Truth Magazine

By Kenneth Sils

One hundred and fifty years ago, in 1844, the Supreme Court upheld a law which stated that all public schools across America were obligated to teach the Bible in order to receive public funding. Can you imagine that? In order for schools to get money from the government, they had to present the Bible as the inspired word of God! If you are a history buff, this would not surprise you because the founding fathers’ of our country were all Bible-believing men. Many of America’s early state constitutions demanded that their public officials profess they believed in God and the Lord-ship of Jesus Christ. Many of the founding fathers’ writings were filled with Bible quotes and the early grade school readers, called primers, were filled with moral lessons and quotations of Scripture. It has been estimated that 94% of the laws in the Constitution and Bill of Rights were established from governmental type laws found in the Old and New Testament.

What has happened in the last 150 years? The greatest changes have taken place in the last 35 years. In the early 1960s, our government began to reverse its trend of Bible teaching in public schools due to increasing pressure from various atheistic or humanistic groups. While we blame special secularized interest groups for running the Bible’s teaching out of schools, it’s interesting to see the decline of morals and ethics in society running parallel with today’s secularized public education.

The real blame for the breakdown of God’s Word in public schools belongs on the backs of Americans who have removed the need of the Bible in their homes. Fewer and fewer people are reading, studying and applying God’s principles taught in the Bible than ever before in our country. While our government continues to pervert the doctrine called “separation of church and state,” most “religious” people in our nation seek churches which fulfill their selfish, physical wants and pleasures without regard to God’s instruction demanded in the Bible for righteous living.

The proverb writer said, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). Many churches in the 90’s are crying for Americans to be tolerant of immoral behavior while that behavior, or sin, is gradually destroying our nation. Sinful activities like abortion, homosexuality, divorce for any cause, gambling, social drinking, etc. are not only tolerated by many mainstream denominational groups but supported in their teaching and fellowship. When you look in many of our public school libraries, you’ll find all types of horror stories, witchcraft and occult type books, while the Bible is getting harder and harder to find.

Even though America appears to be on the brink of destruction due to its unrestrained lust and sin, there is hope for our country. James tells us in James 5;15 that “the effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.” The prayers of God’s children possess the power “to change the night to day.” We should also let our lights shine in the midst of this perverse generation so others can see that good will triumph over evil. Dear brother or sister, are you doing your part?

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 13
January 19, 1995

By Harry R. Osborne

When we see a house, we do not ask what explosion brought it into being. We ask about its builder. When we see a car, we do not wonder what accident caused it to fall into its present style and color. We look to see who made it. When we contemplate our world in all of its complexity, order and beauty, why would we explain its presence as the chance result of a “big bang” and an endless series of accidents? How could such examples of design and order be the work of randomness rather than that of intelligent design?

Yet, that is the bottom line taught concerning the origin of our universe in many places, especially in our schools. The popular “Big Bang Theory” teaches that the universe is the result of an enormous explosion several billion years ago. When that theory is coupled with the general theory of evolution, many believe the explanation for our world and the existence of all life forms is adequately answered. In fact, some boldly claim that these theories provide the only “scientific” explanation for this universe. For example, note this 1952 statement made by Richard Goldschmidt:

The evolution of the organic world, from the synthesis of the first complex molecules endowed with the faculty of reproducing their kind to the most advanced type of life must have taken place roughly within the past two billion years on our planet. All of the facts of biology, geology, paleontology, biochemistry, and radiology not only agree with this statement but actually prove it. Evolution of the animal and plant world is considered by all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed (American Scientist, Jan. 52, p. 84).

Such bold assertions are often common from those out of touch with current evidence. Generally, those more knowledgeable in the facts regarding the subject of origins avoid such arrogant and misleading claims. The fact is that the general theory of evolution is nowhere close to being a “fact.” As a high school student, I had a biology teacher with the same attitude stated above. When I raised a question about problems with the evolutionary explanation for the origin of all things, Mr. Wells referred tome as a believer in “God, the Genesis myth, and other fairy tales.” However, he turned out to be the believer in fairy tales.

Among the “science” taught by this man was a theory that the human fetus goes through all of the stages of evolution within the womb. This is called the theory of recapitulation or ontology recapitulates phylogeny. I have a textbook ,Dynamic Biology, from 1933 which teaches the theory as a fact. At one point, it states a common claim made in its defense, saying, “The mammal embryo is often used to illustrate recapitulation. Gill openings appear just as if a gill-breathing fish were developing” (678). By the early fifties, this theory was largely abandoned by those most knowledgeable of embryology. A text from 1954, Principles of Biology, admits that the theory was not upheld by further study, but tries to hold on to it in part. Among scholarly circles in that area of study, the theory was dead by the late fifties. They found that the so-called “gill openings” or “gill slits” were nothing more than folds of skin! From that point until the present, scholars in the field of embryology have discarded the theory as false. However, many biology teachers, especially at the high school level continue to teach it today! Last year, I saw a high school biology handout teaching the theory with pictures of an embryo noting the “gill slits.” Who is teaching fairy tales? As time goes on, more and more of the evolutionists “facts” are turning out to be nothing more than “fairy tales” and we need to remind them of that fact!

Even among evolutionists, however, we find some honest enough to admit the problems with the general theory. A respected scientist, G.A. Kerkut, is one who happens to believe in the theory. He is, however, honest about its shortcomings. We will let him define our terminology and outline the areas of trouble for the evolutionists. Listen to the following definition of the problem by Dr. Kerkut from his book, Implications of Evolution:

There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the “Special Theory of Evolution” and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic (non-living) form. This theory can be called the “General Theory of Evolution” and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it anything more than a working hypothesis (p. 157).

In the same book, Dr. Kerkut is highly critical of some modem scientists, like Goldschmidt, who claim that the general theory of evolution should be accepted as the only logical explanation of our world. He repeatedly shows that the one who accepts this explanation does so upon the basis of “faith” rather that “fact.” To emphasize the point, Kerkut gives a list of seven basic assumptions in the theory which are totally unproven and unprovable. They are as follows:

(1) The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.

(2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

(3) The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.

(4) The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa (single-celled organisms) gave rise to the Metazoa (multi-celled organisms).

(5) The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phlya (organisms without a backbone) are interrelated.

(6) The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates (animals with backbones).

(7) The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and reptiles to the birds and mammals.

All of these assumptions are just that  assumptions. They are not facts as some would like to think. The acceptance of these assumptions is done solely by faith, not on the basis of provable evidence. In the final analysis, the evolutionist and the creationist have the same evidence from which to begin and work. The differences come from the interpretation of that evidence. The question is, “Which interpretation is more reasonable?”

The Bible claims that the evidence available is properly used to deduce the existence of God. Paul said, “Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Rom. 1:20). Next issue, we will look at some of the evidence regarding the order of the world around us. We will ask ourselves whether it is more reasonable to believe the Bible account of our origin or the explanation given in the general theory of evolution.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 14-15
January 19, 1995

By Jim Ward

Many years ago, numerous less conservative brethren began to urge that we preach the Man, not the plan. This plea implied that many gospel preachers were preaching the plan of salvation, but were not preaching Christ.

Today, that cry and accusation are even stronger. They have echoed recently from such books as The Cruciform Church by C. Leonard Allen and The Second Incarnation by Randall J. Harris and Rubel Shelly. Periodicals such as Image, Wineskins and Restoration Quarterly have taken up the call. But is it a biblical call, and is the implied accusation justified?

The Plan Alone?

I will make just two points here. First, in my fifty-four years I’ve heard and read after countless gospel preachers, and I’ve yet to come across one of these fellows who has left Christ out of the plan of salvation. Just where is this great host?

Second, if such preachers exist anywhere, they need to quit the pulpit and give up the pen. They’re heretics! Peter declared that there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). Salvation comes by believing in Jesus (Jn. 20:31) and by repenting and being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38). He who preaches any other gospel brings a curse upon himself (Gal. 1:8,9).

The Man Alone?

Now let’s turn to the real issue. Does God authorize men to preach Jesus without preaching baptism and the plan of salvation? Acts will give us the answer.

When Peter preached Jesus in Acts 2, and the crowd asked what they should do, how did the apostle reply? Did he offer them a snappy Man-not-the-plan slogan? No, he said, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v. 38). In verse 41, Luke tells us that those who gladly received his word were baptized. Does this all sound suspiciously like a plan to you a plan all wrapped up in the Man? It does to me.

Perhaps Acts 8, dealing with the Samaritans and the Ethiopian treasurer, is the most instructive chapter on this subject. The text says that disciples preached the word (v. 4), and that expressly Philip preached Christ (v. 5), the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (v. 12), and Jesus (v. 35). My question is this: In preaching the Man, as Philip obviously did, did he also preach the plan?

Let’s look at the case of the Samaritans first, specifically in verse 12: “But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.” Here’s another question for us. Did Philip preach the plan? If not, why were these men and women baptized? If preaching the Man doesn’t include preaching the plan, how did the Samaritans hear about baptism?

Now shall we think about Philip and the treasurer for a moment. Verse 35 says that Philip preached Jesus. The Ethiopian responded in verse 36 by saying, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Which prompts another question. If Philip was a Man-not-the plan preacher, how did the treasurer learn about baptism? Combing these two verses, we cannot escape the conclusion that preaching Jesus includes preaching baptism.

The Man and the Plan

In truth, the preachers in Acts didn’t separate Jesus from his plan. Peter at the house of Cornelius preached Jesus and baptism (10:47,48). And please note that baptism was commanded, not optional.

When Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to the jailer (16:32), they must have discussed baptism. Other-wise, we have no explanation for why he and his family were baptized (v. 33).

If Paul preached the Man not the plan, I understand why the Corinthians believed, but not why they were baptized (18:8).

Finally Acts 22:16 reminds us that sinners who are baptized to wash away their sins (the plan) do so calling on the name of the Lord (the Man).

Conclusion

I said earlier that men who preach the plan without the Man are heretics. But I want to state just as strongly that those who separate the Man from his plan are just as heretical. Such teaching is a spineless compromise with denominational dogma. It will not save sinners. Gospel preachers will have no part in either error.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 5
January 19, 1995

By Ron Halbrook

Just as Abraham “was called the friend of God,” Elam Kuykendall was by his faith and godly character a friend of God. Elam Brents Kuykendall was born 10 June 1908 in Cookeville, Tennessee and died 3 April1993 in the Decatur General Hospital at the age of 84 years. He had lived in Athens, Alabama for many years.

Both of his grandfathers before him had been gospel preachers: William Y. Kuykendall and James K. Polk Whitefield. Brother Kuykendall himself was named for two gospel preachers: E. A. Elam and T. W. Brents. After his baptism, his first gospel sermon was preached near Campbell’s Station in Tennessee on 16 June 1929 on the subject “Rightly Dividing God’s Word.” He married Mary Goff McElroy in Franklin, Kentucky on 7 February 1932. They lived in Nashville, near Cookeville, and near Murfreesboro, Tennessee during their early married life. After his graduation from David Lipscomb College in June of 1937, the Kuykendalls alternated between living in Nashville and in North Carolina as he worked with churches and continued his education at George Peabody College.

Brother Kuykendall began teaching at David Lipscomb College in 1941 and resumed teaching again in June of 1947 at the Dasher Bible School in Valdosta. Georgia. A year later he moved to Athens, Alabama to teach at Athens Bible School and started a printing business as well. Beginning in September of 1962 he taught industrial arts at Florida Christian College (now Florida College) in Temple Terrace, Florida, but a year later moved back to Athens after suffering a heart attack. On 9 January 1984 his wife passed away.

Brother Kuykendall was a great believer in the power of printed literature to spread the gospel of Christ. Kuykendall Press was a printing business devoted primarily to the publication of religious materials. His daughter, Frances D. Owen, continues to operate this printing business. A monthly magazine named Gospel Digest was started in March of 1943 by W. Clarence Cooke in Denver, Colorado, patterned after the Reader’s Digest. The paper changed hands in 1947 and then was purchased by Bennie Lee Fudge and Elam Kuykendall in December of 1949. It was edited by Fudge through February of 1953 with brother Kuykendall as the production manager. In March of 1953 brother Kuykendall became editor with brother Fudge as associate editor, and this arrangement continued until the Gospel Digest ceased publication with the September of 1961 issue. It was a 32-page paper at the time. These two brethren surveyed 70 publications each month, not including bulletins and news reports, to select material for Gospel Digest! In the April 1953 issue Kuykendall commented,

It is our aim in Gospel Digest to publish articles that teach the truth as revealed in God’s word on as nearly every phase of Christianity as possible.

In any comprehensive effort to teach the truth it is necessary to also condemn error…. It is our aim to teach the truth and condemn error both without and within the church.

From many able writers in recent years come warnings of the danger of apostasy in the church of our Lord. We recognize this danger and shall continue to print articles that discuss the various danger points that confront us (“From the Editor’s Desk,” Gospel Digest, April 1953, p. 1).

For many years he edited a bulletin under the name of The Graphic Evangelist for the Jackson Drive Church of Christ in Athens. (The issue for 8 Oct. 1989 arrived in my mailbox on 27 Oct. 1993!)

A number of tracts were written by brother Kuykendall on such subjects as “How the New Testament Reveals God’s Law to Us.,” “What Must I Do to Be Saved?” “Will Only Members of the Church of Christ Be Saved?” “The Christian’s Day of Worship,” “Woman’s Work in the Church,” -How to Avoid the `Pastor System,”‘ “Dressing to Please God,” and also “Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage.” Whether through the printed page or in the pulpit, brother Kuykendall made his constant appeal to the text of Scripture.

Brother Kuykendall’s son Wayne made the following remarks at his father’s funeral,

You know, many people are born into homes where there is a lot of money, and great wealth. They feel very fortunate. Sometimes we envy them for that wealth. But the three of us, Frances, Ken and 1, were the most fortunate. We were born into a home where God’s name and His Word were revered.

His honesty was not an honesty that was living within the law. His honesty was an integrity that went deeper than just keeping the law. I could relate several, but I’m going to relate one, that just shows that he believed in and lived Ecclesiastes 9:10, “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with your might,” and that was including honesty and everything else. But I was probably seventeen or eighteen years old, and I was printing a job for Alabama Supply, printing it on Bond paper. If you know this  I didn’t know this at the time but it’s got a right and wrong side. I printed it on the wrong side. And, I was ready to wrap the job and get out of the print shop and take it to town, glad to get out of the shop. And he looked at it before I wrapped it and said, “You printed it on the wrong side.” I said, “They won’t ever know it. “And he said. “They may not, but I do. Go print it again.” Daddy was an honest man.

And I want to tell this one early story about him that he al-ways found amusing kind of enjoyed telling it. But he and Mother had been married just a very short time, and he was in a meeting in Kentucky. And Daddy was raised a lot poorer than my mother had been  they were both country people, but Daddy and them were just a lot poorer nature. They had eaten ‘possum, and but they would take a ‘possum and feed it, and give it some food for about a week, and grain, and then kill it and eat it. So this lady that was there in the church asked Daddy, “Do you eat ‘possum?”

Daddy said, “Oh, yes.” Mother cringed, but Daddy had already said yes. She said, “Well, my boys went hunting last night and killed one.” And immediately Daddy realized he had made a mistake, because that’s not the kind of ‘possum he was used to eating. But anyway, they went to the house the next day and it was just a very meager place, out in the country; they walked in and they had, on their plates, everybody had a sweet potato  and that was it. They sat down, and Mother was nervous. They brought the ‘possum in on a platter, tail, teeth, everything was there, just grinning at them. Daddy used to say, “I ate a hardy bunch of sweet potatoes.” He managed to eat a little bit of ‘possum. Mother managed to rake hers in her purse when they weren’t looking. And they always chuckled about that story (quotations from transcript “Service in Memory of Elam Brents Kuykendall, April 6, 1993,” pp. 5,6, and 8 respectively, slightly edited for publication here).

My wife and I lived near the Kuykendall’s from late 1967 through most of the summer of 1973. We treasured our every association with them. They were sincere, trans-parent, godly people, without guile of any kind. They each had a keen and clean sense of humor. The influence of such godly people will live on through time and eternity to the glory of God. Our lives are enriched by the ex-ample of such friends of God. The influence of brother Kuykendall can be seen in the fact that some 500 people came through the line at the funeral home the night before the funeral. His body was laid to rest in the Roselawn Cemetery in Athens to await the great Resurrection Day. Not only do I hope that this article will encourage people now to be friends of God as were the Kuykendalls, but also I pray that future generations will be reminded and encouraged by this record of his godly life. Let us stand “every man in his place” in the war-fare against Satan and his hosts, as brother Kuykendall stood, and the Lord will give us the victory in the end (Judges 7:21).

“And They Stood Every Man in His Place”

By Elam B. Kuykendall (1908-93)

Israel had been oppressed by the Midianites for seven years when Gideon was called by God to deliver them. When Israel knew that he was to be their deliverer, 32,000 men gathered to him to help in defeating the great host of Midianites who were encamped in the valley of Jezreel. But to prevent their thinking that their own strength had defeated Midian, God wanted a much smaller army than Gideon. At last the number was reduced to only 300 men. These 300 were divided into three groups, each man being armed with only a trumpet and a pitcher containing a lamp, and were instructed to follow the example of their leader, Gideon. In the middle of the night these three companies surrounded the host of Midian. At the appointed signal every man broke his pitcher, blew his trumpet and cried, “The sword of the Lord and of Gideon.” The result is described in Judges 7:21. “And they stood every man in his place round about the camp; and all the host ran, and cried, and fled.”

Today spiritual Israel, the church of our Lord, is con-fronted with a great army, the hosts of Satan and sin. In comparison to that host we are but few in number. Like Gideon’s army our weapons are not those ordinarily used in warfare (Eph. 6:11-17). The members of this church are varied in their talents and abilities as are the different parts of our physical body (1 Cor. 12;12-27), but each is expected to contribute his part in the great work of defeating the foe. As with Gideon’s army, our success depends upon each individual standing in his place and implicitly following our leader, Christ (Gospel Digest, May 1954, p. I).

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 2 p. 11-12
January 19, 1995