Truth Magazine

By Carl McMurray

The phrase used above was used recently by an elder in the Lord’s church to describe some practices that are becoming all too common in various congregations. His statement during the course of our conversation surprised me for a moment because we were not speaking of centralization and the sponsoring church arrangement. neither were we discussing institutionalism, a socialized gospel, the limited authority of elders nor any other error commonly associated with the term “liberalism”.

The word “liberal” can be defined as an attitude of freedom from authority and, in dealing with the written word, it describes a way of handling Scripture wherein one is not restricted to the literal meaning (definition applied from Funk And Wagnalls).Judging from the arguments put forth by those who have embraced the aforementioned false teaching we can see that the term, used as an adjective describing one’s attitude toward the Scriptures, is an accurate one. While we note those who play fast and loose with God’s word, however, we should give care that the term does not become a label (to prejudice minds as surely as the term “anti”) that is associated only with the above issues. There are things being practiced on a regular basis by some so=called “conservative” or “faithful” churches that would also fall under the definition of liberalism. Calling for authority for centralization or institutionalism does not release one from the authority of other Scriptures.

When a congregation appoints men as overseers who are flatly unqualified upon the assumption, “that it’s better to have them than nobody,” are we not freeing ourselves from God’s authority? On the other hand, when a church exists in a given community for 20 to 30 years, grows to 100 to 200 members, expands or replaces their meeting place, supports several preachers in other places as well as a man full-time in their own locale, etc., and never appoints men as elders, are we not also ignoring God’s divine organization for the church? Are we to believe that in that length of time and with so many Christians there are not two mature, spiritually guided men who meet the qualifications? Or is it that too many Indians want to be chief (officially or unofficially) so no chief will ever be? What of the congregation that has appointed qualified men but some members will not submit to their decisions? Perhaps some even go so far as to criticize and accuse the men or their work, heedless of what God has to say about the matter (note Heb: 13:17; 1 Thess. 5:12-13; 1 Tim. 5:19). We have even witnessed preachers in one congregation using their bulletin to publicly criticized the decisions made by the elders of another congregation on a matter well within their Scriptural authority to decide upon. When such things go on and may even go uncensored because the guilty ones in the above situations have a “reputation” of faithfulness, what right have we to criticize another’s lack of application of Bible teaching? Are we not ignoring the plain, literal meaning of God’s word as we are engaged in such? This is not said to justify or compare sins, but simply to show that neither sin is any less or greater than the other.

Many congregations are in the habit of not disciplining unruly and disorderly members. Whatever excuses are put forth, it makes one wonder why these instructions were given if God did not intend for us to follow them. What is sad though is that while we reject God’s authority in this, our ignoring of sin, we have the gall to demand authority of others in their error. Beware of hypocrisy (Matt. 7:1-5). This is not to say that we should quit demanding authority. It is to say that we should also “examine ourselves.” From the teenager to the elderly, in some places it seems that if one will attend a majority of the worship services anything (and I do mean anything) will be tolerated. As the good brother said, “Now that’s liberalism.”

And what of the congregation that just does nothing. The preacher is well known, elders are appointed, 2-3 meetings are held per year. They have a name for being alive but the truth is that members don’t care about one another or associate with one another; salvation’s work in the community is almost non-existent. The group pats themselves on the back when their children are the only ones baptized and precious few of them are actually converted to the Lord. Are we not ignoring all the admonitions to diligence, and working, and a rest in the future (not now)? We point out the error of loving passages on faith and ignoring teaching on baptism. Should we not also point out the error of loving the passages on baptism and ignoring teaching on growth, maturity, perfection, and running our race completely? Should we not more seriously consider what it means to put His kingdom and His righteousness first?

Let us not allow the term “liberal” to become a label only applied to the so-called issues. Rejecting Bible authority and ignoring plain Bible teaching is a danger that any one of us can fall prey to. Let us allow our contributions to the Lord’s cause to the only realm in which it can be said that we are “liberal.”

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, p. 83
February 3, 1983

By Burton G. Lockwood

During a recent, highly publicized decision, the U.S. District Court of Arkansas, knocked down a law designed to give “scientific creationism” equal time with evolution to the public schools. In justifying his ruling, Judge Overton stated that a good solid fence must be erected and maintained between the domains of State and Church. He reasoned that since “scientific creationism” is an approach to origins based on the biblical account rather than on observing nature, it is religion, not science. To allow religion to be taught in the public schools would violate the freedom of religion of some students.

The impact of this ruling is that, in Arkansas, the State will not allow the Bible to be considered when pondering origins. The State will only allow study of the philosophy that matter somehow evolved into life through natural occurrence. This position ignores the possibility that mind created matter and it orients young minds away from giving even passing thought to their Creator.

Despite the unfavorable ruling dealt creationists in Arkansas, evolutionists are alarmed at the inroads made by the creationist lobby. Evolutionists are encouraging scientists to form groups and go on the offensive against the “unscientific notions” of creationists. Evolution propagandists warn scientists not to engage in debate (for they are often made to look foolish when they do) but to use every opportunity to ridicule and undermine creationist efforts. Emporia State University scientists formed such a group and circulated a demand that textbooks be altered to render 3.0 as God’s value for Pi. They are referring to the dimensions of a large molten sea laver described by the Bible (1 Kings 7:23) as being 10 cubits from brim to brim and 30 cubits round about. By their reasoning, their ratio is inaccurate – the circumference of a circle 10 cubits in diameter should be 31.4 cubits. In their eagerness to poke fun and ridicule, the ESU boys fail to take into account the possibility that 10 and 30 may be round numbers.

The sad side of all this furor is that a great many scientists and scholars are so dedicated to defending Darwin’s theory that they have closed their minds to a great mass of evidence. The young and naive are taught that evolution is a proven fact. The claim is made that evolutionary notions are scientific even though science allegedly deals only in observable, repeatable evidence. The simple truth is that the conjecture that life evolved on this planet from random interactions of matter over billions of years is beyond observation. Attempts to coax out life from matter have met only with failure. A theory that cannot be tested or proven through observation and repetition is beyond science. Evolution is as much religion as the biblical creation account.

Today evolutionists offer the fossil record as proof positive that Darwin’s theory is correct and yet, Darwin himself believed that it would require the discovery of transitional forms (fossil evidence of one kind of creature developing into another kind) in order to verify his speculations. After a hundred years of extensive search, transitional forms are yet to be uncovered. What a person can observe is that living creatures reproduce after their own kind. Fossils are best formed by rapid and impact burial, such as caused by a mudslide or flood, and every form of life now extant is found in the fossil record. It appears that life comes from life, not from random interactions of matter.

When creationists discover evidence damaging to evolutionary notions, their findings are generally ignored, down-played or rejected. Anyone interested in observing first hand a death blow to evolutionary thinking should visit Glen Rose, Texas, in late summer. Several miles out of town (local residents can tell you where to look) in the Paluxy River bed are footprints in stone. There are huge dinosaur tracks. Tracks of the great Brontosaurus and the terrible Tyrannus Rex abound. Mixed in with the~tracks of these monsters are the tracks of human beings. According to evolutionists, man was not on the scene when the giant lizards ruled the earth 70 to 200 million years ago. How then is the track of man found in the same rock strata as the track of dinosaur? One “scientific” explanation was that it must have been a dinosaur with a human foot! “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day. . .” (Exodus 20:11).

Creationists are able to make evolutionists look ridiculous in debate because they have the truth and tangible evidence of the truth of their side. Do not be deceived into believing that science has proven anything contrary to the Word of God. As Paul wrote, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen” (1 Tim. 6:20-21).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, p. 82
February 3, 1983

By Raymond E. Harris

Honest people have always had respect for the property of others. One who would take, or disrespect the property of another has always been held in contempt by the upright of every nation, tribe and tongue. Yet, it seems that some have more concern for that which belongs to their fellow man than they have for that which is the Lord’s.

1. The Lord’s Day. In Revelation 1:10, John wrote, “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day.” Through the years many Bible scholars have understood that John was speaking of the first day of the week (Sunday). This is the day the Lord’s faithful have always “kept.” Sunday is remembered as the day Jesus rose from the dead. It is the day upon which Christians assemble to remember the death of Jesus (Acts 20:7). It is the day upon which Christians assemble not only to worship, but also to be edified and to collect funds for good works.

It is indeed sad that many are not satisfied to use the six days of each week that God has provided for man’s use. Rather, many are so ungrateful, they will not pause on the “‘Lord’s Day” long enough to join with others in worship and praise to God. We suggest that such selfish- use of the “Lord’s Day” is a form of thievery. And those that would steal from God will not go unpunished!

2. The Lord’s Name. In the Old Testament God was quite specific, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” (Ex. 20:7). In this day when Jesus has been declared to be “King of Kings and Lord of Lords,” it is no less important to reverence his name.

We suggest the terms “Jesus,” “Christ,” “My Lord” and “God” are not terms to be used indiscriminately. Such terms should rather be used with great care and respect in sincere and humble reference to deity. When man uses such words as “God,” “Jesus Christ,” and “Oh Lord” as slang or worse, can the Lord be pleased?

The word “vain” means “empty,” “void,” without a cause” and “to no purpose.” The Bible teaches that one day, “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ: that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he bath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10). Further, Jesus taught, “. . . every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment” (Matt. 12:36).

We suggest that disrespectful use of the Lord’s name will not go unpunished as “by thy words thou shalt be justified. And by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, p. 81
February 3, 1983

By Dudley Ross Spears

A Questionnaire On Revelation 20

Please read Revelation 20:1-6 and answer the following questions about each verse.

Verse 1. What does John say he saw? If you answered, “an angel,” then what did John say the angel had in his hand and where was the angel going?

Verse 2. On what does the angel lay hold? Where does this take place and how much time is involved?

Verse 3. What does the angel do to Satan and why?

Verse 4. John saw thrones and those who occupied them. Where were these thrones – on earth or in heaven or does the Bible say? What condition were the “souls” in when John saw them? Who are these souls who live and reign with Christ for a thousand years?

Verse 5. John saw what he called a “first resurrection.” Does John say bodies are raised (re-read verse 4).

Verse 6. Who are the “priests of God and of Christ” in this verse?

Summary: Can one read this and find an earthly kingdom, the throne of David, the city of Jerusalem, human beings with bodies (non-decapitated), the earth itself, or any other essential item in the premillennial theory?

One may not know precisely what such figurative language means, but it does not take a Solomon to know what it does not mean. It does not mean what it does not say – now does it?

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, p. 81
February 3, 1983