Truth Magazine

By Irvin Himmel

A Rough Road

“Good understanding giveth favor: but the way of transgressors is hard” (Prov. 13:15).

Things are not always what they seem. The course which looks good may offer more misery than happiness, more heartaches than comfort, and more disappointments than satisfaction.

Good Understanding

The Hebrew word sekel denotes intelligence, sound judgment, good sense, or prudence. It is translated “wisdom” in Proverbs 12:8; in 19:11 it is “prudence.”

Abigail, Nabal’s wife, was a woman of good understanding (1 Sam. 25:3). In contrast, her husband was churlish and evil in his deeds.

We show sound judgment and prudence in yielding to the will of God. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments. (Psa. 111:10).

“Obedience to God proves that our judgment is sound. Why should not be obeyed? Does not reason itself claim obedience for the Lord of all? Only a man void of understanding will ever justify rebellion against the holy God. Practical godliness is the test of wisdom. Men may know and be very orthodox, they may talk and be very eloquent, they may speculate and be very profound; but the best proof of their intelligence must be found in their actually doing the will of the Lord” (C.H. Spurgeon).

Giving of Favor

It is a fact that good understanding gives favor. “A man shall be commended according to his wisdom: but he that is of a perverse heart shall be despised” (Prov. 12:8). Favor and good understanding are connected in Proverbs 3:4.

Joseph gained favor with Pharaoh, king of Egypt, through sound judgment and prudence. Pharaoh remarked concerning Joseph, “Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the spirit of God is?” He said to Joseph, “There is none so discreet and wise as thou art” (Gen. 41:38,39).

Daniel gained favor with Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, through wisdom and good understanding. In all matters of wisdom and understanding, the king found Daniel and his three companions ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers in his realm (Dan. 1: 19,20).

The youthful years of Jesus are summed up in Luke 2:52: “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” Wise judgment is appreciated by right-thinking people. Good understanding brings esteem, honor, admiration, and respect.

Transgressors

The Hebrew word for “transgressors” in our text is bagad. It is a term pointing to such as deal deceitfully or treacherously. It appears in Psalm 119:158, which says, “I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved; because they kept not thy word.” It is used in Isaiah 21:2 where the prophet said, “the treacherous dealer dealeth treacherously. “

Our text refers especially to the unfaithful, the offensive, the treacherous. The New American Standard Bible renders it, “Good understanding produces favor, But the way of the treacherous is hard.”

A Hard Way

The course of transgressors is rugged and rough. Often there is violence. “A man shall eat good by the fruit of his mouth: but the soul of the transgressors shall eat violence” (Prov. 13:2).

Many transgressors have no compassion. “. . . The manner in which they transact with men, is stiff, as hard as stone, and repulsive; they follow selfish views, never placing themselves in sympathy with the condition of their neighbour; they are without the tenderness which is connected with fine culture; they remain destitute of feeling in things which, as we say, would soften a stone” (F. Delitzsch).

The way of transgressors is hard because the pleasures of sin are for limited duration and are deceitful. How dreadful to reach the end of life and realize that one has taken the road to perdition.

Transgression brings suffering, not only to the transgressor, but even to his family and friends in many cases. Some have plunged headlong into some wicked act without stopping to think of the consequences. Innocent people are hurt. Although the sin may be forgiven, some of its effects may never be erased during the lifetime of the offender.

No relief is in sight for one who continues in transgression. Sometimes one treacherous act leads to another, and then another. Deeper and deeper into evil plunges the unfaithful person. He heaps misery on top of misery. Guilt weighs heavily until his conscience becomes as hardened as the stones along a rugged path.

The narrow way that leads to life requires sacrifice, self-denial, and discipline. But there is no road as rough as that which the transgressor travels.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 13, p. 393
July 3, 1986

By Bill Robinson, Jr.

Are we a “caring” people? The familiar sound of the word “care” often loses its significance in the lives of those who are indifferent toward the will of God. The apostle Paul speaks of the “earnest care” of the Christians regarding their own lives as well as that of the lives of others (see 2 Cor. 7:11-12).

One who does not respect the will of God (i.e. allowing it to govern his life) finds little room to sympathize or rejoice with others. However, the clear tone of the Bible resounds repeatedly with admonitions for every Christian to “rejoice with them that rejoice, weep with them that weep. Be of the same mind one toward another” (Rom. 12:14-15). A “Christian” (?) who depreciates the will of God, refusing to accept the teaching of inspiration on any given subject, demonstrates certain lack of care for his own soul’s well-being. How can such a one truly care for others if he cares not for his own soul?

Paul exhorts the church at Corinth to prove the sincerity of their care (earnestness) for needy brethren (2 Cor. 8:8). To stimulate the Corinthian church to this end, Paul reminds them of the Macedonian brethren who did achieve this “earnest care” for brethren. How was it possible for the Macedonians in their “affliction” and “deep poverty” to exercise with an “abundant joy” care for needy brethren (see vv. need. 1-2)? The answer is found in the text: “but they first gave their own selves to the Lord” (v. 5). To exercise a proper care for one another we must first exercise a proper care for the will of God in our own lives. One must first give himself completely to the Lord before he can sincerely exercise “earnest care” for another.

In the same text, Paul speaks to them of Titus’ own personal care for them: “But thanks be to God, who putteth the same earnest care for you into the heart of Titus” (2 Cor. 8:16). One may ask, “How did God put care in Titus’ heart for the Corinthians?” The answer is found in the attitude of Titus, — like his traveling companion, his “praise was in the gospel” (v. 18). That is, a care for the things of the gospel. Titus willingly, “of his own accord” (v. 17), went to help the Corinthians exercise their care for the needy brethren. Titus allowed himself to be used according to the will of God, which enabled him to exercise an “earnest care” for the brethren in Corinth, by helping them to exercise the same care for those in need.

When each of us, individually, learns to give ourselves first to the Lord, then God will put the “earnest care” of others in our hearts. Collectively then, as a congregation which has given itself first to the Lord, it can truly be said,”God tempered the body together, giving more abundant honor to that part which lacked; that there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care for another. And whether one suffereth, all suffer . . . or one member is honored, all rejoice . . .” (1 Cor. 12:24-26). Are we a caring people? Before we answer, let us first give ourself to God. Think on these things!

Guardian of Truth XXX: 13, p. 398
July 3, 1986

(Author’s Note: Under the heading and title above, the following editorial appeared in the Asheville Citizen Times, May 11, 1986, p. 2D.)

Supreme Court justices must wince at some of the silly issues they are asked to decide. Fatuous matters, though, sometimes hold serious questions of law.

Thus it is with “creationism,” and the attempt by a small number of people to get this set of beliefs included in the curriculum of public schools.

People who prefer to interpret the Bible literally who insist that the creation story in Genesis is not a parable but a word-for-word description of how the world actually began – are discomfited by what has been learned in the physical sciences since the 1820S. Knowledge that the universe and the Earth are billions of years old, and that life on this planet evolved over eons of time, somehow threatens their faith. Rather than adjust their understanding of Genesis to accommodate modern knowledge, they deny the reality of that knowledge.

Most people of religious faith, and certainly the vast majority of Christians, long since have come to accept science and to incorporate it into their understanding of God. If some people wish not to, that is their right. The trouble comes when they attempt to force their beliefs on everyone else.

Bible literalists first tried to get evolution stricken from school textbooks. Arkansas even passed a law to the effect in 1968. It was nullified by the Supreme Court.

Unable to get the teaching of evolution outlawed, the literalists decided to do the next best thing: get their beliefs taught alongside evolution.

From this evolved (if you’ll pardon the expression) something called “creation science” – and the claim by literalists that creationism is just as scientific and valid as any other understanding of how the Earth began.

They have pressed this claim upon the Louisiana Legislature and a few other states. Louisiana gave in and passed what is titled the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act.” It requires that creationist beliefs be taught in the state’s public schools whenever evolution is taught.

The law says it’s OK to teach neither, but if schools want to teach evolution, they also must teach creationism. (Apparently Louisiana lawmakers don’t mind if their students are denied modern learning; they simply want to innoculate students against it should they be exposed to it.)

Federal district and appellate courts have ruled that the law violates the establishment clause. The Supreme Court probably will do the same, because the law clearly is an attempt to get a religious doctrine taught in public schools in the guise of science.

Creationists say that “creation-science” is not based on religious belief. That claim is false on its face. Creationism comes from Genesis, and a particular interpretation of Genesis. It attempts to show that the events in Genesis (including Noah’s flood) happened exactly as described.

Creationists say their ideas are scientific. They even refer to their beliefs as “The Creation Theory.”

A theory does not science make. You can theorize the Earth is flat, but that doesn’t mean the idea is scientific.

If you set out to prove the Earth is flat, you find that all the evidence points to the contrary. The same thing happens when you try to prove Earth is only 6,000 years old and that all its sediments, rocks, fossils, mountain ranges and river valleys have formed since them.

That’s why creationists never present any evidence for creationism. They don’t have any, so they spend their time trying to pick holes in evolution. They pore over the research and writings of scientists, and point to the questioning and re-examination that goes on as indication of the supposed intellectual weakness of evolution.

Science is not static. Knowledge advances all the time, and as new information comes along it is analyzed, studied and rigorously debated. The fact of evolution was established long ago, but the processes of evolution – how it happened and why – are matters of intense study and debate. Creationists seem not to understand this. They seize upon every subsidiary question posed, every dispute among scientists as to the details and pieces of evolution, and present it as the Grand Flaw that disproves the entire concept.

It’s odd. Creationists accuse scientists of being dogmatic, but they use the non-dogmatism of science as evidence that scientific knowledge is false.

Everything we see in nature contradicts creationism. If some people wish to close their eyes to the world for the sake of preserving a particular religious belief, they are free to do so. But they should not insist that the rest of us follow them into the darkness.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 13, p. 400
July 3, 1986

By Larry Hafley

Supreme Court justices must wince at some of the silly issues they are asked to decide. Fatuous matters, though, sometimes hold serious questions of law.

Thus it is with “evolutionism,” and the attempt by a small number of people to get this set of beliefs included in the curriculum of public schools.

People who prefer to discredit the Bible entirely who insist that the creation story in Genesis is not a word-for-word description of how the world actually began-are discomfited by what has not been learned in the physical sciences since the 1820’s. Knowledge that the universe and the Earth are not billions of years old, and that life on this planet was created in six days, somehow threatens their faith. Rather than adjust their understanding of science to accommodate Genesis, they deny the reality of Genesis.

Most people of evolutionary faith, and certainly the vast majority of atheists, long since have come to accept scientific theories and to incorporate them into their understanding of infidelity. If some people wish not to, that is their right. The trouble comes when they attempt to force their unbeliefs on everyone else.

Evolutionists have tried to get creation stricken from school textbooks. They have even tried to pass laws to that effect. They should be nullified by the Supreme Court.

Unable to get the teaching of creation outlawed, the evolutionists decided to do the next best thing: get their unbeliefs taught alongside creation.

Evolutionary theory has been created (if you’ll pardon the expression) into something called “evolutionary science”–and the claims by illiteralists that evolutionary theory is just as scientific and valid as any other understanding of how the Earth began.

They have pressed this claim upon several state legislatures. A few have given in and passed what is called the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act.” It requires that evolutionist beliefs be taught in the state’s public schools whenever creationism is taught.

The law says it’s OK to teach neither, but if schools want to teach creation, they must also teach evolutionism. (Apparently some state lawmakers don’t mind if their students are denied Bible teaching; they simply want to innoculate students against it should they be exposed to it.)

Federal district and appellate courts have ruled that the law violates the establishment clause. The Supreme Court probably will do the same because the law clearly is an attempt to get evolutionary doctrine taught in public schools in the guise of science.

Evolutionists say that “evolution-science” is not based on irreligious unbelief. That claim is false on its face. Evolutionism comes from unbelief and a particular interpretation of unbelief. It attempts to show that the events in Genesis (including Noah’s flood) did not happen exactly as described.

Evolutionists say their ideas are scientific. They are refer to their beliefs as “The Evolutionary Theory.”

A theory does not science make. You can theorize the Earth is flat, but that doesn’t mean the idea is scientific.

If you set out to prove the Earth is flat, you find that all the evidence points to the contrary. The same thing happens when you try to prove the Earth is only 5,000,000,000 years old and that all of its sediments, rocks, fossils, mountain ranges and river valleys have been formed since then.

That’s why evolutionists never present any evidence for evolutionism. They don’t have any, so they spend their time trying to pick holes in creationism. They pore over the research and writings of scientists, and point to the questioning and re-examination that goes on as indication of the supposed intellectual weakness of creation.

Science is not static. Knowledge advances all the time, and as new information comes along it is analyzed, studied and rigorously debated. The fact of creationism, was established long ago, but the processes of creation – how it happened and why – are matters of intense study and debate. Evolutionists seem not to understand this. They seize upon every subsidiary question posed, every dispute among scientists as to the details and pieces of creation, and present it as the Grand Flaw that disproves the entire concept.

It’s odd. Evolutionists accuse creation scientists of being dogmatic, but they use the non-dogmatism of science as evidence that scientific knowledge is false.

Everything we see in nature contradicts evolution. If some people wish to close their eyes to the world for the sake of preserving a particular anti-religious belief, they are free to do so. But they should not insist that the rest of us follow them into the darkness.

Letter To The Asheville Editor

Dear Sir:

Your editorial cited above and my reply to it is being published in Guardian of Truth, an international bi-weekly magazine.

I readily recognize that my response overstates my case ‘ particularly the last four paragraphs. However, I am using your tactics (feeding you out of your own spoon) in order to show the lack of fairness and objectivity displayed in your editorial. For example, you surely know that the statement, “That’s why creationists never present any evidence for creationism,” is false. Have you heard every creationist’s presentation for creationism? If not, the one you have not heard may have presented the evidence which you say they “never present. “

Are you aware that leading evolutionists would object to your statement that, “The fact of evolution was established long ago”? Whether you are or not, some would disclaim your presumption.

Were you “being dogmatic” when you said, “Everything we see in nature contradicts creationism”? Have you seen, or do you know, everything in nature? If not, the things you have not seen, or do not know, may be the things that do not contradict creationism, or, at least, do not substantiate evolution.

Again, I realize that my equally absurd and dogmatic statements do not establish my position. Now, assume, sir, that my “editorial” had appeared first. Would you not have waved it,,away as the prejudiced ranting of an uninformed Bible thumper? Perhaps. Likewise, when you so blatantly overstate your position, is it any wonder that similar sentiments arise from this perspective?

The answer? I am not sure there is a response that will resolve the issues that divide us, but even-handed, objective, fair discussion could not hurt. Is your paper open or closed to such proposal? Believing as firmly as you do, what risk do you run to have the evolution-creation controversy discussed on your pages? Our paper is open to you and to a study of our differences.

Since, according to you, all the facts and knowledge of science are on your side, what have you to fear from those whom you liken to the “Flat Earth” mentality? If your case is as solid as you aver and avow, I shall expect a favorable reply.

Be assured, though, that your assumptions and assertions will not go unchallenged in open discussion. You shall have to document your position. Condescending dogmatism and prejudicial (flat Earth) comparisons will not be allowed to establish your doctrine. Nor, may I add, will you have the Supreme Court justices to rely on. . .

Will you, therefore, work with me to create a discussion, or will you evolve from the bold, combatant editor of May 11, 1986, into a cowardly, passive editor who suddenly becomes afraid to bear arms when one is aimed at him?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 13, pp. 401-402
July 3, 1986