today are no longer willing to preach the truth about drinking. Rather, they are persuaded that drinking is not sinful so long as it is done with moderation; they think that the only form of drinking which Jesus condemned was drunkenness. Yet, read what the apostle Peter said about these forms of worldliness. He said, “For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revelings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you” (I Pet. 4:3-4). Notice that Peter condemned the following different sins with reference to drinking: excess of wine, revellings, banquetings. The first one is “excess of wine” (oniophlugia) and refers to drunkenness; the second is “revellings” (komos) which refers to “a revel carousal . . .used generally of feasts and drinking parties that are protracted till late at night and indulge in revelry” (Thayer, p. 367). This sinful work of the flesh describes the very conduct that occurs at single’s bars (and other bars as well), the office Christmas party, and other drinking parties. Notice that it is distinguished from drunkenness. The third work of the flesh is “banquetings” (potos). Potos does not refer to a meal that is eaten together followed by a guest speaker; rather, it refers to a drinking party (the idea of excessive drinking is not inherent in the word). This word is a perfect description of social drinking.

Yet, some worldly members and preachers want to come along and give the impression that the only kind of sin which can be committed with drinking is drunkenness-excessive drinking. Peter did not think so. I prefer to stand with the Apostle. Our twentieth century society might see nothing wrong with drinking but the Lord did.

One of the problems which those who defend social drinking are going to face is the problem of explaining to their children why drinking socially is all right whereas social marijuana smoking is wrong. I would like to hear one of these parents try to tell his children why it is wrong to smoke one joint of marijuana but right to drink one social drink. That would be interesting conversation to hear.

3. Lasciviousness. Another work of the flesh which is condemned in the word of God is lasciviousness-unbridled lust, excess licentiousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence, . . . wanton (acts or) manner, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females” (Thayer, p. 79). I can think of a number of matters in American society which fall into this category but one of them which seems to have gained social acceptance is the modern dance. The basic appeal of the modern dance, according to most any eminent psychologist, is the sex appeal. Yet, not a few mothers and daddies are not only condoning their children’s involvement in dancing but are encouraging it. Consequently, their boys and girls go out on a dance floor and wiggle their bodies in such a way as to incite lusts in their partners. My brethren, be not deceived, lasciviousness is still a sin.

Another one of Satan’s devices for inciting lusts are lascivious pictures. According to reports, many of the movies of today are filled with nakedness. I know for a fact, that many of the television shows are becoming sexually suggestive if not featuring explicit sexual scenes. Yet, we have become persuaded that we can passively sit in front of these television sets and watch these programs without them ever affecting our moral character. The result is that men lust after the naked bodies of the women who are willing to unclothe themselves in front of a camera. We cannot take moral garbage into our hearts without it corrupting them!

I am amazed that people who would not go see a “R” or “X” rated movie because of their moral convictions will watch that same movie in the privacy of their own homes. Now I am aware that some of these movies are edited before they are shown on television and might be cleaned up enough through this editing to be fit for consumption. I am also aware that some of these movies are shown unedited on cable television. Christians who would not go to a movie house to watch this garbage are watching it in the privacy of their homes. Have we not enough moral conviction left in us to not subject ourselves and our families to this?

While I am talking about lasciviousness, I might as well add that the “petting” which occurs while our young (and some not so young) people are dating is also condemned by the definition of the word given to us by reputable Greek scholars. What goes on during heavy petting stirs the sexual drives of the individuals involved. Some people act as if no sin has occurred so long as no fornication is committed. Jesus said that the lust which precedes fornication is sinful as well (Matt. 5:28).

Another thing which incites lust and falls under the condemnation of God because it is lascivious is nudity in dress. The Bible demands that the Christian dress himself so as not to call attention to his body (1 Tim. 2:9). Yet, some people see nothing wrong with a man, woman, and all of their children taking off all of their clothes but their undergarments and then parading themselves in a public place. The only thing required for this to be considered modest is for those undergarments to be called “beach clothes” and the place be considered a public swimming place and what would otherwise be considered sinful becomes acceptable social behavior. What is surprising is not that the heathen want to undress in this fashion but that brethren who claim to be the servants of Jesus Christ want to act this way. What particularly alarms me is preachers and their families who sneak off away from the local area in which they labor and go public swimming! They quit preaching against these forms of worldliness because they are just as guilty of it as the rest of the worldly people. Is there any such preacher among us who is willing to defend this conduct? If so, I will be glad to provide the space for his material to be presented and replied to.

Conclusion

These moral issues are just as important as any of the “issues” such as the sponsoring church, church sponsored recreation, church support of human institutions, etc. Frankly, I would not consent to supporting a preacher from the church treasury who would not condemn adultery in the way Jesus did in Matt. 19:9, who defended or practiced drinking, socially, who would not condemn lasciviousness in all of its forms (mixed swimming, petting, dancing, etc.), and other forms of worldliness. The moral purity of the Lord’s church is at stake! We cannot allow the church to become filled with a bunch of moral reprobates. Such a compromise of the gospel of Jesus Christ is sinful.

We must never forget that our moral standard is fixed forever. Jesus has legislated what is sinful and what is not. Our only choice is to preach the word of the cross or to follow the devil. Which shall it be? May the Lord help us to preach moral purity in a perverse generation.

Truth Magazine XXII: 43, pp. 691-693
November 2, 1978

By Mike Willis

Every religious system has some basis for determining what they believe to be right and what they believe to be wrong. Roman Catholicism posits final authority in three things: the Bible, the church fathers and the living voice of the church. Mormonism finds its authority in the Bible, the writings of Joseph Smith, and the word of prophecy which the church claims to have. Christians find final authority in one place-the Scriptures. In what does the modernist find final authority?

Religious Experience

The answer to this question is quite simple: the modernist posits authority in religious experience. James D. Bales wrote, “Although modernists may maintain that there is some truth in the Bible, the ultimate authority is found in the subjective experience of the individual” (Modernism: Trojan Horse in the Church, p. 35). This assessment of modernism is absolutely true. The modernist sets himself above the Bible. He determines what portions of the Bible he believes and what portion of it he does not believe. When he finds a miracle recorded in the Bible, he calls it a “myth” and tries to find some meaning in the myth that is everlasting.

When man accepts religious experience as the basis for determining truth, a revolution in what he believes is inevitable. “But if we entirely accept this essentially tentative character of empirical method, and are ready without reservation to apply it to the definitions as well as the conclusions of theology, a profound revolution is implied in our whole approach to religious problems and in the very foundations of our religious philosophy. It is essential to understand the nature of this revolution. Since on these terms no concept-not even the concept of God-has any absolute rights, all definitions being liable to revision in the light of continuing human experience, God is no longer the central fact in religion or the ultimate principle in theology. His place is taken by man’s religious experience. The religious experience of men and women becomes the decisive fact and the final court of appeal by which we test the validity of any theological concept-the concept of God along with others” (Edwin A. Burtt, Types of Religious Philosophy, p. 288).

“As a matter of fact, however, the modern liberal does not hold fast even to the authority of Jesus. Certainly he does not accept the words of Jesus as they are recorded in the Gospels. For among the recorded words of Jesus are to be found just those things which are most abhorrent to the modern liberal Church, and in His recorded words Jesus also points forward to the fuller revelation which was afterwards to be given through His apostles. Evidently, therefore, those words of Jesus which are to be regarded as authoritative by modern liberalism must first be selected from the mass of the recorded words by a critical process. The critical process is certainly very difficult, and the suspicion often arises that the critic is retaining as genuine words of the historical Jesus only those words which conform to his own preconceived ideas” (J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, p. 77). “The real authority, for liberalism, can only be `the Christian consciousness’ or `Christian experience.’ But how shall the findings of the Christian consciousness be established? Surely not by a majority vote of the organized Church. Such a method would obviously do away with all liberty of conscience. The only authority, then, can be individual experience; truth can only be that which `helps’ the individual man. Such an authority is obviously no authority at all; for individual experience is endlessly diverse, and when once truth is regarded only as that which works at any particular time, it ceases to be truth” (Ibid., p. 78).

Results of This Authority

1. No truth is absolute. When truth is posited in individual religious experience, there is no absolute and final truth to be found. All truth becomes relative. “When religious experience changes, as it is bound to do, theology will also need to change in order to be true to it. Schleiermacher frankly declares that in these ways religious doctrines are hypothetical and likely to be modified in the light of future experience” (Burtt, op. cit., p. 290). What is accepted as truth today may be rejected as false by a later generation whose religious experience is in conflict with the religious experience of men today.

The modernist, therefore, lives in an open-ended world. There are no such things as right and wrong, black and white. To him, everything is gray. Hence, he lives in a world in which lying is sometimes better than telling the truth, murder is sometimes better than not committing murder, stealing is sometimes better than not stealing. Religious experience is the only determining factor for telling which is right and which is wrong in any given case. The religious anarchy of modernism leaves man in the same predicament that Israel was in during the days of the judges: “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 21:25).

2. Christianity is not unique. If religious experience is accepted as one’s final source of authority, then there is nothing particularly better about the religious experience of the Christian than the religious experience of the Buddhist or Hindu. Whereas the Christian shows the unique nature and truthfulness of Christianity by appealing to the bona fide miracles of the New Testament, the modernist rejects these miracles and establishes religious experience as his source of authority. The consequence is that one’s religious experience is just as good as another’s.

In Bangkok 73, Peter Beyerhaus related his experience in attending the World Mission Conference which is held under the auspices of the World Council of Churches. The conference was reported to have called a moratorium on mission work in the classical sense. There was no desire to continue trying to take New Testament Christianity to heathen countries because the World Council of Churches admitted that pagan religion was as good as the Christian religion so far as “salvation” in the biblical sense is concerned. With the surrender of the absoluteness of the Christian religion in favor of religious experience, Christianity becomes just another one of a vast number of acceptable religions.

3. No doctrine is absolutely true. When the position is taken that there are no absolutes, the result is that there is no doctrine of any kind that is absolutely true. For example, we might believe that God is love from our religious experience of today but tomorrow become convinced from some other religious experience that God is hate. No Bible doctrine is ever taken as absolute truth. “From this standpoint no traditional Christian doctrine, however clearly taught in the Bible, is absolutely vital to contemporary religion; it is an intellectual interpretation of past religious experience, using the scientific assumptions and categories then available, but it is not final for us” (Burtt, op. cit., p. 306).

Harry Emerson Fosdick described the doctrinal problems of the modernist as follows: “All doctrines spring from life. In the first instance men have experiences with their own souls, with their fellows, with their God, which, involving mental elements as all sane experiences must, are nevertheless primarily valued for their contribution to the practical richness of life. Unable, however, to deny their intellectual necessities, men carry these experiences up into their minds and try deliberately to explain, unify, organize, and rationalize them. They make systematized doctrines out of their experiences. And when the formula has been constructed, they love it because the experience for which it stands is precious. Their affections and loyalties gather around the formula and the church swings down the centuries with a shining formula like a banner at its head.

“The days come, however, as they have come now, when the church moves out into a new generation, with new ways of thinking and new outlooks on the universe. Ideas never dreamed of before, such as scientific law and evolution, become the common property of well-instructed minds. The men begin to have trouble with the old formula. Once they followed it as though it were their flag. Now they are troubled and hesitant concerning it. Once they fought for it; now they fight about it. They do not understand it, they cannot believe it, because it was made in times when man used other ways of putting things. Then comes a period of theological discord and controversy with all the trouble centering in the formula” (Modern Use of the Bible, p. 185).

Fosdick’s description of modernism’s problem with doctrine demonstrates that with modernism no doctrine is final. Tomorrow religious experience might decide that there is no God. Tomorrow religious experience might reach the conclusion that there is no validity in religious experience. I think that you can understand why people charge that modernism leaves man without a compass or guide in the uncharted ocean of life. The modernist leaves man with no absolutely true doctrine.

The Modernist’ Use of the Bible

Understanding why modernists believe what they do, one gets rather aggravated at the method in which they handle the Bible. Modernists freely quote the Bible to prove something, if what they want to prove agrees with their preconceived notions. However, when someone quotes the Bible to prove something which they do not accept, they discount the proof offered by denying the inspiration of the Bible. If the Bible is to be ignored in the areas in which it disagrees with their preconceived notions, it cannot be used to establish that which they believe. The modernist might believe that God is love but he is obligated to prove it in some other way than through the Bible. The modernist might believe in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man but he must prove that using something other than the Bible. If he is going to prove these beliefs by religious experience, someone else’s religious experience can disprove them. Hence, the modernist has no way of proving anything.

James D. Bales wrote, “Modernists use the Bible not to prove what God has said, but as a pretrext-instead of a text-on which to hang their own ideas or those of some theologian. The Bible is a springboard from which they take a running leap in order to land in the sea of speculation” (Bales, op. cit., p. 43).

A Plea For Sanity

In the midst of the doctrinal and moral confusion in our country as a result of the inroads of modernism, Christians need to present an alternative to doctrinal and moral relativism. We need to reassert the authority of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible. All authority has been given unto Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18). He is our unique and only Savior; He is the one Lord of the world (Acts 10:36).

Jesus has delegated authority to His apostles so that whatsoever they bind upon earth has been bound by the God of heaven (Mt. 16:16). The writings of the apostles are to be received as the commandment of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37); they are the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13). Whatever the Bible teaches on any given subject is the final word on that subject. When it conflicts with modern thought,, modern thought, not the Bible, must be considered to be wrong.

Modernism is nothing else but adapting the Bible to twentieth century thought. When we persuade ourselves that the Bible must be interpreted by the standards of thought of the twentieth century, or any other century for that matter, the word of God is replaced by the words of men. The wisdom of man is treated as superior to the wisdom of God. Modernism must be repudiated and the authority of God as expressed in the Bible reasserted.

Truth Magazine XXII: 41, pp. 658-659
October 19, 1978

By Thomas G. O’Neal

In this special issue of Truth Magazine, brother Mike Willis has asked that I write on “The Effects of Modernism” as my contribution to “An Assault on Modernism.” I want to commend Mike for his concern with the effect modernism is having on brethren. As editor he follows well in the foot steps of his brother, Cecil, who did much while editor to expose the modernism among brethren. Modernistic brethren did not appreciate Cecil’s work and they will not appreciate Mike’s effort with this special issue either. The one thing modernistic brethren cannot stand is exposure.

As best I can I want to write without overlapping my material with other writers but, with my approach to the subject, I am sure to some degree I will overlap with others.

What Is “It” That Effects?

In an effort to see what the effects modernism has had on brethren in the realm of “doctrine, evangelism, etc.” I believe it important to, as best I can, establish what modernism is.

Modernism, sometimes called liberalism, is difficult to define. Modernism is not like some doctrines that will admit an easy definition. “Once in grace, always in grace” is a doctrine that can be set forth in rather simple, yet definite, terms. This is not true of modernism. In my dealing with this matter, I have found out I can define it better by “examples” rather than a formal definition. There may be several reasons for this: (1) I know modernism is not so, therefore I have been much like the late, beloved Luther Blackmon told a young man going off to college. Said Blackmon, “Don’t learn a lot of stuff that isn’t so.” (2) Modernists do not agree among themselves. What one will accept, others will reject. (3) They change their song from time to time. I well remember the advice that brother B. G. Hope gave one time about the modernistic theory of evolution. He said one should learn the Biblical text for it would never change; but if one tried to keep up with all the material and different positions set forth by the evolutionist, it would be almost impossible.

Modernism is an attitude toward divine truth. When once a person sees what the attitude is, he can spot modernism wherever it is found, even though it may not look like it did the last time he saw it, and it will not, for this is one of the subtle ways modernism works. It does not always appear with the same suit, for soon everybody would recognize it.

Jesus said to his disciples, “If ye continue in my word . . . ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32). The modernist is uncertain about everything except what the Bible teaches is not true. Brother Alan Highers said, “Some very fine men, who have received liberal theological education, and who are now teaching in some Christian colleges, give evidence in their teaching of the liberal influence upon them. They are giving forth, in fact with an uncertain sound” (Words of Truth, Sept. 4, 1964, page 3). The modernist is uncertain, but Jesus said from His word one could know the truth.

In a series of articles in the Gospel Guardian, brother Rufus R. Clifford, Sr., said, “Modernism is an attitude toward Bible teaching. It is disbelief in the elementary teaching of Christianity. Since modernism is an attitude toward divine truth, it must follow there are different shades and degrees of that attitude. The infidel, the skeptic, the agnostic, and the atheist are all modernists, but they. do not all hold the same degree of denial of God’s word” (Gospel Guardian, June 21, 1951, page 1). Alan Highers said, “Liberalism (or modernism, T.G.O.) may be broadly defined as a loose and lax attitude toward the inspiration and authority of the scriptures” (The Living Messages of the Books of the New Testament, page 310).

Shades of Attitude

Having seen that modernism is an attitude toward the Scriptures, next we need to see that everyone does not have the exact same attitude. Thus, we have shades, or different degrees, of that attitude.

Writing in the 1950s about some of the modernism that appeared in the Gospel Advocate literature, brother Robert C. Welch said, “Some modernists go so far as to deny the miracles, the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Christ. But not all of them will go so far. Others reject any inspiration in the writing of the Bible above that of the natural abilities of secular authors of classical works. Others will admit a degree of special inspiration, but limit it to mere thought impulses, possibly arising from circumstances facing the author, or from emotions stirred from existing conditions …. It is entirely possible for the modernist who denies verbal inspiration to believe in the virgin birth of Christ” (Gospel Guardian, Vol. 7, page 17).

Brother Yater Tant said in an article in the Gospel Guardian “Long before the final stages of modernism are reached, there are tendencies and actions which are definitely headed toward that final atheistic philosophy” (Gospel Guardian, Feb. 21, 1952, page 5).

Because modernism is an attitude and because there are different shades or degrees of that attitude, one needs to understand that all modernists do not agree. Yet they are united in their opposition to the religion of Jesus.

Modernism says that the God of heaven has not revealed his will to mankind in words that men can understand, therefore knowing the will of God. Further, man was not created by God but rather is the result of theistic or organic evolution. Being just a highly educated animal, and since God has not revealed His will, man has not transgressed God’s will and, therefore, has not sinned. Not having sinned, he does not stand in need of redemption, therefore, Jesus is not God in the flesh to die, shedding His blood, for the sins of man. The church of the New Testament is unimportant for man does not need to be a member of it. There is no hell to avoid and no heaven to seek after. Therefore, the impact “religion” should have on mankind is in this life. Concern of religion should be for the social welfare of man, thus the “social gospel” of modernism. Having given up all faith in “another world,'”‘ modernism centers its thoughts and hopes in “this world.”

Modernism uses the same terms. I have used in the above paragraph, but when I used such words as “God’s will,” “transgressed,” “Sinned,” “redemption” I have used them, meaning exactly by them what the New Testament writers meant by them, and what most people who will read this article understand them to mean. However, when modernism uses these same terms it has a different set of definitions to apply to them. This is how modernism often is deceitful and takes the unsuspecting in. I might add just here this is the way the young modernistic “princes” among us operate. But the old hard core modernist knows he is a modernist, knows everybody else knows he is a modernist and does not care. For example, to my knowledge, no one has yet been able to get Ed Fudge to give a simple “yes” or “no” to the question “Is instrumental music in worship sinful?” He has beat all around the bush and it is now time he beat the bush! Yet when I wrote the head of the theological department at the University of Chicago and ask him “Do you believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin?”, “Do you believe that Jesus Christ was bodily raised the third day from the tomb?” and “Do you believe the New Testament to be a divinely, verbally inspired book?” he answered in one word-“No.” A modernist is proud of his education but he cannot, or will not, express himself so the common man can understand him.

(1) What effect does all of this have on doctrine? This attitude causes one to examine Bible teaching by human wisdom and reject what does not seem reasonable.

(a) The virgin birth of Christ is rejected because in all of the evidence of mankind no person was ever born of a virgin, except the one time when Jesus was. It is unreasonable, therefore, the University of Chicago theological department head can say, “No. I do not “believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin.” Nels F. S. Ferre of Vanderbilt said on page 191 of his book, The Christian Understanding of God, “Mary, we remember, was found pregnant before her engagement to mild Joseph. Nazareth was hard by a Roman garrison where the soldiers were German mercinaries. Jesus is also reported throughout a continuous part of history of art, it is claimed, to have been blonde. This is supposedly unnatural for the Mediterranean countries where this same tradition started and was continued. Hence Jesus must have been the child of a German soldier!” Modernism denies the virgin birth.

(b) After a year in college, I met the valedictorian of my high school class on the street of my home town. Specifically, I asked her about the Bible classes she had at David Lipscomb College. One she mentioned, telling me how much she liked it for the teacher she said took up each of the miracles and explained how it was possible for each of them to have happened. Modernism was present but she did not recognize it. Modernism explains by human wisdom how miracles are possible and the believer explains them in one word-God.

(c) Modernism denies the resurrection. The theological department head at the University of Chicago said, “No,” I do not “believe that Jesus Christ was bodily raised the third day from the dead.” One preacher in Washington, D.C. was quoted as saying “We liberal clergymen are no longer interested in the fundamental-modernist controversy. We do not believe we should even waste our time engaging in it. So far as we are concerned, it makes no difference whether Christ was born of a virgin or not. We don’t even bother to formulate an opinion on the subject” and a Virginia preacher said, “We have closed our minds to such trivial considerations as the question of the resurrection of Christ. If you fundamentalists wish to believe that nonsense we have no objection, but we have more important things to preach about than the presence or absence of an empty tomb twenty centuries ago” (Gospel Guardian, Vol. 8, page 476).

(d) Modernism denies creation and teaches evolution. Neal D. Buffaloe said in Mission, April, 1969, “It is true that the thesis here defended does conflict with the Bible as literally interpreted. In fact, any acceptance of organic evolution leads logically to such a conflict. One must accept all of evolution or none. And the evidence for organic evolution is overwhelmingly convincing . . . either the Genesis account of the `days’ is non-literal or it is false.” This is the kind of modernism brother Keith Sharp had to expose when he recently met this Buffaloe in debate. Modernism denies man is a creature of God’s creation but is the product of organic evolution.

(e) Modernism denies verbal inspiration of the Bible. In an article in Mission, January, 1972, Warren Lewis said, “Scripture does disagree with itself . . . one says one thing but another says something which does not square with what the other said …. Each of the Gospel writers paints a picture of Jesus which cannot be forced to agree with the other three pictures . . . . Yes, they all point to Jesus; but one wonders which Jesus to believe in …. How can we say that scripture is breathed of God and profitable when it has jarring, clashing disagreements within it, when it makes up things that most likely did not happen, and when what it teaches about Jesus in one place does not tally with what it teaches about Jesus in another place . . . Nor does 2 Timothy say that the writers of scripture were `inspired’ . .what about the clashes and jars? The knots of disagreement in scripture which cannot be united . . . the disagreements are at the heart of the meaning of scripture . . . . Every truth about Jesus Christ in one gospel can be turned around in another Gospel.” This modernist denies the Bible is inspired, saying the gospel writers made up things about Christ that did not happen, and differ about the life of Christ, with each writer disagreeing with the others. This is the modernist’s view of the Bible.

Therefore modernism says man evolved from lower animals, that Jesus neither was virgin born, worked miracles nor was raised from the dead and the Bible is not inspired of God, but rather a book of disagreements. It attacks the very center of Bible teaching, denying its doctrine. About the only thing modernism is sure of is that the doctrine of the Bible is not true.

(2) What effect does all of this have on preaching and teaching or evangelism? If modernism is so, then there is no need for any evangelism. If Jesus was not virgin born, worked miracles and was raised by the power of God from the tomb, then it does not make any difference whether one hears of Jesus or not. Hearing about Abraham Lincoln would do just as much for one as hearing about Jesus, if he is not the Son of God.

If modernism is true, there is no need to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” for there is no gospel to preach. There is no Christ to tell about. Why should one hear of Jesus of history any more than Lincoln of history?

What then does modernism do about “church activity”? It says “we have more important things to preach about than the presence or absence of an empty tomb twenty centuries ago.” What is it that is more important? One modernist says, “We do not teach the Bible to our young people. Our youth program is centered around recreation” (Gospel Guardian, Vol. 8, page 476). “Recreation” is “more important” than the Bible. We observe many religious bodies, including some churches of Christ, that have given up the concept of teaching the Bible and have centered much of their activity around providing recreation. The more recreation that is provided the less Bible teaching is done; the less Bible teaching that is done the more modernistic the church becomes. Churches of Christ have not been in the business of providing recreation long enough to completely leave off Bible teaching and center their program completely around recreation. However, to the extent that they set aside Bible teaching for recreation, to that extent they become more modernistic. There was a time when the denominations did not have recreation, but it took time for them to bring it in. There was a time that one would have been hard pressed to find a church of Christ providing recreation, but not so any more.

The more recreation the less interested a church is in evangelism. Preaching the Bible to the lost takes a back seat to recreation. Thus, recreation will eventually kill New Testament evangelism. This is the effect of modernism on evangelism. Why? Because modernism not only denies the deity of Jesus but says man is an evolved animal. Thus, he has not sinned, is not lost in sin, does not need redemption and there is no heaven to which he can go. So why tell him about Jesus the Son of God that does not exist? Help him have a_ good time here for there is no after life. A generation of modernism and evolution taught has convinced people that they are just animals, thus they live like animals. Much, if not all, of the problems of today’s society is the result of modernism being accepted and put into practice.

Truth Magazine XXII: 42, pp. 679-682
October 26, 1978

By Daniel H. King

Did Jesus Really Live?

The tenor of scholarship has changed since the period of the “Christ-myth” scholars and it is probable that there is not to be found a single writer who would argue that Jesus was only a fiction and the figment of the disciple’s imagination. Yet, in this fact do we not find illustrated the fickeled nature of the learned theorist? He is always looking for something new and different- and he will find it even if he must invent it. His mortal enemy is the theorist or scholar of the last and preceding generations. As long as their theories are in the spotlight his are not. So he must undermine theirs and establish his own. So it is and so it must ever be with those who make human learning their idol and reverence it as their god.

Now, to begin with, the view of the French writers and Bruno Bauer who classed Christianity among the mythical religions should never have been expressed. Is it not true that from the very beginning the church had bitter enemies, shrewd and powerful, who sought every available weapon of attack? Had there been factual basis for the supposition that this Christ the Christians worshiped was an invented fable, would not they have used it? Yet, so far as is known, no one thought of such a possibility until close to the beginning of the nineteenth century. Had Jesus not really lived, none would have known it better than the Jews, and, had it been possible, they surely would have raised that issue. On the contrary, all Jewish attacks on Jesus take for granted his life and death in Palestine. Says the Talmud: “On the eve of the Passover Jesus of Nazareth was hung. During 40 days a herald went before him crying aloud: `He ought to be stoned because he has practiced magic, has led Israel astray and caused them to rise in rebellion. Let him who has something to say in his defense come forward and declare it.’ But no one came forward, and he was hung on the eve of Passover” (Sanhedrin, 43a).

Later Jewish writings make many claims against him. They say: he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier named Pantheras (a word play on the Greek word for virgin, Parthenos); his mother’s name was Mary, and she was a dresser of women’s hair; he was a “revolutionary” and he “scoffed at the words of the wise”; he worked miracles by means of magic brought out of Egypt; he had devoted disciples who healed diseases in his name; he was a heretic who sinned and caused the multitude to sin, and he “led astray and deceived Israel”; he was about 33 when he was put to death; and he was executed on the eve of Passover. But they never said he did not exist!

As Neil poignantly argued in an essay in the Expository Times:

“The Christ-myth theory foundered on the rocks of hard facts. No serious historian-Christian or non-Christian-would subscribe to the theory that Jesus never existed. The evidence is conclusive on any reasonable view that a man called Jesus lived in Palestine 2000 years ago, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. This much is not a matter of dispute.”

The evidence from Josephus (Antiguties 18:3, 3 and 20:9, 1), Tacitus (Annals, XV 44). Pliny’s letter to Trajan, and Suetonius (Life of Claudius 25), have not even been considered here for sake of brevity.

Did the Church Create the Jesus of the Gospels?

Extreme Form-critics say the early church created the major features of Jesus life and teaching as portrayed in the Gospels. This meets with the problem that communities, as such are not thus creative-not in music, art, philosophy, science, morals or religion. Communities can furnish favorable conditions for creativity, can help at the start and radically modify the result afterwards, but it takes creative personalities to account, in all such realms, for the unique, original discoveries. For instance, Johann Sebastian Bach’s music was largely lost sight of for a century, and then gathered around it an enthusiastic following of those who hailed Bach as the prince of musicians. It would be preposterous, though, to suppose that the community of his followers created the music, and that Bach was only an imaginary mouthpiece through which the group spoke. Nothing like the originality of Bach’s music or Jesus’ unique contribution to ethical and religious life and thought is ever explicable without creative personality.

Another obstacle to the view of the Form-critical school of thought has to do with the nature of the community which is supposed to have produced this distorted picture of their Lord. It must be remembered that disciples of Christ were people dedicated to the propagation of truth. No aspect of their lives individually or corporately lived was to reflect dishonesty or guile. A simple perusal of an analytical concordance will reveal this fact. Their intention is everywhere consistent with the thought reflected in the preface of Luke the historian, “it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee . . .” (Luke 1:3). And it must not be forgotten that most of these men sealed their writings with their own blood. Not a single one renounced the things that he had recorded. To a man they left this world convinced that they would meet their resurrected and glorified Lord on the other side of death! So impressed am I and a host of others (even in the twentieth century!) with their testimony and their faith that we share it and have the same conviction.

Are the Gospels Accurate Accounts?

Five points need to be considered in connection with the arguments which have been leveled against the accuracy of the Gospels and the writers who produced them:

1. It is assumed that the memories of the writers were no better than those of present-day scholars and, therefore, would have been prone to forget exact details and enlarge the happenings in a legendary and even mythical way. However, two facts militate against this presupposition. First, oriental memories-especially those of trained teachers-are incomparably more retentive than our own. Second, we must recall that their memories were not left unaided in recollecting the events of Jesus’ life and the words from his mouth. Their mental capabilities were quickened by the Divine Spirit: “But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you” (Jn. 14:26).

2. Again, the assumption of the Higher Critic is that as time passed the accounts grew and so did the portrait of Jesus such that in point of fact the Jesus that was preached (the Kerygmatic Christ) bore very little resemblance to the Jesus who actually lived (the Jesus of history). But this assumes that a great amount of time had elapsed before the writing of the Gospels, and that is an assumption which the facts do not allow. The first Gospel was written when there were still plenty of people alive who were contemporary with Jesus and could have easily exposed it as a fraud if it had not been true.

3. When we compare our four Gospels with the fantastic legendary excesses of the lives of Jesus that came to be written in the second century we can be confident that the picture given us is reliable and historically accurate. He knows hunger, weariness, pain, disappointment, etc.-and we would not expect any of these in a legendary account.

4. There is also the matter of the internal features of the accounts which appear the more striking in the light of current scholarly opinion. H. B. Swete in his essay, “The Trustworthiness of the Gospel Narrative” which appeared in Critical Questions (London, 1906), said it so admirably that we will simply quote him here:

“Can the Gospels be equally trusted when they draw the picture of their central character? Is the Christ, as they portray Him, an historic person, or is he the creation of the Evangelists or of their Apostolic predecessors? . . . Such a view . . . will not bear close examination with the Synoptic Gospels. The Synoptic Christ calls Himself the Son of man, a name which is but once given to Him by His followers. He reveals His messiahship only by degrees, and not publicly until just before the end. He lives with the twelve on terms of intimacy; Peter even once ventures to rebuke Him. His transfiguration is the one occasion on which His superhuman glory is revealed, and the three witnesses are forbidden to speak of it during His lifetime. He is “meek and lowly in heart”; He is at home with poor folk and little children; He sends the rich empty away. Adoration is rarely offered to Him; He does not even accept the title “Good Master”, without protesting against a possible misapprehension. This is not such a conception of Christ as could have originated in the Apostolic Age. Still less was it suggested by Jewish expectations; a Messiah who refused a crown, who lived the life of an itinerant teacher, who suffered the death of the cross, was not such a Messiah as any Jew of that time looked for or desired. Whence, then, came the picture of the Christ which the three Synoptic Gospels consistently offer? I can see no escape from the conclusion that it was drawn from life. The Central Figure of the Gospel Story, no less than the surroundings, bears the stamp of truth” (pp. 51-52).

5. Our last bit of evidence has to do with the discipline of archaeology. This relatively new science has had a remarkable effect upon the study of both biblical testaments. Assuredly the greater boon has been in the area of Old Testament and its Ancient Near Eastern background. But New Testament and Gospel research have also benefitted therefrom. F. F. Bruce has summarized its contribution thusly:

“New Testament archaeology . . . has enabled us . . . to identify a large number of sites mentioned by the apostles and evangelists. At times it has succeeded in pinpointing the location of an ancient city whose name and whereabouts had long since disappeared from popular memory. At other times a tomb, a monument, or the foundations of a building have come to light and helped us to understand better some New Testament incident associated with the place in question” (“Archaeological Confirmation of the N. T.,” in Revelation and the Bible, ed. by Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), p. 320).

Simply put, archaeology has placed the Gospels squarely in the arena of history, giving much greater credence to the accounts themselves than to those who have attacked them over the past century.

Conclusion

Our conclusion is a very simple one. Perhaps some will consider it infantile, but it is nevertheless true. The “Quest of the Historical Jesus” is a search which never should have begun. It was illegitimate from the outset. The Jesus of history and the Christ of faith have always been one and the same. The accounts given to us by the Gospels are historical in nature. That does not imply that they are impartial accounts. They do not even try to be impartial. But that does not mean they are inaccurate. They record what happened not for its own sake, but because they saw the hand of God at work. To their writers Jesus was a unique Person who came on to the stage of history by the direct intervention of God and in the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Could men who thought in this way be expected to write a prosaic matter-of-fact record of the events? Of course not! But it is one thing to say this and another to claim that the Gospels are simply what the writers thought about Jesus and not what Jesus actually did and said.

Moreover, it is good to see some scholars beginning to move in this direction as well. 1. Howard Marshall closes his recent study with the following paragraph:

“I believe in the historical Jesus. I believe that historical study confirms that he lived and ministered and taught in a way that is substantially reproduced in the Gospels. I believe that this Jesus gave his life as a ransom for sinful mankind, and that he rose from the dead and is the living Lord. And in view of these facts I trust in him and commit my life to him” (l Believe in the Historical Jesus(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1977), p. 246).

We shall hope to hear more of the same from other writers of repute in the years ahead. Surely the pendulum has swung as far as it will in the other direction!

Truth Magazine XXII: 41, pp. 660-662
October 19, 1978