Truth Magazine

By Lloyd Dale

(Editor’s Note: Lloyd Dale is a member of an interdenominational church in Lemmons, South Dakota. Several months ago, I read in the publications of the Creation Research Society that he was fighting in court a decision made by his school board after they fired him for teaching creation as a scientific alternative to evolution. After reading that, Ron Halbrook and 1 interviewed him on the radio program which we host. During the course of the program, the following information was presented by Mr. Dale. I asked him to send me a written copy of this material. I am printing it in Guardian of Truth in order that others might share his research which demonstrates that evolution is the Christ of humanism.)

A Popular Notion Dispelled

It is popular for many “evangelical Christians” to adopt the position of theistic evolution or progressive creationism (different words for the same concept – that God created through evolution. A mistaken notion that evolution is good science apparently leads them to this conclusion.) and to dismiss the obvious conflict between the seemingly scientific view, evolution, and the Biblical concept of fiat creation with the statement: “The Bible explains the Who of origins and science explains the how of origins.” Can the Biblical (Christian) view of origins and the Humanistic (atheistic evolution) view of origins be reconciled so easily? Let us examine some basic elements of these two views to see if we can answer this question.

From a Biblical view we see and understand that Jesus Christ is true man and true God. As God, the Bible reveals that Jesus Christ is the Creator, Sustainer, Judge, Redeemer and Culminator of all. The Bible also instructs us that Christ is the “only begotten” of the Father (John 3:16); therefore it can clearly be seen that any other that attempts to lay claim to these Biblical functions of Christ is an imposter, a phony, a false christ. Thus the Bible instructs us, “Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not” (Matt. 24:23).

As Creator, Christ created all things (Eph. 3:9) by and through the power of His spoken word (2 Pet. 3:5; Gen. 1:7, 9 ff; Psa. 33:6, 9). By the power of that same word He holds (2 Pet. 3:7; Col. 1:17) everything together and empowers everything to function according to His purpose, therefore, He is the conserving or sustaining power.

As the Judge of the earth (2 Pet. 3:7; In. 5:22), Jesus reveals the wrath (Rom. 1:18) of His judgment down through Hi(s)tory – such as in the world wide flood of Noah’s day and as scripture also reveals in the final day of judgment that is yet to come (2 Pet. 3:7 and others).

As the Redeemer, Jesus Christ died (1 Cor. 15:3), taking on Himself the wrath of judgment (Rom. 5:9ff) that all who will believe in and receive Him may be “bought back” from condemnation (Jn. 3:15ff).

As the Completer, Jesus Christ is coming again (Acts 1:11; 1 Thess. 4:16; Heb. 12:2; 2 Pet. 3: I Off) to finish or complete His Kingdom and finish all that He has begun on earth and will then provide a new heaven and earth (2 Pet. 3:17; Rev. 21:1ff for the faithful.

A realistic analysis of “Scientific Humanism” reveals that every one of these Biblical functions of Jesus Christ are either explicitly or implicitly attributed to evolution by the Humanist.

According to Humanist dogma (humanist manifesto), all life began spontaneously, without cause, and through eons of time has modified and evolved to produce all life as we know it today, including man. This process, evolution, is thus the “creator” for the Humanist. Life, according to their doctrine, is continuous – held together and empowered to continue through the mechanics of evolution. Therefore, evolution becomes the “Sustainer.”

As to judgment and redemption, the evolutionistic Humanist would have men believe that the only judgment there is or ever will be occurs in this life and takes place daily through the endless (eternal?) struggle for survival (organism vs organism and organism vs environment). In this grand scheme the “good” (strong, intelligent, adapted, etc.) are thus “judged fit” and permitted to continue life through the propagation of the adapting species. Therefore, evolution becomes the `judge” of all and the giver of continuous life (eternal redemption) to the `fit. ” Finally, the logical extension of the Humanistic doctrine implies that over eons of future time this process in continuation will produce (with man’s help, for he has now evolved to the point he can control his own and other organism evolution) a utopian world (new man, new world) where life will have reached it’s ultimate perfection. Therefore, evolution becomes a completer.

It becomes manifestly clear from this brief analysis that the Biblical view of life and the Humanistic view of life (evolutionism) are diametrically opposite of one another and are, therefore, mortal enemies – a fact which honest Humanists openly admit. It is unfortunate that the many evangelicals that subscribe to “theistic Evolution” (God created through evolution) or “progressive creation,” same concept with different name, (both false as evolution is false) cannot or will not seemingly understand it.

Because it is a mortal enemy, Scientific Humanism will do everything it can to destroy faith in Jesus Christ and to replace it with the Evolutionistic dogma. Humanism has already struck some crushing blows against the Christ view through the establishment of Humanistic dogma in government, education, liberal churches (Christian Humanism so-called), and many other institutions of America.

This Atheistic, Scientific Humanism has taken us to the very brink of disaster in America. Biblical Christianity, teaching and practicing a truly Biblical world view, is the only hope for our survival as a free nation. The time has come for all who hold the Christ view to enjoin this mortal battle. If we do not, the atheistic religion of scientific Humanism will eventually enslave us and push us over the brink into complete chaos and ultimate destruction.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 20, p. 314
May 14, 1981

By John Haley, Jr. M.D.

On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that unborn humans were not legal “persons.” The out shoot of this decision was the inevitable philosophy that an unborn child is the property of the owner (mother) and, at her request, the pregnancy can be terminated at any time until birth. Since that time, the term “abortion on demand” has become common place and so-called “abortion clinics” have flourished. Against this background of more liberal thinking concerning abortion, many Christians have felt the need to step back and take a more careful look into the subject. The result? Much debate and many questions!

One very practical question which has resulted, especially in the minds of young couples who are interested in a safe, convenient, and above all scriptural method of birth control is the question regarding the mode of action of the I.U.D. What about the I.U.D.? How does it work? Does its use violate my convictions on abortion? Before we attempt to answer these questions, let’s make sure we all understand the terms we are using.

The I.U.D. (intra-uterine device) is a small plastic or metal device that is inserted into the cavity of the uterus via the vagina for the purpose of birth control. Ancient Egyptian camel drivers, over 2500 years ago, inserted apricot seeds into the uterine cavity of their beasts of burden before a long journey to prevent pregnancy; and so the method is not at all new.

Modern devices used in humans are approximately 97% effective. Complications of the device are few, side effects are usually minimal, and this method of birth control probably heads the list in terms of convenience. It is only natural, then, that many Christian couples for years have chosen this as the most acceptable or expedient method of preventing pregnancy. But on closer observation, is it indeed an acceptable or expedient method?

The answer to this, of course, hinges (at least in the minds of those who believe abortion is sinful) on whether or not the I.U.D. is a contraceptive or an abortive agent. By contraceptive agent, we mean that which prevents conception or fertilization of the ovum or egg. By abortive agent, we mean that which prevents the conceptus (that which has been conceived), or the fertilized ovum, from continuing in its normal growth process.* After consulting with several specialists in this area and reading several reports, it is clear that there is no scientific proof into which of these categories the I.U.D. falls. It has generally been assumed that the I.U.D. acts as an abortive agent. Various theories have been proposed. One such theory is that the I.U.D. stimulates the production of certain cells which destroy the fertilized ovum before implantation. Another theory is that by its mechanical presence, it either prevents implantation of the tiny embryo or shortly after implantation dislodges it. There are other theories but they can be summarized by saying that by some mechanism the I.U.D. creates an “unfavorable environment” for the reproductive process of the fertilized ovum to continue in a normal manner, thus aborting the conceptus.

A few papers have theorized that the cells stimulated by the I.U.D. may destroy the sperm prior to union with the egg or that it stimulates the egg to pass through the fallopian tube so rapidly that fertilization does not take place. If this be its mode of action, it then becomes a contraceptive rather than an abortive agent.

In summary, I think it would be fair to state that from a scientific standpoint, although not proven, most authorities look upon the I. U.D. as abortificient in its action. From a moral standpoint, then, the Christian must take this information, along with any other available to him, carefully put it all together and determine whether or not in his own mind the use of the I.U.D. is a matter of faith or doubt (Rom. 14:23).1 hope this article will aid in making this judgment.

*We use the term abortion in its normal scientific sense, i.e., “The premature expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception,” conception, of course, occurring at the time of impregnation of the ovum by the sperm (Darland’s Medical Dictionary).

I point this out because some use the term abortion to refer to termination of the pregnancy only during the earlier portion of pregnancy and the term “miscarriage” to the latter portion of pregnancy. It should be understood that these terms are arbitrary and the critical issue with regard to the moral implications hinges on the question “when does the embryo or fetus receive its eternal spirit from God?” Is it at conception, at birth, or at some point between? This fundamental question is beyond the realm of science and falls squarely in the realm of theology. Obviously, we have not dealt with it and use this occasion to challenge the editor to do so in the near future.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 20, p. 313
May 14, 1981

By Johnny Stringer

As we demonstrated in the preceding article, with the one exceptional case of Cornelius, the only Christians to receive miraculous spiritual endowments were the apostles and those on whom the apostles laid their hands. This leads us to conclude that the miraculous endowments would cease after the death of the apostles and those on whom the apostles had laid their hands. God evidently had no intention for these powers to continue after the apostolic age. The reason for this was that they would not be needed beyond that age. In this article, we will see that the supernatural endowments served two primary purposes, neither of which continued to exist beyond the apostolic period.

The first purpose was the revelation of God’s word. In the first century the New Testament had not been written down in its completed form as we have it today; rather, it was in the process of being revealed to men. God’s word, therefore, was given supernaturally to the Christians of that time by the Spirit. The preceding article pointed out that the apostles received revelation in this manner and were enabled to convey infallibly the truth which was revealed to them (John 14:26; 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:12-13; 1 Tim. 4:1). Additionally, some of the spiritual gifts received by other brethren were for that purpose. Among the gifts listed in 1 Cor. 12 were the gifts of prophecy (v. 10) and knowledge (v. 8). Though it may not be possible to determine the exact nature of every one of the gifts listed, the gifts of prophecy and knowledge would surely involve the revelation of truth. The New Testament prophet’s role in this regard is mentioned in 1 Cor. 14:31 and Eph. 3:3-5.

The second primary purpose of the supernatural endowments was the confirmation or verification that the teaching was truly divine. Since the Christians of the first century claimed to be receiving a new revelation from God, it was necessary for them to provide evidence to verify this claim. Hence, they received supernatural powers to heal and perform other such miracles; it is specifically stated that these miracles were signs to confirm that their message was divine (Mk. 16:17-20; Heb. 2:3-4; 2 Cor. 12:12). The gift of tongues was for a sign to unbelievers (1 Cor. 14:22). The fact that one could speak in a language which he had never, studied before would be quite a sign; a reading of Acts’ 2 shows how it amazed the multitude on Pentecost. Similarly, the miracles of Jesus had been for signs to verify His claim that He was the Son of God (John 20:30-31).

Since the supernatural powers were for the purposes of revealing the truth and confirming the revelation that was being made, the need for them was limited to the time in which the truth was being revealed. It is a fact that the truth has now been fully revealed. Since Jesus promised His apostles that they would be guided into all truth (John 16:13), we must conclude that all truth – the complete revelation – was given during the lives of the apostles. Inasmuch as the truth has been fully revealed, we do not now need supernatural powers to serve that purpose. Moreover, since men are not now receiving divine revelation directly from God, there is no new revelation to be confirmed by miracles; the revelation given in the first century was adequately confirmed by those who received it then. Having served their purposes, the supernatural powers have ceased, just as the scaffolding is removed when the building is finished and it is no longer needed.

Sometimes it is argued that miracles are still needed to confirm that the Bible is from God, just as they were needed in the first century for that purpose. This reasoning involves the erroneous assumption that signs have to be repeated for each new generation. It is assumed that miracles which occurred in the first century are not sufficient to convince those who were not then alive to witness them. That this is a false assumption is clear from John 20:30-31, in which John said,

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John said that his readers would be convinced, not by personally witnessing miracles, but by reading about the miracles that were done in the first century. We have seen no such miracles as were performed in the first century, but we read the testimony of credible, reliable witnesses, such as John, who did see the miracles; and by reading of the wonderful works to which they testify, we are convinced. John 20:30-31 clearly shows that miracles do not have to be repeated for each new generation. Whether it is the miracles of Jesus or the miracles of His followers, the principle is the same: once a fact has been adequately verified by miracles, it does not have to be re-verified for later generations by more miracles. The fact is that the so-called miracles performed by men today are not of such a nature as to convince unbelievers, anyway, as will be shown in a later article.

If we were receiving new revelations of truth from God, we would need to be able to perform miracles to prove these revelations to be divine. In the first century Christians did have new revelation, and they confirmed it by miracles (Mk. 16:17-20; Heb. 2:2-4). These signs do not have to be repeated for each new generation; rather, each new generation can read of the miracles of the first century and see that the word was confirmed by the abundance of miracles which accompanied it. Thus, Paul’s affirmation that spiritual gifts would cease (1 Cor. 13) has come to pass. Our next article will deal with Paul’s prediction in 1 Cor. 13.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 20, p. 312
May 14, 1981

By William C. Sexton

In 1966, I moved to St. Joseph, Missouri to work with the 10th and Lincoln street church of Christ. Shortly thereafter, I learned that a couple of families had moved to Beatrice, Nebraska. Upon my inquiry, I found that one of them was Bob and Viola Richardson, one son and two daughters. These families tried to worship with the congregation in the city, but found that their views relative to institutionalism, centralized control and social gospelism were too far apart to work together in good conscience. A new work was started, meeting at first in Richardson’s home. Over the years I preached for them several times. I saw them rent a small building across town and, a few years ago, purchase a building at 7th and Bell. Bob was a “rock” in the foundation, so to speak, of the work; he never gave up; he was always pushing onward and upward. They had another boy named Matthew.

Sunday morning he suffered a massive hemagogue, passing away around 1:00 p.m. Monday morning, February 23, I received a call,,brother David Odom telling of his death. Wednesday I was present and participated in the funeral services with David Odom, who works with the congregation, and Leon Odom from Midland, Texas conducting the services.

Brother Leon called him a “rock,” in the foundation, pointing to his contributions to the work and his influence in the community: the building was full of people, indicating his influence over the sixteen years in the community. Brother Leon has held a number of meetings over the years there and has known the family well. He pointed to the need for some one to pick up where Bob has left off and carry on – since neither Bob nor any of us are indispensable!

Hearts were sad to be sure, for the loss of a beloved, dedicated, faithful brother. There were no tears of hopelessness, however: we believe that he lived a faithful life. Of course, we do not know the real spiritual condition of any person’s heart and we do not mean to imply that we do; but he died in hope, and he left an example that we hope his children, wife, and friends will find worthy of reflecting on favorably and trying to live a better life.

Yes, a saint is dead. but we do not “sorrow” as those who “have no hope” (1 Thess. 4:13ff). We are pleased to have had the opportunity of knowing and working with him, such a dedicated brother in this life. His passing is just a reminder that we all, too, shall pass and we do not know when. Let us labor then in hope, knowing that our labor is not in vain. Bob will be missed in Beatrice, Nebraska.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 20, p. 306
May 14, 1981