Truth Magazine

By Shelby C. Smith

The Bible is an inspired book and I am an uninspired man. There are many things that point to the inspiration of the Bible; it is complete and cannot be changed because it is from God. Since the close of the New Testament scriptures, no religious leader, no matter how many Ph.D.’s he may have, has been able to bring forth a single new religious truth, which is not already set forth in the Bible. There are some who claim to have done so, but what they claim is either already in the Bible, or it is condemned by the Bible.

I am not responsible for what the Bible teaches. But it is my responsibility to study the Word of God (2 Tim. 2:15), follow it (2 Thess. 5:13, 14), and to teach it to others (2 Tim. 3:14-17; Rev. 22:17). If anyone wants to praise the Word, he must praise Him who gave it. Also, those who want to criticize the doctrine in the Bible must criticize not me, but its author, who is God. If I misrepresent the Word of God, a person has a right to point out my error. Yea, even more, it is his responsibility to do so. But if what I teach is taught in God’s Word, no one has the right to criticize me, because it comes from God.

If, for example, I teach that baptism is a burial and a resurrection, I can read in Romans 6:2-4 that this is true. Also, I can read that baptism puts us into Christ, His church (Gal. 3:27), that baptism is for the remission of sins, and that we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38). Men do not like this teaching concerning baptism. To them it is a hard doctrine; those who preach this doctrine, to the denominational world, are considered narrow-minded.

What does the Bible teach about denominationalism? The Bible teaches that Jesus prayed for unity of believers on earth (John 17:20ff). Denominationalism contributes to unbelief and thus hinders unity. It takes time, talent and money to build up denominational groups which could be used in evangelizing the world. The Bible does not support many different doctrines. There is only one doctrine of faith in the New Testament (Eph. 4:5), but the denominational world twists the Bible to make it support their doctrine. But some fail to believe the Bible because those who profess to believe it are so divided. Thus we see that denominationalism is a curse (1 Cor. 1:10-12). I did not write the Bible; therefore, I cannot change it. So, before you criticize the Bible or try to change it, remember that God is its author and some day we will all be judged by the words of Christ (John 12:48).

But remember this, the last work man has from God is written for us in the New Testament. We have no new revelation from God today, as some claim. Man did not write the Bible and man cannot change it.

Does the Bible suit you? Do you find fault with those who preach it? Do you call on them to revise it? Remember, revisions will face us in judgment (John 12:48; Acts 17:30). Let us strive to be Christians and to serve God in the things that are pleasing to Him.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 23, p. 354
June 4, 1981

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: On November 29, 1980 someone wrote into our local newspaper (copy enclosed) claiming that the Bible has at least one contradiction in it and, therefore, is not the exact word of God. To substantiate this claim he used Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree from the accounts of Matthew and Mark, and showed that one account had Jesus cleansed the temple before He cursed the fig tree (Matt. 21) and the other had Jesus cleansing the temple after the cursing of it (Mark 11).1 would appreciate any help you could give me.

Reply: There is no contradiction in the accounts of Matthew and Mark, although there appears to be on the surface. The explanation is simple when we consider the two narratives from the standpoint of chronological order. Matthew records the event as one complete account. Mark records the event in actual chronological order. He presents the same account, but in two separate parts. Matthew lumps both the curse and the result of the curse into one narrative (Matt. 21:18-22), both the curse and result appearing to be after the cleansing of the temple. He does not attempt to give the event in its chronological order. Mark gives the order of what took place in exact detail as to time. The curse was placed upon the fig trees before the cleansing of the temple (Mk. 11:12-14), but the result of the curse is after the cleansing of the temple (Mk. 11:20-24). Jesus obviously cursed the fig tree on the day after the triumphant entry into Jerusalem as He and His disciples were on their way to Jerusalem. He entered into the temple and cleansed it on that day and returned to Bethany that evening. The next day as they were on their way into the city they saw the results of the curse which had been pronounced the day before. Matthew combined these events into one narrative. Mark divided them, putting them in their chronological order.

Those who would discredit the Bible as the word of God and would relegate it to having human error, fail to make any attempt at harmony. They are more anxious to discredit the Bible than to accept it as the infallible and inerrant word of God.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 23, p. 354
June 4, 1981

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