Truth Magazine

By Andy Alexander

Where did we learn about sin? Where did we learn right from wrong? The most likely answer that one would expect to hear is that we learned about sin and right from wrong from the Bible, the Word of God. And, that’s exactly right. If it were not for the inspired Word, we would not have a standard of right and wrong. Our souls would be stained with sin and we would be separated from God with no hope, if it were not for the Bible which describes sin and vividly depicts the destiny of the sinner (1 Jn. 3:4; 2 Thess. 1:8). Upon realizing that we are all sinners and we need the forgiveness of those sins to receive the crown of life that is awaiting those who are faithful, where do we go?

Nature. No, a look at the history of man will reveal that nature only leads to idolatry. Sun worship and moon worship are forms of idolatry that come from only looking to nature. It is true that the heavens declare the glory of God, but only to those who have learned of him from another source (Psa. 19:1).

Human Wisdom. No, the best that human wisdom could do was erect an altar to “The Unknown God” (Acts 17:23). Paul taught the Corinthians that “the world by wisdom knew not God” (1 Cor. 1:21). Earthly wisdom will not lead us to God.

Feelings. This is it some will surely say. “I can feel when I’ve been saved.” But, are feelings an appropriate guide? Jacob was deceived into believing his son Joseph was dead. He had all the hurt, pain, and anguish that accompanies the loss of a loved one. But, did his feelings change the fact that Joseph was alive and well (Gen. 37:29-36)? We have a warning from God against trusting our feelings. “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool” (Prov. 28:26). Well, where do we go to find out if we are saved, if our sins are forgiven?

Since we learned about sin from the Word of God and we are the ones who have left God and are in need of reconciliation, then we should go to the Bible to find the answer to our question. From studying the Bible, we learn that belief in Christ and repentance are necessary conditions in our journey back to God. Belief gives us the strength we need to live a faithful life to God and repentance is needed to help us in our future struggle against sin, but what about the sins in our past life? How do we rid ourselves of these stains? That same Word that informed us about sin and gave us the information concerning how to live in the future also declares to us what we must do to have our past sins forgiven.

Paul was a penitent believer when he tarried in Damascus waiting to be told what he must do (Acts 9:1-11). But, his sins still had not been forgiven some three days later. In Acts 22:16, after Paul had seen the risen Savior and been praying for three days, Ananias told him, “And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Denominational preachers would have Paul saved on the road, still in sin. Now that is an impossibility.

The blood of Christ saves man from sin (Heb. 9:14,22). However, man must appropriate that atoning blood. And this is done when a penitent believer is baptized into Christ. No one could say it as plain as the apostle Paul, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-4).

Have you obeyed the gospel of Christ or have you stopped short of complete obedience based on the advice of man. We must take all God says concerning salvation and be willing to obey his every word, because it is by his Word that we will be judged in the last day (Jn. 12:48).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, p. 71
February 2, 1989

By Bill Dodd

About twelve years ago as I was preparing to move from a rural congregation, a lady who owned a grocery store where I had done a good bit of buying asked me this question: “Are you going to be promoted as a result of the move?” Her denominational concept would naturally prompt her to ask such a question. We may tend to sigh at such a question, but I wonder if members of the Lord’s church do not have some carnal notions about climbing the “corporate ladder.”

Some Corporate Steps?

First, there is sometimes the clamoring on the part of some preachers to locate with a congregation that has size and reputation (cf. Rev. 3:1). In other words, some preachers must package themselves pretty much like the man trying to climb the corporate ladder in the business world. He must have the right car, right clothes, the right wife, and an acceptable number of children. He must live in the right neighborhood. The foregoing things listed on the part of some preachers are comparatively innocent when you weigh them against some of the political maneuvers these preachers pull.

There Has To Be Difference Between Using Talents And Using Brethren

Brethren, God’s people are responsible for using their talents (cf. Exod. 4:2; Matt. 25:14-30; Lk. 12:48). According to

these Scriptures, if one has the ability to write, speak, debate, or use any talent that would advance the Kingdom of God, he should not hide those talents under a bushel. Perhaps some talented men have held back for fear of being accused of wanting to become a “big” preacher. What is the answer to the problem of some being too bold to advance self and the problem of some being too timid to use his talents? The answer is that we need to make sure that our motives are proper in using our talents for the cause of Christ, and not for self-aggrandizement (Matt. 23:5-8; Mk. 10:37-45). Let all brethren forget about rank in God’s army. There are no ranking officers. Incidentally, this reminds me of something about an attempt made back in the sixties to arrange a debate between Batsell B. Baxter and James P. Miller. Baxter replied to the young preacher who was trying to arrange the proposed debate: “Why do the generals always have to do the debating; why cannot some of the debating be done by the sergeants?”

Conclusion

There is no corporate structure in God’s kingdom; hence, there is no ladder to climb. Jesus said that we are “all brethren.” He also said, “The greatest shall be your servant.” The truly great are concerned about serving and not about being served.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, p. 73
February 2, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

“Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mk. 8:38). “Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord” (2 Tim. 1:8). “If we deny him, he will also deny us” (2 Tim. 2:12; cf. Lk. 12:9).

Ashamed Of Christ?

Of what is there to be ashamed? Shall we be ashamed of his selflessness? Shall we apologize for his humility, courage, faith, devotion, piety, meekness, gentleness? The Son of God, “though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). He divested himself of equality with God, “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:5-11).

Shall we be ashamed of his lowly birth? He was conceived in poverty and born in obscurity. He was “as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not” (Isa. 53:2,3).

Abraham Lincoln was born in abject destitution. Is his greatness tarnished because of his humble origins? No, it is enhanced by it. So, it is with Jesus. Yet, it is different in this sense: Lincoln had no choice in his birth, nor in his deprived circumstances, but Christ did. He chose to humble himself. He emptied himself of eternal, immortal glory and splendor and voluntarily elected to sink in the depths of indigence where he had no place to lay his head. Is that the substance of which shame is born?

Shall we be ashamed of his love, of his willingness to patiently endure cruel insults, aspersions and innuendoes designed to slander his person, slaughter his character and slur his mission? He who made the worlds was refused by his own creation. Man, the work of his hands and the desire of his heart, turned against his Creator, Sustainer and Savior. Spitting vile invectives, they spurned him. Shouting lies in hypocrisy, they ignominiously crucified the Lord of glory. Taunts to come down from the cross to save himself were ignored. His weakness was the strength of their salvation. His foolishness was the wisdom of the ages and of prophetic sages. His shameful death was their glorious life. Despising the pain, suffering and shame, while gasping for breath and writhing in anguish, he begs and pleads, not for his own release or relief, but for his tormentors – “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Lk. 23:34). I ask you, is this a cause for which shame is the result?

Ashamed Of His Words?

Just which of Jesus’ words should one be ashamed? “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28)? This, and numerous comparable utterances, is no reason for shame. But what of his threatening words of condemnation and judgment? Are they to be hidden and denied? No, for they, too, are words of love, grace and mercy. When a parent warns his child, “If you go out into the street, I will spank you,” he is not a monster seeking to arbitrarily restrict and deprive his child of pleasure. Rather, he recognizes the dangers and is protecting him from injury and death. Truly, he chastises those whom he loves (Heb. 12:5-11).

Our Lord’s message is ‘one of grace, hope, peace and love. Juvenile, street corner hucksters hawk their wares of popular psychology with pseudo-words of compassion, positive thinking and self-esteem. “You are wonderful; feel good about yourself.” The Son of God, however, told us we have no reason to rejoice in our sins which have blinded, impoverished and enslaved us. The way up is down, he declared (Lk. 18:14). The way to riches is poverty of spirit (Matt. 5:3). The way to be great is in the pathway of service (Lk. 22:27; Matt. 20:26-28). The way of love is the course of obedience and sacrifice (Jn. 14:15; 15:12-14). The way to life is the road to denial of self and, if necessary, to death (Lk. 9:23-25). Certainly, “Never man spake like this man” (Jn. 7:46).

We have all spoken words of shame and disgrace. On their death beds, men have recanted idle, irate words of hatred and spite. Some have repented for believing, accepting and following the erroneous doctrines of others. But on the cross, Jesus did not bewail and bemoan his teaching; he did not need to alter or apologize for anything he had said. And no disciple of the Master has ever had to hang his head in the hour of death and express regret for having believed and obeyed the words of the Son of righteousness.

In view of the undimmed dawn of an unfading eternity, can you put your finger on a line of Jesus’ words which signal shame? By those words we shall be judged (Jn. 12:48). By those words we shall be damned or delivered. “O my God, I trust in thee: let me not be ashamed, let not mine enemies triumph over me” (Psa. 25:2). “In thee, O Lord, do I put my trust; let me never be ashamed: deliver me in thy righteousness. . . . Let me not be ashamed, O Lord; for I have called upon thee: let the wicked be ashamed and let them be silent in the grave” (Psa. 31:1, 17). “For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (Rom. 10:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, p. 69
February 2, 1989

By Johnny Stringer

I was a pupil in elementary school when I first heard it. “No two snowflakes are alike,” we were told. I never did fully accept it. I remember sitting puzzled at my classroom desk. How in the world could they possibly know that? It seemed to me that in order to know that no two snowflakes were alike, men would have to examine every snowflake that had ever fallen. I thought of the North Pole with all its snow. My childish mind formed a vague picture of the snow covered Alps. Out of all those snowflakes, how could men know that no two of them were alike? They could not possibly have examined all of them.

But they were so confident when they told us. They spoke as though there was just no question about it. It was a fact and we were supposed to accept it. I never did.

Well, you probably know what has happened. After all these years, my skepticism has finally been vindicated. Not long ago, I picked up my newspaper and read that the “impossible” had happened: a scientist had discovered two snowflakes that were alike. Didn’t surprise me any. Some people, however, including scientists, were shocked.

According to Reader’s Digest (November, 1988), the scientist who discovered those two snowflakes is Nancy C. Knight of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. When she showed the two flakes to her husband and co-researcher, Charles Knight, his initial response was, “That’s impossible.” But there they were, right before his eyes: two virtually identical .009-inch long snowflakes which looked like columns with vase-shaped hollow centers.

When I was a child, I was extremely puzzled because men dogmatically pronounced something to be a fact even though they could not possibly know it. As I grew older I learned that such unverifiable pronouncements are not at all uncommon. Men are all too apt to tell far more than they know. As we listen to the pronouncements of men, we must not credulously swallow every dogma they feed us. We must consider whether the matter is a thing which men can know or not.

Consider, for example, the dogma of evolution. In explaining that all living things came into being through the process of evolution, they speak with dogmatic certainty. But is this a thing they can know, or are they telling more than they could possibly know – as they did when they instructed us about snowflakes?

Despite the claim that their conclusions are the result of scientific investigation, there is no way that scientific research could prove any theory about the origin of the universe, of life, or of the forms of life that exist. Some scientists have stressed that the matter of origins is beyond the realm of scientific research. Note the following statements from the biology textbook, Biology- A Search For Order In Complexity:

Discussion of origins is not, strictly speaking, science. This is because origins are not subject to experimental verification. No scientific observers were present when life began or when different kinds of organisms first came into existence, and these events are not taking place in the present world; therefore, the problem of origins is simply incapable of solution by scientific means (preface).

The same textbook affirms,

Scientists who follow the tradition of Bacon, Galileo, and Newton agree to limit themselves to phenomena that can be analyzed by the senses. They have developed scientific methods of investigating the natural world. But it is not possible to prove or to disprove the existence of God by such methods. . . . Both God and the Bible are beyond the proper methods of study by scientists. Also many scientists who claim to support evolution as an explanation of origins by experimental means are inconsistent. Scientists should devote themselves to learning more about the natural world in which we now live and leave the matter of origins to theologians and philosophers (p. 460).

The origin of the universe or of any of the life forms that exist is not subject to scientific proof because it was a onetime event, and one-time events are beyond the realm of science. Doug Burgess states,

Science is based upon observation. No science is more accurate than the observation of the scientists. A onetime event is beyond the realm of science. If an event cannot be repeated it cannot be tested by other scientists. Whenever we consider these one-time events we must deal with them on the basis of speculation, assumption or faith. . . . The positions taken by the evolutionist and the Christian are both positions of faith (The Science of Beginnings, pp. 5,7).

Dr. John Moore, professor of natural science at Michigan State University, agrees:

According to specific characteristics of scientific thinking and writing, niether the Genesis account of creation nor evolution . . . are [sic) scientific . . . modem scientists are in the same position as Job with regard to first origins. Macro- or megaevolution is without any foundation in observational science, and hence is not scientific.

Obviously, the beginning of the universe, the start of life on earth, and the appearance of the first human beings cannot be repeated. Yet repeated observations, made directly or indirectly, are the very basis of scientific work (Questions and Answers On Creation/Evolution, pp. 21-22).

Henry Morris, a scientist who has written extensively on this matter, said,

The question as to which theory of origins is ultimately the true theory of origins can never be resolved scientifically. This is because of the obvious fact that primeval origins are completely beyond the reach of the scientific method, which involves at its very heart observation, experimentation, and repeatability. How can one observe the origin of the first living cell or experiment on the origin of the solar system or repeat the origin of the first man?

Finally, consider the words of E.C. Lucan, an evolutionist and a scientist with the Dyson Perrins Laboratory, Oxford, England:

If one chooses to hypothesize about the origin of things one must become unscientific in that origins are once-for-all happenings that cannot be experimentally verified.

It has been documented that the 19th-century scientists who caused the theory of evolution to be accepted in our educational system did not believe it had been proved (Why Scientists Accept Evolution, Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales). Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, and the others who were most prominent in propagating the theory admitted that it was not proved. They accepted it not because they thought it was proved, but because of a bias against any supernatural explanation. Evolution was the only alternative to special creation.

Since those men popularized the theory, scientists and many others of later generations have accepted it simply because it was handed to them in the classroom. In other words, they have accepted the unprovable dogma of evolution for the same reason many people accepted the unprovable dogma about snowflakes. Yet, there are thousands of highly trained scientists who have not been so gullible but have rejected the evolutionary philosophy.

I have heard that when students were going away to college, brother Luther Blackman used to tell them not to learn too much that isn’t so. That is still sage advice. Students must learn to distinguish between things which are facts and those things which are unproved or unprovable theories and opinions.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 74-75
February 2, 1989