Truth Magazine

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

By Homer Hailey

For forty-five years I have held a view on God’s attitude toward individuals who seek salvation in Christ, though they have been married, divorced and remarried previously, which differs from that held by many brethren. Though I have not made an issue of our differing views, or felt impelled to crusade for mine, I have never hesitated to express it when asked.

All at once I find myself under attack by some, being charged as a false teacher, unfit for the fellowship of certain ones who differ from me. This attack began in the spring following a study with brethren in the church at Belen, New Mexico. Because of the misrepresentation in the mind of some, here are the facts.

During the week of October 5-9, 1987, a group from over the country met in Belen to assist in getting the congregation started there. During the week I met with a couple who had left the “liberal” congregation and were meeting with the new group. In the course of the conversation or visit they asked me my view on the condition of divorced and remarried individuals, which I explained. They were in that condition having been baptized after their marriage (as I understood them). They joined the new group.

Following the meeting a preacher held a meeting for the church, preached on the subject, which brought up the question in the congregation: What of this couple and a recently converted woman (as I recall being told). On March 19th (Saturday) of this year, I returned from two meetings, then on Sunday (March 20) I received calls from Lee Stewart, the preacher, asking me to come over and present my view, which he said differed from that presented by the preacher in the meeting. I begged to be excused, but he and Tim Stevens insisted that I come. Reluctantly I went, after they asked if six of them could fly over and meet in my home. Why six air fares when one would answer! So I went there. I left early Tuesday (March 22), was met by Lee and Tim and we went to the meeting place. The meeting was private, and they insisted we keep it that way. A friend of mine from a different congregation wanted to attend, but they did not want it. The meeting was to be private. We sat around a table, fourteen or sixteen I believe, and for an hour and a half I went through the scriptures pointing out the ground of my position, then we spent an hour asking and answering questions. I then left. They had assured me that what they wanted was my view to compare with the differing view, that they might make a decision. I didn’t even make any special preparation, just went as one would meet and discuss a matter. I made some statement that it looked as if I would have to make my views more public; others know how I phrased it; I do not recall. The brethren were not satisfied with the two presentations, but invited brother Ron Halbrook to come and refute my presentation of my position. The video that was made of this meeting has been given wide circulation so that what was to have been a private study has become a brotherhood issue, which is regrettable.

I make no apology for my position; I believe it to be correct. I have no intention of becoming the focal point in a brotherhood discussion of the subject. But neither do I intend to be put in a position where I cannot express my views on this or any other subject in which the truth of God is involved. Any who feel they must consider me unfit for their fellowship must make that decision, though I do not share such a feeling toward them.

Others may feel differently about their mission, but I do not intend to contribute to any division in the church over this issue. If at some future time I should feel that truth will be served by a full presentation of the scriptural grounds for my position, I will exercise my freedom to do so. However, it is both my desire and my intention to continue the practice I have followed on this issue for the past forty-five years.

(Editor’s Note: I appreciate brother Hailey’s note expressing his intention not to make a crusade of his belief that nonChristians are not amenable to the teachings of Matthew 19.9. Although his comments regarding the motives and actions of those who opposed his actions at Belen, NM might be the subject of disagreement by those who originally reported the incident at Belen, the article confirms that these brethren have correctly assessed and reported the views preached by brother Hailey at Belen and earlier at El Cajon, CA.

The view which brother Hailey expresses privately when asked and has preached publicly on some occasions has now become public material. I suppose that Peter may have wished that his conduct in Galatians 2:11-14 would never have become the matter of public contention. But it did and the truth of the gospel was at stake in the confrontation which ensued. In the same manner, the truth of the gospel is at stake in this controversy. Souls are in danger of eternal damnation. If brother Hailey is correct, those of us who are teaching remarried non-Christians, who have had divorces for causes other than fornication, to separate in order to be acceptable to God are guilty of breaking asunder what God has joined together. If brother Hailey is incorrect, he is teaching those who are in adultery to continue in their sin. The consequences are serious and soul-threatening. I cannot see how a public discussion of these issues can be avoided. I do not desire that brother Hailey not be allowed to express his convictions; rather, I request that he or someone else bring book, chapter, and verse to defend this conviction. We desire to see him express his views that they may be tested to see whether or not they are from God (1 Jn. 4.1).

I wish that I could see a way for a tolerance about this matter. However, from my point of view, brother Hailey is defending what I believe the Bible labels “adultery” as acceptable conduct before God. 1 Corinthians 5 states that adultery is a sin which breaks the fellowship of the saints. Although brother Hailey is not practicing adultery, he is teaching a doctrine which condones the practice and encourages those guilty of adultery not to repent. The fact that this adultery is “sanctioned” by civil authorities does not make the sin righteous conduct. Unless one can explain how this false doctrine which leads to sin can be acceptable before God, I cannot conscientiously tolerate it.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 70-71
February 2, 1989

By Aude McKee

Introduction:

I. In our last lesson we traced the division that came to the ranks of the Restoration Movement.

A. Developed on two major points:

1. Organizational – Missionary Society formed.

2. Worship – instrumental music added.

B. Division recognized by our government in 1906.

II. We observed that as time went on, the differences multiplied.

A. Denial of verbal inspiration, miracles, etc.

B. Open membership.

C. Fraternization with denominations.

D. Transition into just another denomination.

III. In this lesson, we look deeper into the causes of division and into present-day conditions.

Discussion:

I. Basic Difference Between the Church and the Christian Church Was Attitude Toward Authority.

A. Historical background.

1. Martin Luther: “Whatever the Bible does not specifically forbid, we may practice.”

2. Ulrich Zwingli: “If the Bible does not authorize a practice, we must reject it.”

B. When the Christian Church was formed, these two basic attitudes were the bases upon which “battle lines” were drawn.

1. Formation of the Missionary Society: Campbell and others reasoned as follows in regard to the organization of the church:

a. The church is referred to both universally and locally in the New Testament.

b. Local arrangement or organization is provided for in the New Testament.

c. Local churches acting independently can never accomplish their divine mission.

d. Therefore, there must be some means devised in order that local churches may act together.

e. Since no revelation has been given to tell us how, we are free to devise a plan. In other words, the Bible does not tell us how to organize the church universal, so we may do it as we please!

2. In regard to the introduction of the instrument into the worship, many of the arguments in favor could be summed up with: “The Bible does not tell us not to have it.”

C. One is reminded today of our brethren who write tracts and articles entitled. “Where there is no pattern.” If there is no pattern, there is no authority, and if there is no authority, man cannot move.

1. Scripture limits a person to what is written:

a. 1 Corinthians 4:6

b. Ephesians 3:1-4

c. John 20:30-31

d. 1 Timothy 3:16-17

e. 2 John 9

2. Man cannot add or subtract (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19).

II. Our Present-day Difficulties in the Church Find Their Origin in the Same Historic Difference in Attitude Toward Authority.

A. Organization.

1. Institutionalism. Today we find the church establishing and maintaining organizations of various kinds:

a. Benevolent institutions:

(1) Old Folks Homes

(2) Widows Homes

(3) Orphans Homes, etc.

b. Social service institutions:

(1) Hospitals

(2) Homes for unwed mothers, etc.

c. Educational institutions:

(1) Kindergartens

(2) Grade schools and high schools

(3) Colleges

(4) Schools of preaching, etc.

2. Sponsoring church arrangements:

a. Examples:

(1) “Herald of Truth” sponsored by Highland Avenue church in Abilene, Texas.

(2) Area-wide evangelistic efforts. Each one has a sponsoring church.

b. Here are some of the reasons why such are wrong:

(1) Such an arrangement constitutes a violation of the autonomy, equality and independence of local churches.

(2) Such an arrangement ignores the limitations placed on elders (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:14).

(3) There is no more authority for activating the church universal through one eldership or one local church, than through the Missionary Society.

(4) Such “cooperation” has no scriptural authority. (Acts 11:22-23, 27-30; Rom. 15:25-32; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8-9; 11:8).

B. Work.

1. Churches across the land are involving the church in recreation, entertainment, and all sorts of social activities.

a. Summer camps

b. Student centers located near colleges and universities.

c. Youth rallies.

d. Bowling, baseball teams, etc. Some churches employ a “recreation director.”

2. Hundreds of churches provide facilities (and often the food) to feed “rich” people (see 1 Tim. 5:16).

3. Interesting to walk the parking lot of Opry Land and see the number of “Church of Christ Busses” that have (at church expense) hauled kids.

4. Common today for preachers to plead with churches to “minister to the whole man.”

5. Notice the parallel between the work and worship of the church:

Worship	Work
Sing – Eph. 5:19	Preaching – 1 Tim. 3:15
Pray – Acts 2:42	Edification – Eph. 4:16
Teach – Acts 20:7	Benevolence – Acts 4:32-37
Give – 1 Cor. 16:1-2	Discipline – 1 Cor. 5
Lord’s Supper – Acts 20:7

To these nothing can be added or subtracted. You can no more add recreation to the work, than you can instrumental music to the worship.

Conclusion:

1. The seed that produced the Christian Church has been planted again.

2. Luther and Zwingli could not agree 450 years ago. These basic attitudes toward authority continue to divide people in the twentieth Century.

3. Here is where authority directs:

a. There is one body (Eph. 4:4). That one body has been so arranged or organized that it can function according to God’s plan.

b. That one body has been given responsibilities in the areas of worship and work.

4. What is your attitude toward the authority of Christ? Must we speak where the Bible speaks and be silent when it is silent?

5. Do we walk by faith or by sight?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 72-73
February 2, 1989

By Robert C. Welch

Change from wrong to right is necessary. When a person insists upon the importance of never changing, his consistency is the kind Emerson spoke of as the hobgoblin of little minds. But I should be certain that I am in the wrong before I change. And I need to be sure that I am in the right and not changing to wrong. According to some people, even some of my brethren, alas even some of my preaching brethren, I have been in the wrong in some of my actions and teaching. These are the things about which I ask the question, must I change?

Must I change the wording of my marriage ceremony? I have been in the habit of having couples who are not Christians to pledge that they will live together after God’s ordinance so long as they both shall live. But some of my brethren are telling me that God’s ordinance of marriage does not apply to those who are not Christians. They are telling me that it does not matter if aliens to the kingdom of Christ divorce for any cause and marry other people. They reason that the laws of God apply only to Christians. If their argument is correct then I must leave God out of the ceremony and merely pronounce them husband and wife according to the law of the state. But who can believe it? That divorce and remarriage is violation of God’s law, just the same as murderers and liars, and all will be found in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8) unless they repent (2 Pet. 3:9). 1 do not plan on changing.

Must I change my preaching on the necessity of repentance? For fifty-five years I have been preaching that children of God who sin must repent of their sins in order to be forgiven and be in fellowship with God. But in these days I am being told by some of my brethren that so long as my general spiritual demeanor and health is good, that these few and incidental sins are taken care of by the Lord. Thus they would have me change my preaching, assuring the hearers that they do not need to be concerned about those inadvertent lies, lascivious looks, words and acts, occasional social drinks, innocent (?) dances or provocative poses and dress. They will be assured that the Lord will cover these “little” sins so long as they worship regularly. Oh, I can almost hear them shout that that is not what they mean. But that is what the hearers, who want to do these things anyhow, will get from such teaching. And all along I have been teaching that the Lord makes no distinction between sins, that his word insists that sin be repented of in order to forgiveness. No, until I am shown otherwise from the Scriptures I am not planning on changing my teaching, to please the compromisers.

Must I change my view and teaching that the Scriptures are inerrant, and that they are written for our time as well as the first century. A lot of people and some brethren are deciding that some things were written only for that time, though it is not so stated and the context does not so teach. Paul gave some teaching and spiritual advice about what to do in “the present distress” (1 Cor. 7:26). So I know that this does not directly apply to these days even though the principles involved may have application. He wrote concerning the use of spiritual gifts, but elsewhere points out that such gifts would not last (1 Cor. 13:8-10). Therefore I understand that such specific instruction does not apply to me. But I am not to conclude that the Bible is an outdated set of words to be taken or left at my own whim. My faith in God and his word as the incorruptible and eternal word (1 Pet. 1:23-25) is such that pratings of skeptics will not cause me to change my teaching on the matter.

Must I change my thinking and teaching on the matter of fellowship with immoral people and teachers of false doctrine, or those whose practices are in addition to and contradictory to the teaching’of the New Testament? For fiftyfive years I have been preaching that the church (including each member) is not to have fellowship with such. But there are those who suggest that just so long as I do not do these things then I can worship with, work with, and have social concourse with those who do them. It appears that they would insist that if they had an idol in their worship, that so long as I did not worship the idol I could go right along. The Bible teaches that I am not to so endorse sin and error (2 John 9-11). No, I am not considering changing my thinking, teaching and practice in this matter. “The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 3, pp. 65, 87
February 2, 1989