Truth Magazine

By Wallace H. Little

By the time you read this, Brother Connie Adams and Cecil Willis will be in the Philippine Islands or will have already returned from their preaching visit there. As they will report the trip details, I will not comment on them. Several weeks prior to leaving, Cecil called me and asked if I had seen a printed letter authored by the liberal Americans in the Philippines, those running or connected with the Philippine Bible College (PBC) in Baguio City. I already had a copy. Additionally, others had contacted me about it. The letter was a collective recommendation by its writers: churches and individual brethren in the United States should cease supporting Filipino preachers. This was to be done by a phasing out over a three year period. The letter is too long to comment on all points. But at Cecil’s request, I will examine the most important: its premise, problems cited and a possible reason for this letter being sent to conservative brethren here.

On page one, second paragraph, one phrase shows the foundation for the liberals’ conclusions on problems they believe are produced by American support of Filipino preachers. “. . . We have listened carefully to the sermons and comments of Filipino brethren, we have talked seriously with men who have had the same problems in other countries, we have discussed the matter with overseeing elderships (emp. mine-whl), we have studied the situation from every possible aspect, and we have spent much time in prayer to God about it . . . .” Their expression, “overseeing elderships,” is the key. To our liberal brethren, this is synonymous with “sponsoring churches” and elders running them. If we are to understand it literally, it is saying “overseeing overseerships,” “supervising supervisorships” or “eldering elderships.” Had it not been for the letter’s authors, I would not have known there were any other kind. Given their use of that expression, some of their problems with American support of Filipino preachers become understandable. On page one, paragraph three, the letter continues, “. . . We American workers have recommended support for several Filipino brethren. Nevertheless, as time has passed, a number of undesirable effects and results (emp. mine-whl) have been manifest to all, both Filipinos and Americans. There have been abuses by those who make ‘godliness a way of gain.’ On the other hand, the practice itself has produced the problem even among the many conscientious preachers and congregations who love the Lord, and want to do it right.” The letter is saying that the problems result from the system. They are partly right. Let’s look at each, as the letter lists them. I will copy each verbatim, so none will be misrepresented.

1. “The preacher feels a great allegiance to the stateside church supporting him, and the local church here is not directing his work.” What the preacher feels comes from him. That the local church is not directing his work is not the result of his feelings, but the fact that Philippine Bible College, through its power of the purse, is doing the directing “in the name of” the sponsoring church. This problem truly is the result of the system, but not the system of support; rather, of control. Destroy the unscriptural system of control and the problem will disappear.

2. “Because he receives adequate help from overseas, the local church has no incentive to give according to ability.” I have no doubt this is a problem among liberal churches there; it is among many conservative churches also . . . and here in the United States . . . and elsewhere in the world. The problem does not come from preachers being supported. Instead, it is from lack of instruction on this by the preacher and other teachers. Also, it shows a carnal attitude toward giving, emphasizing things for which money is used, rather than the real need for each Christian to give (Acts 20:35). “The practice itself” has nothing to do with it. So while it is a problem, our liberal brethren there have identified neither its cause nor cure.

3. “Because he usually receives more support than the membership, it is psychologically difficult for him to preach on sacrificial giving.” Why? The conclusion does not follow. The fact a man is well off materially is not by itself a barrier to preaching on sacrificial giving. We all know those with considerable money who do indeed give sacrificially, setting a fine example, and teaching others to do the same. And I know a number there who do likewise, including several who give more than 50 percent of their income. To a godly preacher, the possession of material blessings above his needs will stimulate him to increased giving in appreciation of what the Lord has done for him. Also, he will teach this by word and example. In contrast, reducing a carnal man’s income will do nothing to cause him to preach on sacrificial giving. His life will teach the opposite and his preaching on it will be very quiet.

4. “He is many times considered a ‘hireling’ by the community, for, even though very sincere, he may be accused of preaching an ‘American doctrine’ for money.” He may also be accused of drunkenness, adultery and false teaching, as happened to several conservative preachers in the spring of 1973 while Frank Butler, Jady Copeland and I were there. But the accusations do not make the charges true now any more than they did in ’73. Our liberal brethren ought to be very well aware of this considering they were the ones who used this technique of character assassination attempting to ruin the reputations of these conservative preachers. As to being a hireling, with the control exercised by the sponsoring church and the Philippine Bible College, this might well be true of those Filipino preachers receiving support through them. The problem surely is the result of “the practice itself” but not the practice of support; instead, the practice of institutionalism and this particular facet, the unwarranted control of the affairs of local churches by the Philippine Bible College.

5. “Because the local church has no fellowship with him in providing support, the church feels no close relationship to him, and he feels no obligation to the church in some cases.” I am glad this was qualified, “in some cases.” I would hate to have to go to the Holy Spirit and tell Him that He was wrong when He had Paul write, “Besides those things that are without, that which tcometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches” (2 Cor. 11:28); “For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:2, 3), particularly in view of his comment in verse 7, “Have I committed an offense in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of Christ freely?” It seems our brethren once again have shown they are smarter than God.

6. “Because he is supported well from overseas, the membership sometimes feels that he should do all the personal evangelism, teaching of classes and preaching.” Here is another instance of cause and effect being unrelated. It truly may be the congregation expects the preacher to do all these things. But the same situation exists in the United States, and being supported is not the cause of it.

7. “Because American elderships are concerned about how their help is being used, and because they do not know personally the national preacher they support, they must ask someone they know to make an evaluation of the preacher’s work. Usually, this `evaluator’ is an American worker on the field. This evaluation can cause bad feelings and estrangement between American workers and national preachers. In a recent questionnaire filled out by national workers, about 90 percent of the criticism of American workers here was over the matter of preacher support. Even though the American preacher rejects the concept of ‘bossism,’ the overall situation tries to force him into it.” This particular problem is one of the liberal’s own making. Since they function under centralized control, it is quite natural they expect Filipino brethren to submit to this also. And they are perfectly right: it is a problem for them. “Bossism” is a difficulty for them, and will continue to be so long as they operate under the sponsoring church concept. It is more than passingly interesting, the letter pointedly and with emphasis says the support should not be stopped “. . . from those who work in printing, radio, teaching in bible schools, extension training (emp. mine-whl), and related areas . . . .” This includes, naturally, the American and Filipino workers at the Philippine Bible College. Naturally!

One more point: why is this letter being sent to United States conservative churches? I cannot help the thought passing through my mind, the liberals would like to slow or stop the flow of United States money to conservative Filipino preachers, and for none of the “reasons” cited in their letter as “problems.” They might just reason within themselves: if they can convert conservative United States brethren to their new view of support of native preachers, they can pretty well stifle opposition to their institutional sins, and restore themselves to a Pope-like control over the church there. I have no proof that this is the case; but I cannot help wondering.

Most recognize there is a need for-all churches, in the Philippines and elsewhere, to accept their own responsibilities in supporting their preachers. This is independent of any problems evident among Filipino preachers supported by United States brethren, the opinions of our liberal American brethren there notwithstanding. The difficulties they cite will not be solved by cutting off support from the United States “in three years” or three decades. The solution for valid problems lies in teaching and application, in the Philippines as in the United States. Think: after generations of work by those believing in the principles of the restoration movement in the United States, gospel preachers working with small congregations or where no churches exist still require outside support. Why would we think the Philippines ought to be different?

Debate with Buchanan

Bob Buchanan, current president of the Philippine Bible College wrote Cecil Willis offering to debate him on the right of that college to exist. If it comes to pass, it will appear in Truth Magazine and the publication of the American liberals in the Philippines, The Philippine Christian. One of the stipulations was that Cecil debate the college as it now is, and do so on information he currently has available. When he and Roy Cogdill were in the Philippines in 1970, Cecil was prepared to debate Buchanan then, as the college was at that time. Why does Buchanan insist the debate be as the college is now, and on information Cecil has now? Has something changed? I doubt it. It takes money, lots of it, to run even such a school as that, and it is highly unlikely liberal brethren in the United States who support that activity would continue to do so if it did not go along with their centralized concept of operation. But I still wonder.

While I was there on military assignment, in February 1967, Ken Wilkie who was then president of that school, defended it, speaking for an hour at the Phil-American lectureship held in the building of the Clark Air Base church of Christ. His speech was taped, and a copy brought to me later that evening. In the presence of my wife, Tom Hansen and his wife, we noted his major points. We have testified to the accuracy of our information. Wilkie described what the Philippine Bible College was, and who would know better than its president? I have been accused repeatedly of misrepresenting that school, of getting my information concerning it from inaccurate sources. If so, those who know it best do not know what it is. All the information I have on the Philippine Bible College came from Ken Wilkie and its other defenders and supporters! The following summarizes the points Wilkie made in his speech:

1. The Philippine Bible College is an example of New Testament cooperative evangelism.

2. The Philippine Bible College is not an unscriptural organization.

3. Mt. 28:19,20; Mk. 16:15,16 and 2 Tim. 2:2 justify the Philippine Bible College.

4. The Phillipine Bible College is an expedient way for the church to do its work in the Philippines.

5. To prove the Philippine Bible College wrong, critics must produce a better way of training Filipino preachers.

6. The Philippine Bible College was originally under the oversight of the elders of the Southwest, Los Angeles church;

now under those of the Inglewood church. These were and are Scriptural arrangements.

7. In their work in the Philippine Bible College, the American “missionaries” are under the oversight of the Inglewood elders; this is Scriptural.

8. In other capacities, the “missionaries” are under the oversight of the elders of their sponsoring churches; this is Scriptural.

9. The Philippine Bible College is the church at work in the Philippines.

10. Students at the PBC pay tuition; this is Scriptural.

11. Some Philippine Bible College students work off part of their expenses; this is Scriptural.

12. The individual “missionaries” at the Philippine Bible College are sponsored by various United States churches; this is Scriptural.

13. Churches and individuals sponsor students at the Philippine Bible College; this is Scriptural.

14: Churches provide money to build and maintain the facilities (considered separately from support of “missionaries” and students); this is Scriptural.

15. Since the Philippine Bible College is sponsored by a church in the United States, it is Scriptural for it to be under the oversight of the elders of that church.

16. Since no coercion is used to obtain funds for the Philippine Bible College, there is no loss of congregational autonomy by churches supporting it through its sponsoring church.

This speech was made in a situation where no one would contend with Wilkie on his claims, which was fortunate for him. Not one will stand the test of Scripture. I am persuaded that he and the others were well aware of this. Since 1967, the Americans at that school have been challenged repeatedly to debate.,pne, many or all of these points. They have steadfastly refused. This is what the Philippine Bible College was in 1967; I have doubts anything significant has changed since. If Wilkie, Buchanan and company were unwilling to debate them at that time and since, why is Buchanan wanting to do so now? (Not that I am objecting; this is the answer to years of prayers.) I can see only one reason: the pressure,from their own men is getting so strong that they believe they have more to lose by continuing their refusal than by appearing to be willing to debate. I am suspicious of any conditions laid on by Buchanan. Lurking in the back of my mind is the thought: if enough restrictions are placed against Willis, forcing him to decline due to unfairness, then Buchanan will be able to say to those pressing him, “Well, I tried; but the anti’s didn’t really want to debate anyway.” These tactics have been used by the liberals there on other occasions.

Connie Adams and Cecil Willis are highly respected among conservative brethren in the Philippines. I rejoice that they are returning this spring, and pray both for their success in Christ’s service there, and their safe return to their loved ones afterward. I anticipate God being glorified through their efforts, and look forward with pleasure to reading their reports when they return.

Truth Magazine XIX: 33, pp. 522-525
June 26 1975

By Roy E. Cogdill

In order to know the truth and determine what is truth, we must have a standard by which to measure truth religiously as in all other affairs of life. The right to prescribe a standard does not belong to men. He is incapable of doing so. Furthermore, sovereignty belongs to God and He must be allowed to rule in the hearts of men. God, therefore, has the right to set up a standard by which truth may be known and measured. He has done so in His Word. Jesus said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:17). God’s will is right. God’s Word is truth. “Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

This eliminates the false standards by which the world would establish the truth in religion such as one’s own intelligence, one’s own feelings, inherited traditions handed down from the fathers, and ecclesiastical authority. Truth can be established by none of these. They would eliminate and destroy God’s standard entirely.

Human Wisdom

Another false standard that needs to be eliminated from the hearts of many people is the idea that truth can be established by human wisdom. So many people are willing to reject a plain statement of the Word of God because some learned man in the wisdom and ways of the world has declared it to be otherwise. This, of course, impeaches the wisdom of God. God declares that His thoughts are higher than man’s thoughts and His ways are above man’s ways (Isaiah 55:8-9). Paul said, “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (I Cor. 1:21). God has revealed His words so that “babes” might understand (Luke 10:21). Language is simpler and plainer in the Word of God than in any other literature ever written. Paul said of his preaching to the Corinthians, “my speech and my; preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God (I Cor. 2:4-5). We should fear, “lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3).

Opinion of Majority

Many people are also deceived by popular approval and reason that so many people cannot be wrong. If we find any consolation in the approval of numbers, it is because we do not believe Christ. He said, “Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matt. 7:13-14).

Later Revelation

Perhaps, however, there is no false standard that men accept that has led as many astray as the false claim to a “later revelation.” Multiplied millions of the earth have been led into the darkness of Roman Catholicism by the claim that their hierarchy makes that only they can understand the Bible and that revelation is continuing from God to them. Every cardinal doctrine peculiar to Catholicism has come through the church and the priesthood, and much too late to be any part of the Gospel of Christ revealed by the Holy Spirit through the apostles. The historians that are Catholic, writing under the approval and authority of the church, have freely admitted the development of their doctrines and practices through the centuries, and through their councils they are constantly setting forth new doctrines and demands or rulings. If revelation, is continuous and Catholicism is right, then the Word of God is not worth believing and following.

Among these claims to “later and progressive revelation” is the system of Mormonism founded by Joseph Smith upon ,the ridiculous claim that he was led by God to dig up some plates out of the earth and by this means he was given a later revelation-the doctrines of Mormonism. No system of religion, heathen or civilized, has ever been founded upon a more ridiculous myth. Yet it has deceived thousands of people and caused them to reject the Bible. One cannot be a Mormon and believe the Bible. Mormonism is a system of infidelity and it can be easily established from their official writings and publications that they do not believe what the Bible claims for itself.

In addition, other systems founded upon so-called revelations, all of them in direct conflict with the Bible and its claims, are Adventism, Christian Science, and professed “Spirit filled and guided” preachers among denominational bodies. The system of Adventism actually originated in its principal teaching with William Miller, but Ellen G. White came along and claimed that she was caught up into Heaven and many things made known to her, all of which is completely contradictory to what God has revealed in the Bible.

So-called “Christian Science,” though actually it is neither Christian nor scientific, is a system of doctrine given expression by Mary Baker Glover Patterson Eddy. According to her spurious claims, the Bible was a sealed and undisclosed revelation until she appeared with the “Key To The Scriptures.” According to this, and the same is true of all claimed later revelations, until these later revelations came along the truth was not known, though the Bible had been in the world hundreds of years before any of them existed.

It should be apparent that in these fallacious claims to “later and additional revelations” there is a complete rejection of the Word of God. Consider the following facts and then believe, if you can, that the Bible is true, and yet the claims of “later revelations” can also be true.

1. The Holy Spirit was to reveal all truth through the apostles (John 16:13).

2. Divine wisdom and power has furnished us unto all things that pertain to life and Godliness (2 Peter 1:3).

3. The scriptures breathed of God are sufficient and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness and furnish the men of God thoroughly and perfectly unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

4. We are forbidden to go beyond the scriptures ,(2 Cor. 4:13; 1 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 1:6-11, 2 John 9-11; 1 Peter 4:11; Rev. 22:18-19).

5. The faith has been “once’=once for all time to come-delivered to the saints and we must contend earnestly for it (Jude 3).

6. It will be bound in heaven and by it we will be judged in the last day (Matt. 16:19; John 12:48).

7. It is inerrantly inspired both as to word and teaching (1 Cor. 2:10-13).

Conclusion

If what the Bible claims for itself is true, then all human systems are founded and exist only in unbelief of the Bible. If it is not true and its claims are false, then there is nothing worth believing in any system of religion. It is the Bible, only the Bible, and all of the Bible versus all of the creeds and doctrines of men or there is nothing at all. Men must take their choice. Friend, where do you take your stand?

Truth Magazine XIX: 33, pp. 521-522
June, 26, 1975

By William C. Sexton

Having seen that personal evangelism consists of individuals contacting others and telling them the message of Christ as to his love for them and his plan by which they can be saved and having seen that this is a very important activity from the standpoint of the worker and the receiver, we now look at how it is done or the manner in which we may approach this all important activity. For every person who has been awakened to the identity and significance of this activity, there has been a burning desire to know as much as possible about how they can be an effective worker in this. And as the old saying goes, “where there is a will there is a way,” is true here. If one has been sufficiently aroused regarding the great need for this, he is ready to not only receive all the information that is presented to him, he is ready to go to work searching for pertinent information which will aid him in achieving his goal. Thus, if is to this person that we turn our attention, for he who is not really interested will find more than enough excuses (Luke 14:16-24).

1. Preparation-twofold. If one is to be as efficient as he is capable of being, then he must prepare! And when one is dealing in the most valuable merchandise in the universe-the souls of people-then he ought to be as prepared as he can be. However, I believe that many back away and keep on feeling their inadequacy and never really get to doing the work; this must be avoided! It is true that each of us will always feel inadequate for such an important job, if we are really wise as to the true nature of the work. But we must avoid the pitfall of indefinite postponement. Many allow their feeling of inadequacy, their sense of unpreparedness, to keep them waiting until it is too late. Sometimes the Lord prematurely calls them or the person they were wanting to win for Christ home. Do not allow this pitfall to engulf you, beloved.

First, one must know his Bible and how to present it effectively. One may know his Bible quite well and yet not be able to present it effectively to another because he lacks the organization or arrangement of the facts in his mind so as to have command of them. Likewise, he may have just “read” his Bible and thus remembers a lot of “loose-ended” facts but when he talks to a person about them, he “just talks;” he says very little that can be seen as a unit of significant information. He really affirms no real clear proposition with materials to sustain it; he really leaves no clear and concise plan for the person to consider. Therefore, one needs to find the facts, arrange them in his mind so as to be able to draw upon them, and then develop a plan of presentation. As he goes along, he can see if he is departing from the planned journey, and if he finds that he is off the track or has left out something, he can make a correction. But if one does not know where he is going, he cannot possibly tell if he ever gets there or not.

Secondly, one needs to know his people, how they are likely to react, etc., and what a certain reaction indicates. None of us can be so expert on reading other people’s behavior that we can always be absolutely positive that we clearly understand what is behind every act, but we can and should know that people will react in certain ways depending on their character, etc. We will not find all people to be the same (Matt. 13:3-23; Mark 4:2-20; Luke 8:4-15). Some people will not allow the word to penetrate their hearts, having been preconditioned by false doctrine, prejudice, and indifference. Others will receive the word emotionally and quickly but will not have root to stand the sun of hardship. Still others will receive the word and make some progress but then become involved in the cares of this life to the extent that the word of God is choked and they become “unfruitful.” Nevertheless, there are those who will hear the word and allow it to penetrate their hearts and produce understanding and, the heart being “honest” and “good,” will be moved to comply and continue to meet the difficulties of life and beat off the temptations to commit evil; this person will bring forth fruit! This is the person we are looking for. This is the character that we must seek out and communicate the message of salvation.

So, when we have seen the person reject the word, not understanding it, we need to know that such is an indication of the condition of the soil. We. need to remember, I believe, that in time that person’s heart may be softened by events, experiences, and contacts with others. So, we need not write him off until he passes from the scene. However, we need not spend all of our time on such a character when it is clear that he is not so conditioned to be receptive to the word; there are others who are so conditioned. We need to find these and work with them

When one is converted and makes progress but falls away under the stress that is sure to come, we need to un- understand that some will act in this way. We need not accept defeat at the first “fall” because all stumble in their spiritual life and some can be rescued; thus we need to rally to their rescue. However, if we are unsuccessful in our attempts, let us not give up or in; instead, let us face reality and continue to seek out those who are receptive to the word of God, the seed of the kingdom.

So, part of the preparation is being prepared to accept partial success, knowing that there shall be different reactions. The reactions are indicators of the inner condition of the heart, and the inner condition determines whether they will accept or reject the word; their reception or rejection determines the benefit they shall receive from the Grace of God, the death of Christ, and the revelation of the Spirit.

2. Requirements. To be a successful personal evangelist, one must have “heart-power,” plus “head power,” plus “foot-power” (cf. Homer Hailey’s book, Let’s Go Fishing For Men, p. 15). One has to have committed his life to Christ and be putting him “first” (Matt. 6:33; 16:24). Only the person who has come to realize his sinful condition, has seen the terribleness of it, turned to the Lord, and experienced the remission of sins is capable of converting others. He who has had the impact of sin and forgiveness thrust upon him can feel no relief unless he tries to share with others the great relief that he has found. To this person, it is not a “job” to talk to others about their soul, it is something he “must” do.

Heart power, though, is inadequate. Fire can and will provide warmth which is needed when it is controlled but when it is out of control, it, is destructive. So, it is with a heart overflowing with the joys of the forgiveness of sins without some “head-power,” some reasonableness, some real logical thinking. Trying to understand the prospect’s background is essential to being successful in the activity of soul saving. He who will rush into a dangerous situation without recognizing the gravity of it is not wise and manifests no head power but rather a lack of it.

Having a heart overflowing with the joys of salvation, having planned and thought out the best way to approach a person and carry it through, one is still short of the goal: Nothing will take the place of “foot-power.” One still must make the contact, arrange for an appointment, and keep the appointment. Some do well in the first two steps but then fail to complete the chain of steps which are essential to complete the conversion. Foot-power is probably the hardest to deliver. Developing the will to go, and then going is the only chain of events that will be successful.

Thus stated another way, dedication, information, and will are all essential elements of personal evangelism. If one is lacking in any of these departments, he will fail to be a successful soul-saver! These requirements are within the reach of each person who will endeavor to improve himself.

To be continued.

Truth Magazine XIX: 33, pp. 518-519
June 26, 1975

By Cecil Willis

Christians are exhorted to “sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear.” One of the fundamental foundations of Christian’s faith is the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Hence, this article is an effort to explicate the reasons why we as Christians account Jesus as the Son of God. We are undertaking to give a reason for our hope.

Limitations in this Article

It is not the purpose of this article to prove the existence of Christ. Unbelievers and believers alike can join hand in hand in the belief in the existence of the person, Christ. Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, testified to the existence of Christ. He says: “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him of the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the , divine prophets foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are, not extinct at this day” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, ch. 3). There are many who question the genuineness of . this passage from Josephus, but it is doubtful if these same individuals would question it, were it a denunciation of Christ. But the existence of Christ is not dependent upon this historical fragment, whether it be genuine or not. If Christ did not exist, if He is a nonentity, someone should explain his unparalleled influence upon mankind for the past nineteen centuries.

Nor are we attempting to prove that Christ was a great man. He certainly was a great man, but He is more than merely a great man. There are some religionists, some churches, who have no higher goal than to elevate Christ to the position of a great man. They attempt to prove he was the world’s greatest teacher, the world’s best philosopher, the world’s most successful psychologist, the world’s noblest moralist. And Christ is all of these. But to leave Christ defined as just the greatest man that ever lived is to leave Him inadequately described. He is also the Son of God! The Christian’s faith in Christ is that he is the Son of God. And therefore we address ourselves to the responsibility of showing some of the reasons why we account Christ as the Son of God.

Prophecy

Man has come to regard historically conditioned proofs as the strongest. Prophecy is founded in history. The prophets were real men who made their predictions in the presence of other men. These prophecies were made centuries before the existence of Christ. The earliest promise of the coming Messiah is made in the first book of the Old Testament, virtually in the beginning of that book. In Gen. 3:14,15, God said to the serpent, “Because thou hast done this (viz., beguiled the woman), cursed art thou above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shaft thou go, and dust shah thou eat all the days of thy life: and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shaft bruise his heel.” Almost every Biblical scholar takes this to be a reference to the coming Christ. Again in Isaiah 9:6, 7, the prophet said: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this.” This statement, applicable to Christ Jesus, was made nearly eight hundred years before his birth.

About a century later, the weeping prophet Jeremiah, added to the large number of prophecies concerning the coming Christ, when he said: “Behold, the days come saith Jehovah, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness” (Jer. 25:5,6).

Many other prophecies could be , quoted from the Old Testament, but space will not permit us to do so. The tribe from which he was to come is foretold (Isa. 11:1); his birth was so carefully depicted in prophecy that the village in which it was to occur is named (Micah 5:1,2); he was to be betrayed by one of those given an office by him (Psa. 69:25); his suffering was described (Isa. 53); and finally his resurrection (Psa. 16), and ascension were declared in prophetical statements (Daniel 7:13, 14), all, made hundreds of years prior to their occurrence. Altogether, there were approximately three hundred details of the life and work of Christ foretold by the divinely inspired prophets.

When we turn to the New Testament, and see the record of the conflict between belief and unbelief, we see the importance Christ attached to the Old Testament prophecies in substantiating his claims. On one occasion, when speaking to a group of Jews, he said, “Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me” (Jn. 5:39). They were searching the Old Testament scriptures, for these were all they had at the time Jesus made this statement, and he said “these bear witness of me.” So confident was Jesus of the fact that prophecy established his identity as the Son of God that he told them they could not accept the Old Testament without accepting him. He said, “For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (Jn. 5:46, 47). They were logically impelled either to accept Moses and Christ, or to deny both; the people to whom Jesus spoke were in the inconsistent position of trying to accept Moses, but deny the One of whom he spoke. So prophecy is one of the strongest foundations of Christian’s faith in the deity of Christ.

Virgin Birth

For Jesus to be the Son of God as we believe the Scriptures teach he is, he must have been born of a virgin. His virgin birth is the second proof or reason we offer to support our faith in his divine sonship. The virgin birth of Christ was a subject of prophecy. In Isaiah 7:14, the prophet said, “Therefore . the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Since the Revised Standard Version was released in 1952, considerable discussion has been devoted to the meaning of the word “virgin” in this passage. Of course, the discussion centered around the meaning of the Hebrew word so translated. Isa. 7:14 is not the only time this word occurs. It is also used in Deut. 22: 23, 24, a passage in which it unquestionably refers to a virgin, one who has never known man. So this other Old Testament usage should indicate that the word is properly translated with the English word “virgin” in Isaiah’s prophecy. He was telling us that Jesus was to be born of a virgin. Notice also that Isaiah said the birth of Jesus would be a “sign.” What would be the significance in a young woman, even a young married woman, bearing a son? There would be nothing extraordinary in such a happening. But if a maiden, who was a virgin, should bear a son, this would be a “sign” such as God promised, by which mankind could recognize the Messiah. In Matt. 1:23, the inspired writer quoted Isaiah’s prediction, saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son.” So Jesus’ birth was to be an extraordinary event. There was never any birth before like it, or since.

If Jesus was not born of a virgin, he was born of a human father, and a human mother. Therefore, he would be wholly human. And if wholly human, he would not be divine in any sense, and certainly could not be called the Son of God. If he was but a man, born of human parents, then he is not the world’s greatest man. For Jesus taught that He was the Son of God, born of a virgin. If he was not so born, his teachings concerning himself, as well as those of his disciples, were untruths. But because of his virgin birth, we believe him to be the Son of God.

Miracles

Yet another thing that causes us to believe in the deity of Christ is his works. We mean by these “works” the miracles performed by Christ. Jesus Christ was willing to stake the truthfulness of his claims upon this one point alone. He said, “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do them, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (Jn. 10:37, 38).. We read an instance of the public’s response to the works performed by Christ when we read the account of Nicodemus coming to Christ. He believed on Christ because of the miracles he performed. He said, “we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him” (Jn. 3:2). The apostle John emphasized that the miracles done by Christ should make us believers. He said, “Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name” (Jn. 20:30, 31). When one contemplates His miracles, he knows they were not the works of a mere man. He walked on water, healed lepers, made the dumb to speak, the deaf to hear, the lame to walk, the blind to see, stopped storms, cast out demons. None of these are the works of man, but are the result of divine power.

Resurrection

The climactic event, proving to us the divinity of Christ, was his triumphant ascension from the grave. When Jesus was yet alive, He promised His disciples, that even though He were to die on the cross, He would rise again. He predicted the truthfulness of His claims, and teaching, upon the fact that He would rise from the dead. No other teacher, before or afterwards, has made such a claim. No founder of any religion, save Christ, has been willing to base the truthfulness of His claims upon His ability to come from the grave. They dare not! In Matt. 16, Jesus said the gates of Hades would not prevail against the building of His Church. He meant that He was going into the tomb, and even though His church could not have been built when this event came to pass, nevertheless he would accomplish His promises. He came forth to do what he said he would do.

We have the witness of both His friends and His enemies that He actually died on the cross. Afterwards we have the unwavering testimony of above five hundred brethren that He had come from the grave. The apostle John mentioned the intimacy with which he and others had known the Lord. He said, “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life” (1 John 1:1). They knew Him well before His death, and then they did all of these things with him; closely associated with Him, after His resurrection. So we do have good historical proof that Jesus was raised from the dead. Paul says that Jesus “was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:4). So His resurrection is conclusive proof that he was God’s Son, for if He was raised, and He was, then God had to raise Him. So by the resurrection He was shown to be the Son of God with power.

The prophecies He fulfilled, His virgin birth, His works, and His resurrection are a few of the more outstanding reasons why we recognize Him as the Son of God. And recognizing Him to be God’s Son with all authority, we humbly submit to His will in all matters.

Truth Magazine XIX: 33, pp. 515-517
June 26, 1975