Truth Magazine

By Steve Willis

A recent book, The Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal and Social Transformation in the 1980s (Marilyn Ferguson, 1980), calls for a number of personal, social and ideological changes. Though some of the book is definitely against the Bible as our sole guide, it does point out some interesting developments in the world about us. One such development is the growing sense of inadequacy in the usual tenets of evolution. The book not only points out the failings of the theory, but calls for an acceptance of changes in the theory – changes to meet the failings. Evolution evolves!

As Ferguson points out the failings of the Darwinian theory, see if she does not sound like many creationists:

Darwin’s theory of evolution by chance mutation and survival of the fittest has proven hopelessly inadequate to account for a great many observations in biology . . . .

Darwin insisted that evolution happened very gradually. Steven Jay Gould, a Harvard biologist and geologist, notes that on the eve of the publication of The Origin of Species, T.H. Huxley wrote Darwin, promising to battle on his behalf but warning that he had burdened his argument unnecessarily by this insistence. Darwin’s portrayal of glacially slow evolution reflected in part his admiration of Charles Lyell, who promoted the idea of gradualism in geology . . . .

And just as Lyell rejected the evidence for cataclysm in geology, Darwin ignored problems in his own evidence . . . Change only seemed abrupt.

Darwin’s biggest problem was lack of evidence for his theory:

But to this day fossil evidence has not turned up the necessary missing links. Gould called the extreme rarity in the fossil record of transitional forms of life “the trade secret of paleontology.” Younger scientists, confronted by the continuing absence of such missing links, are increasingly skeptical of the old theory (p. 158).

Ferguson goes on to quote Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History: “The old explanation that the fossil record was inadequate is in itself an inadequate explanation.” Amen!

Steven Jay Gould (and others) have hit upon another idea, since the old one did not fit the facts. Evolution evolves! Gould says that a new species arose suddenly in the geologic record showing that it did not evolve by steady change, but instead changed all at once and was fully formed. The new paradigm of thought attributed this evolution by periodic leaps and bounds to two features: “(1) It requires a mechanism for biological change more powerful than chance mutation . . .” (p. 159). This is necessary because most mutants are not only inferior because of their mutation, but they are also sterile, incapable of passing on any changes (good or bad) that they might have developed. I find the phrase, “more powerful than chance mutation” enlightening in view of the creation model of origins.

The second feature: “. . . it opens us up to the possibility of rapid evolution in our own time . . .” (p. 159). This feature would abet the “conspiracy” to bring about all the changes suggested in the other sections of the book. One problem, though, is the Law of Entropy. The author, Ferguson, even admits this problem.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of Entropy, has been advanced by many creationists against the theory of evolution. The argument goes something like this:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Entropy, suggests that the things which we see ordered about us are running down – approaching a state of randomness, not order. The riddle of evolution is how can living things evolve (reach a state of order) in a world that is supposed to be running down?

The humanities teachers, biologists, paleontologists and others who face this argument usually hem and haw around and finally affirm their faith in evolution and the ability of the world to improve upon itself by chance mutations and natural selection. It does not satisfy the creationist, and now it is not satisfying the evolutionists though they still cling to evolution.

What happens? Evolution evolves again. First, because the geologic record did not give the right evidence, evolution evolved from being a slow, constant theory, to a cataclysmic, no-missing-link theory. To answer the question of how there is an ordering process in a system of chaos, a system of syntropy has been developed.

Syntropy (ordering) is the opposite of entropy (randomness). Biochemist (and Nobel laureate) Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, the discoverer of Vitamin C, “proposed that a drive toward greater order may be a fundamental principle of nature . . . . He rejected the idea that random mutations account for the sophistication in living matter. Biological reactions are chain reactions, and the molecules fit together more precisely than the cogwheels of a Swiss watch. How, then, could they have developed by accident?” (Ferguson, p. 161).

In 1977 a Nobel prize was offered for a “new explanation for rapid evolution – biological, cultural, personal” (p. 163): dissipative structures, a theory by a Belgian physical chemist named Illya Prigogine. The theory another evolution in the theory of evolution – supposedly offers the explanation of how living things evolve uphill in a world that is running downhill. Dissipative structures are maintained by a continuous dissipation (consumption) of energy. This theory seems to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics (explained above) and even Prigogine “has pointed out that the theory `violates the law of large numbers”‘ (p. 166). This theory only bolsters the concept of humanism: The denial of the existence of God and that all nature must rely on the highest form of nature, the human, for any kind of social redemption. It might seem to the humanists that anyone who begins to answer the creationists’ arguments from science (as well as Scripture) deserves a Nobel prize.

The new developments in the evolution theory point out the inadequacies of the old view of natural selection and mutation. There are inadequacies, though in the new theories as well, even though they may seem to explain some old problems. Until the question of the origins of the universe and life (Where did it come from? and How did it start?) are resolved by believing the Bible, evolution will keep on evolving from theory to theory.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 39, pp. 625, 635
October 2, 1980

By Dan Walters

Anyone who claims to be a Christian but who denies a clear and fundamental doctrine of the Bible such as the divinity of Christ, the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, or the existence of heaven and hell may be described as a modernist: In recent surveys among denominationalists with modernistic tendencies, it is significant that a greater number of persons always deny the existence of hell than the number who deny the existence of heaven. I have never known of any undenominational Christian who doubted an eternal reward for the saved, but I have known several who have denied eternal punishment for the lost. This seems to indicate that “the wish is father to the thought.” Hell seems unfair to our finite minds, and so we rationalize it away.

The New Testament says as much or more about hell than it says about heaven. One of the best descriptions of hell as a continuing torment is found in the account of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16:19-31). The rich man is pictured as being fully conscious in hell and “being tormented in this flame.” The New Testament does not say that this is a parable, but assuming that it is a parable, why would it teach an untruth? Every other parable of Christ concerns things that could have literally taken place, whether they actually did or not. Christ never made use of Greek mythology or other fictional material of this sort in His teaching.

In Matthew 25:46, Jesus said, “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” “Everlasting” and “eternal” are from the same Greek word. If we know how long heaven will last, we then know how long the torment of the wicked will last. Yet no one seems to be interested in finding arguments to limit the reward of the righteous.

Those who deny eternal punishment argue that hell will be annihilation; the wicked will simply be burned up. Yet the Bible teaches that hell was prepared for the Devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41) and that the Devil will “be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Rev. 20:10). The Devil is an angel, a spirit being, .and there is no evidence that such a being is capable of being burned up. But then it is argued that man, being mortal, will be burned up while the Devil will continue to be tormented. The punishment of wicked humans is described in Romans 2:9 as “tribulation and anguish.” The state of the rich man could be described as “tribulation and anguish,” but annihilation contains neither tribulation nor anguish.

Some count on the statement in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 that the wicked will “be punished with everlasting destruction.” Does this mean that they will cease to exist? Job, while still alive and in the midst of his sufferings, said, “He hath destroyed me on every side, and I am gone” (Job 19:10). Job was destroyed but still conscious and in anguish. The Bible says that death is the punishment for sin, and it is assumed that the second death will be annihilation of the spirit as well as the body. Paul says that the Ephesians, before conversion, were “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1). Neither their spirits nor their bodies had ceased to exist; they were spiritually dead, separated from God. Those in hell will be separated from God for all eternity, yet they will continue to exist, as did the Ephesians.

Is annihilation a punishment sufficient to be called “torment,” “tribulation and anguish,” and “weeping and gnashing of teeth”? Is it a punishment which men fear to the extent that it will motivate them to turn from their wicked ways? There are millions of atheists in the world, and they all expect to be annihilated when they die. Yet they do not seem to fear death more than others. All of the animals are annihilated when they die, yet we do not think of them as deserving a horrible punishment. Hebrews 10:29 says that those who despise Christ shall be given a “sorer punishment” than those who despised Moses’ law. Those who despised Moses’ law were stoned to death; according to those who view man’s soul as mortal, they were annihilated. How will a second annihilation be “sorer” than a first annihilation? In fact, if such were true there would be no purpose in the resurrection. Why resurrect a man who has already been annihilated in order to annihilate him again? It might be supposed that burning to death would be greater punishment than dying a natural death, but it must be remembered that many persons have already burned to death here on earth, some have died slowly of horrible diseases, and some have been tortured to death. Why bother to raise them if they are to be annihilated? Their punishment will be no greater than that of an unfortunate dog who burns to death in a house fire.

We know that God is a God of justice, and that punishment will be in proportion to crime. Jesus said, “that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes” (Lk. 12:47, 48). Though we are given little information on the subject, this principle seems to indicate that there will be degrees of punishment. Let those whose sense of justice is outraged by the very existence of hell think about the consequence of their own theory: that Hitler, Stalin, and Charles Manson must receive exactly the same punishment as a good moral man who never heard the gospel; all will be annihilated.

One emotional argument says that God can not torture anyone, that such would be out of character. If this is true, then He cannot torture the Devil and his angels. Why would it be so much worse to torture a human than to torture a spirit being of a higher level than man? If God can not torture anyone, how did He bring Himself to cause King Uzziah to be smitten with leprosy and King Herod to be eaten alive by worms? This torture was of a shorter duration, but it was not instantaneous by any means. If God is not capable of torture, then He is not capable of it for any length of time, even for the short time necessary for bodies to burn up in the lake of fire.

Another popular argument says that if hell is eternal torment, then Jesus did not really atone for us upon the cross, since He only died and did not suffer eternal torment. If we take the position that what Jesus did had to be equal in all respects to the punishment man would have had to bear without -Him, then it could be argued that Jesus would have had to die millions of deaths, since he atoned for millions of people. How can one death atone for millions? Also, we know that Jesus was not annihilated, since He promised the thief that he would be with Him in paradise. If Jesus was not annihilated, but men are to be annihilated, then the punishment is not equal. Actually the punishment did not have to be equal, since Christ was not equal to men. He was the Son of God. The value of His blood is not to be compared to the value of a man’s blood.

Other arguments can be made, but none can stand before the plain language of Scripture. The arguments fall into two categories: (1) those which assume that man is wholly mortal, and (2) those which rely on human wisdom and emotion. Instead of wasting time and effort to prove that hell does not exist, why not concentrate on avoiding any kind of punishment and inheriting eternal life? Otherwise, if it turns out that hell does exist, you will go there and regret your mistake throughout eternity.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 38, pp. 618-619 
September 25, 1980

By Dick Blackford

Writers for Ensign delight in attacking “the orthodox positions of mainline Churches of “Christ” while taking the unorthodox position on nearly everything. But it may just be -that once in a while the orthodox position is the right one – a thing they would hate to admit. Michael Hall, a regular writer for Ensign, has an article on hell in the May, 1980 issue. Ensign is dogmatically opposed to dogmatism, yet brother Hall’s article is titled “The Truth About Hell.” That sounds pretty dogmatic to me.

How He Arrived At The “Truth”

The writer’s new found truth about hell was a result of “intensive personal study” because “we’ve allowed the portraits drawn by fire and damnation preachers of Calvinism to dominate our theology of hell. ” Writers for such papers as Ensign are in no position to accuse anyone of being influenced by Calvinism. However, it appears that he has allowed teachers of Russellism to dominate his theology on hell, as his position can be found in nearly any Watchtower publication. The article should serve as a warning that such brethren are not just off on a point or two regarding fellowship but are crusading for many other falsehoods.

True to Watchtower form, the article tells us that “Biblical terminology for `hell’ is vague and nebulous” and that it “probably has no other function than to arouse you emotionally. ” Hall admits that hell is horrible but then attempts to remove nearly everything that makes it horrible. We are told that hell is “absolute destruction annihilation, non-existence – the end.”

Figurative Language

In spite of the Lord saying, “everlasting punishment,” Hall says it will end. In spite of the Lord saying “unquenchable fire,” Hall believes it will be quenched. He thinks it is a mere figure of speech “to arouse you emotionally.” It may be a figure of speech, but is not a mere figure of speech. If the terrible description we have is figurative, it does not mean things will not be quite as bad as the figures used, it means they will be worse! Bad things described figuratively are worse than the figures used, just as good things described figuratively are better than the figures used (heaven – gates of pearl, golden street, etc.). The zenith of human language is reached in describing the glories of heaven! And human language is stretched almost to the breaking point to convey the awful judgment for the wicked. The Biblical description of hell is God’s way of telling us that hell is far worse than anything we could imagine. But brother Hall believes Jesus was exaggerating and that hell is merely non-existence.

“Destruction”

The article uses the word “destruction” and tells us it means “non-existence – non-being.” Is that what Jesus meant when he used the word apollumi? Vine says “the idea is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well-being. This is clear from its use, as e.g. of the marring of wine skins, Lk. 5:37; of lost sheep, i.e. lost to the shepherd, metaphorical of spiritual destruction, Lk. 15:4, 6, etc.; the lost son, 15:24; of the perishing of food, Jn. 6:27, . . . of the loss of well-being in the case of the unsaved hereafter, Mt. 10:28. . ., ” (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W.E. Vine, p. 302). To utterly destroy does not mean “non-existence.” Jesus said, “fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Mt. 10:28). Citing this passage and Jas. 4:12, Thayer says apollumi means “to devote or give over to eternal misery” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, J. Henry Thayer, p. 64). Now, did the wineskins, lost sheep, and the prodigal son all go out of existence?

“Eternal”

The writer says, “`eternal’ does not mean forever’ in an unqualified sense, ” but means “age-lasting.” That is true when referring to things of this life. But it is not true when referring to things beyond this earthly existence. Incidently, brother Hall misunderstands one of his references. He says: “Aionos means `age-lasting.’ The determining factor therefore becomes `how long does the age under consideration last?’ And that forces us to look at the context. In Philemon 15, Philemon was to receive Onesimus back :forever.’ Do you mean he would be a slave in the eternity of heaven? Of course not. But throughout the age of his life on earth, throughout that whole age, he would always be back, not to run away anymore?”

I am amazed. The writer says we are forced to look at the context (his emphasis). Then he forgot to look at it! He needs to read the next verse. Verses 15, 16 say “For perhaps he was therefore parted from thee for a season, that thou shouldest have him forever; no longer as a servant, but more than a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but now much rather to thee, both in the flesh and in the lord.” Plainly, Paul says Onesimus would not be Philemon’s servant forever, but there was a sense in which he would have Onesimus forever – as a brother beloved in the Lord! Yes, Paul was speaking of an eternal relationship. This is what the context shows.

What About Heaven And God?

However long hell is, heaven is the same length for both are said to be eternal (Mt. 25:46). Is heaven just age lasting? Will it end like the article said about hell? We are told that “the punishment . . . is eternal `destruction. “‘ (He means one “ceases to exist.”) But taking all that the Bible says, we learn that the destruction is eternal punishment – “not the loss of being, but of well-being.”

While we are on the subject, let brother Hall tell us how long God will last. The same word that describes hell also describes God. He is said to be eternal (Rom. 16:26). Vine tells us that aionos “describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom. 16:25; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2; or undefined because endless as in Rom. 16:26, and the other sixty-six places in the N. T. ” (Ibid., p. 43).

In discussing with JW’s on this subject, I usually ask them a question which brother Hall also needs to attempt to answer. The question is this: If God had intended to say that the wicked will be punished eternally, what words would He have used to describe it? Hall and the JW’s make it impossible to convey the idea in human language! If we cannot use the very words that are used in the Bible then the thought cannot be expressed at all. There are no better words or other words to describe it than “eternal punishment,” “everlasting fire,” “unquenchable fire,” “tormented day and night for ever and ever,” etc.

This brother says it is “blasphemous and slanderous” to believe in eternal punishment and that the only purpose God would have in so doing would be “to sadistically enjoy giving pain.” For shame! Hall is guilty of judging God. Only the person who knows all and is a possessor of a perfect sense of justice is in a position to even contemplate whether God is just in punishing the wicked. Who would that be? “Who hath known the mind of the Lord or who hath been his counselor?” (Rom. 11:34). Not Michael Hall. None of us know the total situation, so we have no right to judge on the matter of whether God is just. It is not as though God is saving hell to spring on us as a surprise on judgment day. Man has been thoroughly and lovingly warned (Lk. 12:4, S). No one will go there by accident. Jesus talked about hell more than anyone in the Bible. Yet we are told that God would be a torturor. The Bible does say weeping, gnashing of teeth, torment, punishment, etc. Let this scholar tell us at what point such things become torture.

Is Hell “Physical”?

The writer says “whatever `hell’ is, it is not physical!” Like the JW’s he steers clear of Mt. 10:28. Jesus said, “fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” What part of man is the body? It is the physical part. Hell will be the ruin of both the spiritual and physical part of man. Brother Hall will not take everything the Bible says on the subject.

Brother Hall’s Human Reasoning

Hall asks, “Now tell me, how long did Jesus suffer on the Cross? . . . How long did he experience that hell (a nonBiblical usage of the word hell, DB) for you and me? . . . If his destruction (note that word, DB) was less than what one person will have to bear individually, then how could his atonement fully . . . atone for everyone’s guilt? . . . If Jesus . . . had to suffer an unending torturous hell, he would still 6e there. ” The writer’s question backfires on his position. Since he believes destruction is “non-existence” and that one becomes a “non-being,” then he must believe Jesus went out of existence and became a “non-being,” for he uses the word “destruction” to refer to what happened to Jesus. Actually, brother Hall slipped up and used the word correctly here. Jesus did not suffer loss of being, but of well-being. But if we go by brother Hall’s definition of destruction then Jesus did become a “non-being” – went out of existence. If that happened then He wasn’t really resurrected; He was re-created! Brother Hall eliminates the major event of the Bible with his definition of destruction.

The truth is, one perfect innocent person (God’s only begotten Son) died for all the world. The Bible says nothing about His suffering having to be worse than what one person will have to bear in hell. That is Hall’s human reasoning. Taking his reasoning, one could as easily argue that Christ’s suffering would have to be worse than that of all humans combined since He died for all. Both ideas are foolishness.

Mortal Soul?

As could be expected, the Ensign writer takes the position that man does not have an immortal soul. [Quote: “But where did the idea of an `immortal soul’ come from? Certainly not from the Bible. It came from Plato and the other Greek philosophers . : . Read your Bible and try to find one place where the Bible says that an unconverted man has an `immortal soul.’ ‘I Like the Watchtower, he wants itemization. Again his argument proves too much for his position, for where does the Bible say “mortal soul” (for which he contends)? It does not say that either. He got that from the Sadducees. So which is it? (1) Paul taught that all men are the offspring of God (Acts 17:28, 29). (2) Since the offspring partake of the Father’s nature (like begets like) and He only has immortality (1 Tim. 6:16 – a spirit has not flesh and bones, Lk. 24:39) then, (3) all men have immortality. However, this is clear from such expressions as “everlasting punishment,” etc. It is not punishment or torment if one is unaware (unconscious) when it happens.

Conclusion

Notice the conclusions of brother Hall’s intensive personal study. (1) He believes at death that the soul sleeps. (2) In hell, “the ‘self”‘ ceases to exist. (3) The unconverted are not immortal. When he says “the fire will utterly consume the body,” keep in mind that this is said in light of his belief that the imagery is to arouse you emotionally and that is is not physical.

The consequence of brother Hall’s theory is that it offers little incentive to do good. I have known people who would be satisfied if in hell one simply goes out of existence – in fact would welcome it considering the kind of lives they have lived. Today’s popular philosophy is that “You only go around once, so get all the gusto you can!” Millions are flocking to it.

The writer closes his article by saying “and now you know the good news.” Yes, hell is not going to be as bad as you thought it was. You won’t feel a thing. In fact, you will not even know it when it happens.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 38, pp. 616-617
September 25, 1980

By William V. Beasley and John Humphries

We left for India on April 21, 1980 for six weeks of teaching the word of God. We wanted to have classes with English-speaking Christians. By having the classes in English, we were able to cover much more material than having stop-and-go preaching using interpreters. Also, we knew exactly what was being taught – and how – in its entirety. Furthermore, we planned to concentrate on a few English-speaking churches in order to build some strong churches that could in turn sound out the Word.

We believe that we were able to accomplish our goal. We taught a series of lessons entitled “That Ye May Believe,” from the gospel of John and a series from 1 John, “That Ye May Know” (Beasley); and a survey of the Old Testament, “Established and Characteristics of the Church,” and “The Dangers of Apostasy” (Humphries). We believe that much good was done.

The first church where we taught was Malakpet in the Hyderabad/Secunderabad area. The second series of classes was at Kazipet. The church in Kazpiet, in our judgment, has great potential. The congregation is made up mostly of school teachers and railroad shift supervisors. These brethren are well educated and capable of becoming very good students of the Word. They all, including the children, speak fine English.

We had small classes in our hotel room when possible, and taught many evenings at little congregations in and around Hyderabad. Some of the village congregations (at least six) have been meeting regularly for five years (since being established on John Humphries’ first trip to India). These brethren pleaded with us to stay and teach them more. The great need and limited time are both heartbreaking and frustrating.

We took turns getting sick, but we managed by the grace of God to keep our classes going. We are most grateful for the prayers of the congregations which supported our efforts and the prayers of our home congregations.

The Lord willing, and if family conditions permit, we would like to return to India in the fall of 1981.

We noted some things which caused discouragement among the Indian brethren. First, some who preach regularly seemed a little discouraged when we did not jump at the chance to support their pet-project (most of the Indian brethren converted by our liberal brethren had a pet-project needing support). We taught, explained, insisted, re-taught, re-explained and re-insisted that it was not our purpose, nor the purpose for which our support had been given, to financially underwrite evangelistic, benevolent or building construction projects. This, of course, needed to be discouraged among the Indian brethren. Faithful brethren in India are holding the line against such and, in fact, refer to their liberal brethren as the “Denominational Church of Christ.”

Second, for one to come from America to “preach/teach Christ,” but, seemingly, be more concerned in proving that other brethren (American and Indian) are dishonest, untrustworthy, etc. was a source of some discouragement to faithful brethren. Also, a stay of only ten days or two weeks, unless seriously ill, seems hardly worth the expense, of the Lord’s money, to fly to and from India. We are not discussing those who become so ill as to endanger themselves and thus had to return to the U.S.A. Such has happened to good men. If one continually (two or three trips in succession) gets too ill or too discouraged (and there are many things in India to cause westerners to weaken) to do the work, it would seem a good idea to leave that particular work to the ones with `cast-iron” stomachs. It would not be amiss for congregations to ask “How long do you intend to stay?”, and, especially, “How long did you stay on your last trip?” when support is requested.

In spite of physical discomfort (the summer, we learned, is not the time to be in India), the discouragement caused by the death of the Indian preacher (who was making arrangements for our classes) and other relatively minor problems, we feel that much good was accomplished through teaching and through the encouragement of being with brethren-in-Christ. We were especially happy to see, as we have mentioned before, that congregations established five years before were still meeting to worship and praise our God. We were also encouraged to learn that preachers who had lost their financial support from America were still preaching. It was good to know that their faith did not carry a “For Sale” sign.

Brethren, we earnestly solicit your prayers on behalf of the saints in India.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 38, p. 615 
September 25, 1980