Truth Magazine

By Doug Seaton

Jesus Christ is the “author and finisher of our faith” (Heb. 12:2). An author is “one who leads.” A finisher is one who is “a completer, finisher, one who brings any scheme or enterprise to its full and perfect consummation.” 1 he Hebrew writer tells us to “look to Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.”

We need to look to Jesus to be encouraged by His greatness and motivated by His example. Jesus came into this world and lived a perfect life. By looking to the example of Jesus we can be more pleasing unto God.

Too many Christians are following the examples of the world in conduct, in speech, in dress, and in manner of life. The child of God needs to take a long look at his life and see if he is following the example of Jesus or the example of ungodliness found in the world. Too many are following the world. The gospel is often hindered in areas because of the moral lives of members.

A great many people in the world want to look to Jesus for salvation, but they do not want to follow His example of how to live. By following Jesus we will not only start on the road toward heaven, but we will finish the road and inherit an eternity with God.

One example Jesus left us was that of compassion. Jesus was a compassionate person. He wept at the death of Lazarus (John 11:33-36). Jesus showed us that even though there is life beyond the grave there is still sorrow for loved ones left behind. Jesus also showed his compassion when He saw the multitudes as sheep without a shepherd (Matt. 9:36). We need to be able to feel with people when they have sorrow. We also need to train our eyes to be like Jesus and be able to see that the world is lost and needs Jesus to lead them. When more Christians can look at the world and have compassion on lost souls, we will have more Christians who will be teaching others.

Jesus also left us an example of obedience. Jesus was an obedient son. “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb. 5:8). We need to realize that obedience to God is essential. Not only did Jesus show obedience, but He taught obedience. Jesus taught that there was more to being pleasing to God than just saying that a person believed (Matt. 7:21). Many people today will obey God as long as what God wants them to do is what they want to do. When there is a conflict between their will and God’s will, they follow their will. This is a religion of convenience instead of conviction. To be pleasing unto God we must obey all of God’s laws. Partial obedience is not obedience at all.

The final characteristic of Jesus we want to look at in this article is His desire to put God first. When Jesus went to the temple at age 12, Luke records that Jesus was missing from His family as they journeyed toward home. They later found Him in the temple asking and answering questions concerning the law. When Jesus’s parents asked Him what He was doing”‘ He told them “i must be about my Father’s business” (Luke 2:491. Throughout the life of Jesus, He put first things first. He taught that it is essential for us to put God first. “But seek ye first the kingdom of ,for us his righteousness; and all, these things shall be added unto you” (Matt. 6:33). Many today put the wrong things first. Frequently, members vacation in places where they do not have opportunities to worship. To them a vacation is more important than worship. Others skip services to attend school functions, parties, and other social gatherings. Many work so many hours that they do not have any time to do any work for the Lord. All of us need to arrange our lives where God is first and all other things take their proper place. We need to remember the words of Jesus, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matt. 6:24). Who are you serving?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 4, p. 66
January 25, 1979

By Dorris V. Rader

Elsewhere in this issue, Brother Ray Hawk has charged this writer with misrepresentations in my reporting of the Sutton-Hawk Debate. Due to an omission of one word from my original manuscript, evidently by a typesetter, I must say that Brother Hawk has a just complaint that he was made to say something he did not say. In the next to last paragraph of my report, it was stated that Brother Hawk had “in effect” said certain things among which was that he did not have to explain his position on a given subject. He did not say this and my manuscript did not say this but rather, that he did not “have time to explain.” I caught this as soon as my copy of Truth Magazine came into my hands, and immediately wrote asking for a correction to be made. This was on September 21, about a week before hearing from Brother Hawk with his complaints.

Most of Brother Hawk’s complaint centers around this question which he answered both yes and no, thus showing his confusion. Please notice that the question was worded exactly like the proposition he denied for two nights except that one dealt with benevolence and the other with evangelism. Thus, the question was not really ambiguous. More than that, Brother Sutton read the question more than once and made much of Hawk’s answer Monday night. In his complaint, Brother Hawk says that when the question came to him again on Wednesday night, “This time I saw what he was asking and replied yes” (emphasis mine, DVR). He said, he “explained to him and the audience why I was answering it as I did that night but in the confusion of the moment, forgot which night I had given the wrong reply.” That is all I was showing-that Brother Hawk in trying to explain about this got confused and did not know whether his answer that night or the one Monday night was right.

The 10 year old orphan in diapers was a situation Hawk mentioned in his first negative speech. He had said nothing at this point about likening him to his 15 year old nephew who was in a coma and had to be diapered. He just had a 10 year old orphan boy who is a Christian and who was an obligation of the church and wanted to know who would diaper this boy. Later in this third negative, after Sutton had said “Down in Alabama, we do not diaper 10 year old boys,” then Hawk made mention that he had a 15 year old nephew in a coma and had to be diapered. In Brother Hawk’s complaint, he made it sound like that there was no 10 year orphan boy talked about, but rather a 15 year old nephew. He says that neither Rader not Sutton took time to remember this. I believe if he recalls, that he will remember that it was after he used the 15 year old nephew, that Brother Sutton put the same question to him with that 10 year old orphan boy, with a brilliant mind, wonderful voice, but who has certain physical handicaps and has to be diapered. He had him a student in Bellview Preacher Training School and asked him to tell who would diaper him. He asked if Hawk, as one of the elders would do it, or would the Director of the school? He asked if it would be home work or church work and where could it be done. Did Brother Hawk forget this?

This takes care of the complaints he has made. Just get the book when it comes out and read it. It will do good.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 3, pp. 11-12
January 18, 1979

By Ray Hawk

Brother Dorris V. Rader reviewed the debate between Carrol R. Sutton and this writer in the September 14, 1978 issue of Truth Magazine. Brother Rader is guilty of inaccurate reporting, misrepresentation, and putting words in my mouth. I hardly think this is Christian or fair

Brother Rader referred to a question Brother Sutton gave me on Monday night. The question was, “Do you believe the following proposition: `The Scriptures teach the church may arrange, oversee and provide for the preaching of the gospel and this arrangement is not an evangelistic organization (institution) such as the United Christian Missionary Society’?” I replied, “No.” On Wednesday night the same ,question was submitted to me and this time I saw what he was asking and replied “Yes.” Brother Sutton naturally called my contradictory answers to my attention, which I would expect him to do. I explained to him and th~,audience why I was answering it as I did that night but in the confusion of the moment, forgot which night I had given the wrong reply. However, Brother Rader has me making the following statement in your paper. “I don’t know why I answered both ways. I don’t have to explain. Which ever one is correct is what I meant.” What I said was, “I don’t believe the church can utilize it. (The United Christian Missionary Society, RM; don’t believe it has any place in preaching the gospel; and so that is the way I would answer that. So, I answered it wrong in one or the other, I’ll not take time to see whether I mis-answered it Monday night or tonight, but which ever one was correct, that’s the way I believe it. Anyway, I’ve explained what I believe on it.”

Do you brethren believe in misrepresenting a brother? Surely not. If you have the truth, you do not have to put words in a brother’s mouth to win your position.

I thought Brother Rader’s review was amusing in that he had me putting a 10 year old orphan in diapers for the church to change, but failed to explain that I used my 15 year old nephew who was in a coma and had to be diapered, but neither Rader nor Sutton took the time to remember that. I even asked Brother Sutton, “could the church take care of my 15 year old nephew (diaper him) if he was the charge of the church?” I do not remember his saying anything about that.

The debate will be printed and then folks can see whether I replied to these matters or not. It was a good debate and one that I am not ashamed of, either from the conduct of the discussion, or my part in it.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 3, p. 59
January 18, 1979

By Keith Ward

Tenuous Connections

Sometimes the connection between a scientific discovery and the Bible verse that foreknew it requires such a stretching of the understanding that credulity snaps and recoils to skepticism. We would do well to remember the rule we apply to alleged discrepancies in the Bible: “Here is a hypothesis which serves to explain and reconcile the disagreement. Now, unless our hypothesis can be proven untrue or irrational it stands and the objection (discrepancy-kw) is effectually met” (Haley, p. 53). In the same vein, if there are other rational explanations of a scripture, it is unwise and possibly wrong to assert that it points to a modern scientific discovery. Also, one hole in the rationale of the scientific foreknowledge hypothesis for a particular passage makes that interpretation untenable.

Some say that the gathering of the waters under the heavens into one place so the dry land would appear corresponds to the discovery that all oceans have one bed. If so, what of the Dead Sea, Galilee, lakes, etc. which are of the class “waters under the heavens” but are not in the one bed? Another fact is that antediluvian geography is unknowable.

Certainly, microscopic life is included in the swarms of creatures that populated the waters at God’s command (Gen 1:20). However, to inject “minute” into verse 20 as a modifier of “creatures” on etymological grounds in order to manufacture a reference for the discovery of these organisms at the invention of the microscope is, at best, questionable. Keil and Delitzsch never knew of these etymological grounds for “minute” as they say the term applies without regard to size. Weightier evidence is found in the context (v. 21) which specifically places “sea monsters and every living creature” in the waters as those that responded to God’s command to “Let the waters swarm.” Unless one is willing to affirm that sea monsters are microscopic, he should avoid this case of “Bible foreknowledge of science.”

The discovery that the universe expands is not seen in the fact that “firmament” derives from a root that means a spreading action (Gen 1:8). First, no derivation carries exactly the meaning of the root, else there would have been no need for the new word. In what way has the root meaning been modified in the derivation? Being linguistically unqualified to determine for ourselves, we are led to believe that it refers to an expanding universe. Will those who propose this use of the root meaning of a word with its derivatives apply the same logic to psallo? (It originally meant to pluck a literal instrument, but later was made figurative and primarily laying emotions, heart, etc. If I carry the root for “expand” to its derivation to interpret Gen 1:8 by what standard of fairness will I deny this priviledge to the instrumentalist who takes the root meaning of psallo to Eph 5:19?) Second, the firmament specified in v. 8 is the atmosphere and one should refer to vs. 14-17 for the use of “firmament” in relation to the universe. Since the same term “firmament is used with both universe and atmosphere, if it means one is expanding, the other must also be expanding in the same manner. Is the atmosphere expanding? No! Finally, could we not all read Genesis I all year and never exclaim. “Viola!” Since firmament of expanse derives in such and such a manner, the universe must be expanding (see key). Most of us, like the commentators, merely conclude that the firmament is a huge expanse of sky and stars, and that God expanded it over the earth. The scientific foreknowledge hypothesis in not a necessary conclusion. In fact, it has several problems. The rational thing to do is not to use this passage for evidence of this nature.

Gross Misrepresentation of Scripture

Sometimes I am dumbfounded at some of the uses made of scripture to prove foreknowledge of modern scientific discoveries. Even a casual reading of the passages should cause one to reject such an interpretation.

Hebrews 11:3

“By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear.” Can one who reverences God’s word fail to be indignant when he sees this verse used to foreshadow the discovery of atomic particles? Are we not to hold the original, intended meaning as sanctified? Or, may we just select the right string of words to fit our hobby without regard to fair interpretation?

Faith comes by hearing God’s word (Rom 10:17). If a man understands something by faith, he understands it because he believes what he reads in God’s word. Thus, then, and therefore, when one reads, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” he understands that the world and all things seen were made from nothing. Not one word in the faith gives me to understand anything about atomic particles.

If atomic particles are in view here, we must shift our faith from those verses (unknown), that caused this understanding and place it in the scientist and his instruments. Faith has become fact. I no longer need Heb. 11:3 as these things are no longer faith but sight (2 Cor 5:7). And are these evidences promoters not missing a good bit by not making 2 Cor. 4:18 refer to the scientist and his atom-smasher as he looks “at the things which are not seen.” Proof-texting is no prettier when done by a brother for evidences than when done by a denominationalist to support his favorite doctrine.

Seed

God gave hope to the woman when he promised that her seed would bruise Satan’s head (Gen. 3:15). Also, Abraham was promised, “All the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it and to thy seed forever” (Gen. 13:15). The first refers to Christ; the second to the nation Israel.

Until 1880 scholars argued which sex possessed the seed for procreation and which provided fertilizer. Now we know that each provides seed of procreation-man the sperm, woman the egg. But wonder of wonders, Moses knew this all along, by inspiration and this is an additional fact we can glean from the references to the seed of Eve and of Abraham. Believe it? Who can? Brethren, if science had discovered that only one sex carried the seed of procreation and the other was “only” the fertilizer, Christ would still be both Eve and Abraham’s seed and Israel, would still be Abraham’s seed (no matter which sex carried the seed) according to the sense these terms have in ‘Genesis and we would so argue in debate. From the context, there is no indication that God had the seed of procreation in mind. Rather, every indication is that he did not, but specifically (remember the exclusion principle which we gleefully point out to institutional and instrumental brethren) meant a person(s) of another generation(s). Furthermore, inspiration later shows their fulfillment respectively in Christ and in Israel’s conquering Canaan which should prevent any from coming to another interpretation about seed of procreation.

Just For Emphasis

Already science has discovered what the Bible told us long ago, plants utter sounds (Psa. 96:12; Isa. 44:23). The identification of death sounds and other noises from plants has made some hopeful of finding a meaning in science for the Biblical statements that the mountains sing, fields sing and the world will not be moved.

I think none among us intends to preach false doctrine, to publish lies and to re-publish the wresting of scripture in this matter of scientific foreknowledge. Instead, I believe (and hope fervently) that these duplications of error have been inadvertent and will be corrected. Let us not be sloppy in repeating all we hear, but search the scriptures and gird up the loins of our minds. (Note: I have learned that some of the cases I accepted as valid are disputed by others. I was unable to discover any contextual basis for rejecting them. Those who have should publish their reasons that we may avoid repeating error.)

Truth Magazine XXIII: 3, pp. 57-58
January 18, 1979