Truth Magazine

By Harry Osborne

All brethren with whom I am familiar by personal discussion or reading their material affirm that God created the universe, both animate and inanimate. I think it fair to say that all brethren I know would deny Darwinian evolution which affirms the evolution of all forms of life from a single, one-celled source or a few one-celled sources arising from non-living matter. However, some of our brethren are now saying that, while they deny the animate creation evolved beyond the stated limit of “after its own kind” given in the Bible, they accept the evolving of the inanimate creation from the “big bang” 20 billion years ago.

They affirm that the earth finally came into being some 4.5 billion years ago after the cooling and condensing of gases and other matter from the big bang. They further accept the concept that the formed earth took about two billion years to cool off, clear its atmosphere and various other things needed to reach “stability” (their choice of words, not mine). They affirm that all of these changes over millions or billions of years were necessary to play out before the earth was ready for the next action by God. In other words, God acted, then the earth was allowed to “stabilize” over a long period wherein changes were explained by naturalism rather than miraculous power, and the process repeated.

As they so affirm, they decry the use of the term “theistic evolution” to describe their views. They contend that they do not believe the general theory of evolution (Darwinian evolution) which holds that all living forms evolved from a common one-celled source. Since they do not believe in that form of evolution, they contend that they are misrepresented when others refer to them as “theistic evolutionists.” They sometimes refer to their view point as “progressive creationism” or “old earth creationism.”

My question is this: What is the difference between believing in the evolution of the animate creation and the inanimate creation? God is said to have “created” (Heb., bara) both the animate and the inanimate: the heaven and the earth (Gen. 1:1); man (Gen. 1:27, et. al.); the living things of day five (Gen. 1:21); the heavens (Isa. 42:5). Furthermore, the terms “created” and “made” seem to be governed by the same time frame in Genesis 2:4. What, then, could be the biblical basis for refuting the evolution of the animate creation while affirming the evolution of the inanimate world? It seems to me that the two views are philosophically inconsistent. Am I missing something?

There is a great deal of discussion about it being unfair to call those “theistic evolutionists” who deny the evolution of the animate creation, but who affirm what can only be described fairly as the evolution of the inanimate creation. While I agree that we need to avoid using terms that unfairly characterize one, is the term “theistic evolution” an unfair characterization of the view that says God initiated and guided a process which over a 20 billion year period of change ultimately “stabilized” in the formation of the inanimate creation? Given the qualifiers, it seems to me that the term does fairly characterize what such brethren are teaching. However, I am caught between the desire to avoid a non-central dispute over terminology and the desire to have brethren frame the discussion in the proper context.

Lest the reader think only a few radical and ignorant folks are failing to understand the more educated and moderate defenders of this doctrine, let me point you to others who are sounding the same warnings. Dr. Bert Thompson, Executive Director of Apologetics Press and long-time lecturer on Evidences among institutional brethren, expressed it this way:

Is progressive creationism theistic evolution? Both call in God to start creation. Both accept evolution (in varying amounts). Both accept the validity of the geologic age system. Both postulate an old Earth. Where is the difference, except that progressive creationism allow God “a little more to do in the system”? Both systems put God (theos) and evolution together. By any other standard that’s theistic evolution (Creation Compromises [1995] 193).

Thompson has dealt extensively with exposing the error of men like John Clayton among institutional brethren. Together with Wayne Jackson, Thompson has repeatedly warned that such teaching is a sure road to acceptance of more and more evolution. He quotes from Richard Niessen making the same point in these words:

It is currently fashionable for theistic evolutionists to go by the name “Progressive Creationists” in order to avoid the popular resentment in Christian circles against evolution and its non-theistic orientation. In practice, however, both views are essentially the same. The difference merely concerns the amount of God’s intervention within the evolutionary process (Niessen, Significant Discrepancies Between Theistic Evolution and the Bible, 1980, 16; as quoted from Thompson, 193).

Dr. Bolton Davidheiser, a long-time writer and lecturer on Evidences in evangelical circles has made the same point in his efforts to contend with the teaching of Dr. Hugh Ross. Brethren, it is not just a few “trigger happy young guns” out to create a problem who have conjured up a fight on this matter.

There is no doubt in my mind that acceptance of evolutionary concepts regarding the inanimate creation will inevitably result in acceptance of evolutionary concepts regarding the animate creation. Maybe not by the present teachers of such, but certainly by a second generation. The history of “Progressive Creationism” among the denominational world plainly shows that fact. The same historical pattern may be seen in the Abilene Christian University controversy among the institutional brethren. In The Shadow of Darwin, a book by Wayne Jackson and Bert Thompson, chronicles that digression as do numerous articles and lectures. The movement started with the acceptance of John Clayton’s teaching and ended in the full teaching of the general theory of evolution with the initial act and continuing guidance of God.

Make no mistake about it, the same movement has begun among non-institutional brethren. Those who minimize the problem and defend the brethren who affirm this error are aiding in a subtle, but devastating assault upon the very foundation of faith. Brethren, if

Jesus said, “Let your lights so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). This statement comes immediately after his having told his disciples, “Ye are the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14). Lights will shine and will illuminate. Light will overcome darkness. Lights will stand out in the midst of darkness. However, I believe it is appropriate to note that such will happen without the “lights” seeking to draw attention to themselves. Jesus said, “Let your lights so shine . . . ” not, “Shine your light.” I fear many are more concerned about the attention and praise they can attain for themselves than with simply doing what the Lord would have them do.

Note, also, that the purpose of letting our lights shine is that God may be glorified, not to bring praise upon the person doing the good works. All of us must fight the temptation to seek the praise and attention of men.

For example, preachers may study hard and preach lessons true to the word, however they may do so and all the while be thinking, “Boy, what an outstanding job I am doing!” It seems that some are more desirous of impressing men with their “great” knowledge or their outstanding ability than with preaching the word in a very plain and simple manner so that those who hear may easily understand God’s will and be persuaded to obey. When listeners go away talking about “how smart he is” or about how much “Greek he knows” and remembering little or nothing about the message something is wrong. When someone does obey the teaching of God’s word it should not be viewed with the attitude, “Look what I have accomplished.” We must recognize that the gospel is God’s power unto salvation and that he is the one to be glorified and praised when his will is obeyed. Brethren, let’s make sure we preach the truth and let’s make sure we do so for the right purpose.

Song leaders can also be guilty of trying to impress others rather than humbly “letting their lights shine.” A man may be so intent on impressing men with his wonderful singing and his leading ability that he forgets that he is supposed to be helping and leading others in worship to God. Good song leaders are a great help to all of us in our worship to God, however they do not have to broadcast their ability to others to shine forth as lights. Faithfully serving in this capacity will get the job done and God will be glorified.

Bible class teachers can sometimes forget about helping others attain knowledge and understanding of God’s word and can become caught up in efforts to impress the students with their knowledge and ability. The good teacher is one who directs the student’s attention to God and his word and not to himself. The good teacher does not have to tell the students about how talented he is or how well educated he may be. If he is so talented and capable it will soon be evident to all and the students will benefit from his teaching and will be impressed with God, his word, his power and his love.

Jesus tells us that those who do their good deeds to be seen of men “have their reward” (Matt. 6:1-16). When these receive the praise of men they have received their reward and will receive no additional reward. They have been “paid in full!”

The faithful child of God recognizes that true great- ness in the kingdom of heaven is humble service (Matt.

18:4; Luke 14:7-11). He knows that if he does what is right God will be glorified and he will be pleasing in the sight of God. He may not be exalted in the eyes of men; in fact, men may not even see or know about the deeds done by the faithful servant, but God knows, and that is all that really matters.

The intelligent person does not have to tell others he is intelligent. The “good teacher” does not have to boast of his accomplishments. The faithful child of God will not have to “shine his light.” He will humbly and quietly go about doing the Lord’s will and will “shine as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:15). He may seem very unimportant to men, but he is great in the kingdom of heaven.

Brethren, which are we doing? Are we “letting our lights shine” or are we trying to “shine our lights”?

I have had many conversations with people on religious topics in which the response to something I said was “well, my preacher (or pastor) says . . .” I have even heard some Christians say things similar to this. Please consider the problems with this statement.

First, let’s take the words “my preacher.” These words confess the religious pluralism of our society. There are literally hundreds of different churches in our society, each with its own peculiar set of doctrines or practices and many of them contradicting each other. With so many different churches teaching so many different things, it is possible to find a church that says and does just what you want. Of course, what suits one person may not suit others, and so people talk about “my church” and “your church.”

This talk about “my preacher” or “my pastor” is a part of the phenomenon religious pluralism, but it also confesses a basic reluctance (refusal?) to read the Bible and to treat the Bible as the final authority in religious matters. I have learned that many people would rather not read the Bible for themselves. This may be for any number of reasons. Perhaps they think they cannot understand it. Perhaps they just do not want to go to the “trouble” it takes to study. Whatever the reason, many people would prefer to ask “their preacher” rather than open their Bibles to find out what God says about something. In this way preachers have come to be seen as experts whose opinions are binding and final. For many people, if the preacher says it, they believe it. If the preacher says it, it must be what the Bible teaches.

The problem with this should be obvious. God’s word is infallible, but preachers are not. Preachers can be opinionated, ill-informed, mistaken, prejudiced, etc. just like anyone else. The world is full of “preachers” who do not know (or care) what the Bible says but who use their position to promote their opinions with an air of authority. There are also serious, well-intentioned, careful preachers who study their Bibles long and hard before they say anything, but who sometimes are mistaken in their views. The point is that no one should simply trust his preacher to tell him the truth. The truth is in God’s word and nowhere else. A preacher may help others to understand God’s word, but the preacher is not the source of the truth. Everything he says must be subjected to the scrutiny of God’s word.

The people in Berea were excellent examples of what we are talking about. When Paul came and preached the gospel to them, their reaction was to open their Bibles and compare what Paul said to the truth in God’s book. “They received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). When they found that Paul’s message coincided with God’s word, then they accepted it, but not before then.

If God’s truth is in his book, the Bible, then why do we need preachers? God, in his wisdom, knows that people will listen before they will read. So God has appointed that those who wish can work for him by speaking the message and truths of his word to others. But this does not make the preacher a substitute for the word. It does not make the preacher a substitute for reading your Bible yourself. A preacher is commanded by God to study and be an accurate Bible student (2 Tim 2:15), and those who teach things contrary to the written word will be account- able for it. Even so, a preacher is still a fallible human being, and the only word you may trust with your life is God’s, not the preacher’s. While the preacher’s message must come from the word of God and nowhere else, but what he says should still be judged by the word of God before it is accepted.

There is always the temptation to let the preacher study the Bible for us, to trust his opinions rather than look it up in the Bible for ourselves. I fear that this is the case among some of my own brethren. God forbid that the salvation of anyone’s soul is up to what some preacher says! God forbid that any one of us should be content simply to accept what a preacher tells us, that we should trust him completely to speak the truth 100% of the time on every subject! We must not put our trust in men, but in God who alone speaks absolute truth. A preacher speaks the truth only when his words coincide with God’s.

The purpose of this article is not to encourage disrespect for those who preach the word of God, nor even suspicion. Most gospel preachers I know are diligent, serious, sincere men who want nothing other than to speak only the truth every time they preach and teach. Instead I wish to encourage us not to think of the preacher more highly than we ought (1 Cor 4:6). A preacher’s words are not infallible, his opinions are not completely reliable. Our highest respect should be reserved for God’s word. And if we respect it properly, we should then take it into our.

When God rejected Cain’s offering, he must have felt the cards were stacked against him. His response was, according to Genesis 4:5, that he became “very angry, and his countenance fell.” His disposition was such that not only did he get angry at God, but he stayed angry. He could cry “unfair” all he liked, still he had to deal with reality, which was this conflict over his offering. But, instead of dealing with it, he became so dejected that “his face fell.” Cain was like Lucy in the comic strip. She was obviously distressed. Charlie Brown kept coming to her rescue, offering Kool-Aid, a candy bar, a glass of chocolate milk. Then he asked, “Can I do anything else?” Lucy stormed out, “Leave me alone. I just want to be miserable!” That was Cain. He wanted to be miser- able. He was hurt. It made him angry and he refused to be comforted.

Cain, Our Contemporary

Cain wasn’t the first to cry “Leave me alone!” and he wouldn’t be the last. His parents did it with their fig-leaf aprons. Job did it. “Leave me alone!” he cried (Job 7:16), and perhaps in our own way of thinking, with some justification. But God is saying to Job and to us that there is a mystery in suffering that he hasn’t seen fit to reveal yet. This desire to be left alone forces us to identify with Cain — he becomes one of us, our own contemporary — for we must admit that we too get angry at God and sometimes take it out on other people. Of course we are wrong when we do so, as was Cain.

Cain refused to be comforted because his jealousy so wounded his pride until it permeated every corner of his existence. Hurt pride turned to anger which resulted in suspicion; that suspicion became hatred and this hatred was projected onto his brother Abel — the scapegoat! Sometimes we detest what is in us so that we deny it is there and dump on others. Cain couldn’t take it out on God so his brother Abel would do just fine.

It is true that this is an ancient story, but the feelings it brings to the surface are current. Occasions for hurt pride and anger are numerous for people in our time just as they were in the day of Cain. How we react to them constructively is one of our greatest challenges. Cain chose the wrong way. He denied it and projected it. Blinded by his pain, it didn’t matter to him that Abel was his brother. He ignored God’s warning and his promise. He just wanted to be left alone.

We Are Never Left Alone

We don’t have to live too long until we learn that life won’t leave us alone. The Internal Revenue Service won’t leave us alone. Our families won’t. The church won’t; neither will God. He didn’t let Sodom alone or Nineveh or Jerusalem or Babylon. The Bible is a record of a God who won’t leave us alone. He will bother us when we err. Moses didn’t let the Hebrews alone in Egyptian slavery. Nathan the prophet didn’t leave King David alone when he callously murdered Uriah the Hittite. “Thou art the man!” thundered the prophet. Elijah didn’t let Jezebel alone for stealing Naboth’s vineyard. Jesus didn’t let Zacchaeus alone, or Peter, or Mary. John the Baptist didn’t let Herodias alone for her commitment of adultery.

And God didn’t let Cain alone in his agony. “The Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? . . . If you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it’” (Gen. 4:6-7). But Cain didn’t heed God’s warning. Then God promised his care, “If you do well, will you not be accepted?” (v. 7a).

Cain didn’t hear God’s promise very well either. All he could see was God preferring Abel’s offering. His hurt feelings caused him to want to strike out in a revengeful way. The problem with this kind of response to God’s rejection of his offering was that vengeance is an emotional word and it was these feelings that were about to get him into serious trouble. And what we often do not realize is that most of us have some appetite for it too. It is so natural when we think we have been wronged; our gut reaction is to retaliate. If we are not careful we will find ourselves following the “way of Cain” by subscribing to the popular philosophy, “Don’t get mad, get even.” It was this philosophy that led Cain to kill his brother Abel (v. 8). But it cost him severely.

We Can’t Fool God, Nor Can We Ignore Him

At last Cain thought he was free of the sheepherder, but God wouldn’t leave him alone. You see, the problem was, God missed Abel. So he came to Cain to inquire about him. His question must have irked Cain sorely. But he had lost control of the situation. It is when we have lost control that God always steps in. “Where is Abel your brother?” God asked (v. 9). To protect himself Cain lied, “I do not know.” Then he insulted God, sarcastically asking, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Cain tried to play innocent but quickly learned that he couldn’t fool God. He failed to see that what he did to his brother affected God, too. And although he didn’t “keep his brother,” God said he was “his brother’s keeper.” We are responsible for what we do.

And God keeps coming back and reminding us of our responsibility. This time he asked Cain, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground” (v. 10). God has no place in his world for a person who refuses to be responsible for others. Neither did Jesus who said, “As you did it to one of the least of these . . . you did it to me” (Matt. 25:40). The consequences of Cain’s behavior was due to his irresponsibility. To Cain God said, “You are cursed from the ground . . .” (v. 11). And Cain became a vagabond, “a fugitive and a wanderer” (v. 14).

What was Cain’s attitude toward these consequences of his wrongdoing? It appears that at first he just brushed it off. But then the loneliness began to gnaw at him. Sup- pose someone should harm him like he did his brother Abel? Cain learned fast that pain is possible to those who are out of step with God. He was fair game to all. He came to his moment of truth when he sadly cried, “My punishment is greater than I can bear” (v. 13).

The God of Mercy

But God still cared for Cain. He persistently dogged him. He proved himself to be the “hound of heaven,” as someone has described him. God simply would not leave Cain alone. He wouldn’t leave him alone in judgment, now he wouldn’t leave him alone in mercy. He promised Cain his protection. God tempered his judgment with mercy, doing for Cain what Cain refused to do for Abel — be his keeper. As a sign of his protection, God put a mark on Cain’s forehead (v. 15). The mark is not to be misrepresented as a curse, but a sign of mercy, intended for Cain’s protection. God is merciful even to a murderer, and that can only be good news for those familiar with failure.

“Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden” (v. 16). Nod means “fugitive” or “wandering.” Absence from God is the result of Cain’s conflict. Cain lived in a constant state of transition and restlessness. Unable to be at home any- where, he was doomed to wander in vain.

This is the “way of Cain” mentioned by the writer of Jude (v. 11). By the time the New Testament was written, this sort of behavior had been coined the “way of Cain.” It stood for the cynic, skeptic, materialist, who believed neither in God nor moral order in the world. Cain is the epitome of a man who tried to live exactly as he pleased. And those who go the “way of Cain” usually find that living the way we please isn’t very pleasing. It was true then and is still true today, the person who chooses to go without God is going to have to reckon with him. Those who go the “way of Cain” will still have to learn, always with pain and sometimes through tragedy, that you can’t defy the moral order of God’s universe with impunity.

Our Own Guilt

Honesty will keep us from pointing a blaming finger at Cain. We know something of his guilt. We may not be murderers, but we have certainly injured other people by entertaining Cain’s philosophy of life . . . living as we please. We know from experience that the cost of doing things our own way is high. There is a cure however. It is symbolized by the mark of protection that God put on Cain (v. 15). It stands for grace and mercy.

If we have given ourselves over to follow the “way of Cain,” the question for us is, are we willing to heed God’s warning and rely on his mercy? But the “way of Cain” can also be avoided.  Jeremiah did not yield to vengeance but left it in the hands of God: “let me see thy vengeance upon them, for to thee have I committed my cause” (Jer. 11:20). The same theme of repudiating vengeance is seen in the example of Jesus, who when he was reviled, did not retaliate (see 1 Pet. 2:21-24). Francis Bacon said, “By taking revenge, a man is but even with his enemy, but in passing over it, he is superior.” Perhaps that statement.