Truth Magazine

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

By Johnny Stringer

Our hearts should overflow with love and gratitude when we contemplate the marvelous grace of our loving heavenly Father. The book of Romans deeply impresses us with the truth that our good standing before God is not a reason for. self-righteous boasting; rather, it is a reason for raising our voices in praise to God; for it is the result of His wonderful grace, and not our own goodness.

It is saddening to see such a lovely truth perverted so as to lead souls into error, but the truth concerning God’s grace has been tragically perverted almost from the beginning of the gospel’s proclamation. In Romans 6, Paul deals with a perversion which would use God’s grace as an excuse to live a life of sin. The teaching of the book of Romans has been so grossly perverted that it is always a matter of urgency to present its true teaching and to refute the erroneous perversions of the book.

Grace has been defined as “unmerited favor.” In his letter to the Romans, Paul demonstrated that all men are in need of God’s grace because all have sinned (Rom. 3:910, 23). Since we have sinned, we deserve to be the recipients of God’s holy wrath. Nevertheless, by God’s grace, He is willing to forgive us our sins, so that we can stand before Him free of guilt, just as though we had never sinned. The forgiveness is possible only because of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross by which He paid the price for our sins. Since this justification is undeserved, it is a gift of God’s grace. (Note Rom. 3:24-26.)

In the Roman letter, Paul contrasts justification by grace against justification by works. Consequently, some have erroneously concluded that there are no conditional works which we must perform in order to be justified. That this is an erroneous conclusion can be readily seen by a consideration of the many passages that teach the necessity of man’s obedience. Among these are Matt. 7:21, Heb. 5:9, 2 Thess. 1:7-9, James 2:24, and Acts 2:38. Jesus clearly teaches that obtaining everlasting life involves human labor (John 6:27-29). Indeed, in this very Roman letter which so strongly emphasizes justification by grace, Paul shows the importance of obedience when he observes that the very purpose of gospel preaching was to produce obedience (Rom. 1:5; 16:25-26).

The question arises, if human work is involved in obtaining salvation, how can the salvation be of grace? The answer lies in the fact that the works we perform do not earn the salvation which we receive. If we have not earned our salvation, then it is a gift of grace. God requires that we meet certain conditions, but when we have met those conditions we still do not deserve to stand justified before God. Even after meeting His conditions for forgiveness, we still deserve to be punished rather than forgiven; yet, by His grace He forgives us so that we are just in His sight.

The idea of many is that if we have to meet conditions to receive our salvation, then our salvation is not a gift of grace. This simply is not true. Sometimes I offer to give my little girl a quarter to go into her bank, but I make the gift conditional – she has to say “please.” Saying please does not earn the quarter, but she does not get the quarter unless she says it. Although she must say please, she does not earn the quarter; hence, the quarter is a gift given by my grace. The meeting of conditions does not nullify grace! Suppose I offered you a thousand dollars on the condition that you said “please.” Would you deny that the thousand dollars was a gift of grace, simply because it was conditional?

The principle involved can be illustrated by a number of Biblical incidents. The Israelites had to meet certain carefully specified conditions in order to receive Jericho (Josh. 6), Naaman had to meet conditions to be miraculously healed of His leprosy (2 Kgs. 5), and the blind man had to meet conditions to receive his sight (John 9); yet, all these gifts were given by grace, because the works performed did not merit the gifts. After Naaman had dipped seven times in the Jordan, he could not arise from the water and proclaim that he had earned his cure by his works; no, his cure was still a gift given by the grace of God, for which Naaman owed God his praise and gratitude.

The only works which would negate grace are works which would earn our justification, so that it is deserved; that is, meritorious works. When Paul says that justification is by grace rather than by works, he is speaking of meritorious works. He simply means that our salvation is a gift which we have not earned, rather than something we have earned by our own good works. This is the point of Eph. 2:8-9. In the book of Romans he uses the term “works” to refer to perfect law-keeping – living a sinlessly perfect life. If one lived sinlessly, keeping God’s law perfectly, he would thereby earn his justification, hence would need no grace. His reward would be owed him due to his perfect works (Rom. 4:4). In the book of Romans Paul contrasts justification by grace on the conditions of an obedient faith, against justification by keeping the law perfectly so that the reward is earned and there is no grace involved. Hence, when he denies justification by works, the works to which he refers is perfect law-keeping; he is not denying that certain non-meritorious conditions must be met.

In fact, Paul makes it clear in the book of Romans that jusification by grace is conditional when he says, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand” (Rom. 5:1-2). It is by faith that we have access to God’s grace; hence, in order to be justified by grace, one must have faith (belief). Justification, therefore, is conditioned on human effort, for believing is something which men do.

Some would reply that faith is not a work performed by men, but Jesus teaches that it is. Read very carefully John 6:27-29. Jesus told the people to labor in order to have everlasting life (v. 27). Having been told to labor for everlasting life, the people asked what kind of labor they should do in order to work the works of God (v. 28). Jesus replied to this question by saying, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent” (v. 29). He thus referred to believing as work. Certainly, faith requires human effort. It does not come miraculously, apart from human effort, but through the mental effort that is involved in studying the word of God (Rom. 10:17). It involves the mental labor of thinking, reasoning, weighing evidence.

Some maintain that Jesus means that faith is a work that God does, as He miraculously produces it in the human heart, hence, that Jesus is not referring to faith as a work which men perform. However, it is obvious that the subject under discussion was what men must do. In verse 27, Jesus had taught that men must labor for everlasting life; then, in verse 28, the people had asked what works they must do. It was in answering the question regarding what works men must do that Jesus said believing was the work to be done.

Further, the Roman letter demonstrates that the faith which brings justification is faith which motivates men to obey. In Romans 1:5 and 16:25-26, Paul affirmed that the purpose of gospel preaching was to produce, not merely faith, but the obedience of faith. This principle comports with his statement to the Galations that the thing which avails is “faith which worketh by love” (Gal. 5:6). He points out to the Romans that it was through their obedience that they became free from sin (Rom. 6:17-18). Therefore, it should be understood that anytime we read that justification is by faith, the faith which is referred to is faith which moves men to obey (Gal. 5:6); and faith does not save until it has moved men to obey (James 2:17-26).

It is clear, then, that justification by grace is conditioned on a working obedient faith. Those who have never become Christians must be led by their faith to repent (Acts 3:19), confess Christ (Rom. 10:9-10), and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:27). When they have met these conditions, they still do not deserve salvation. These are not works by which one earns salvation. Nevertheless, because of their faith which produced these acts of obedience, God will graciously grant them the forgiveness of sins and they will stand justified despite their unworthiness.

Those who have become Christians, but later sin and thereby bring themselves under condemnation again, must be led by their faith to admit their sins (1 John 1:9), repent of them, and pray for forgiveness (Acts 8:22). When they do so they will still deserve punishment, but by His grace God will forgive them.

Truly, God’s grace is conditional. Men cannot impenitently persist in sin and receive God’s forgiveness, whether the sin involves immorality or corruption of the work, worship, and organization of the church. There is no promise of forgiveness apart from meeting the divinely appointed conditions. Let us praise God from the depths of our hearts that He will so graciously forgive us upon the meeting of these conditions, so that we who are so undeserving can stand justified and pure in His sight despite all our iniquities.

QUESTIONS

• What does “grace” mean and how does it apply to our salvation?
• What perversion of grace does Paul answer in Romans 6?
• What have men brought upon themselves, requiring justification of grace?
• How have modern false teachers perverted justification by grace?
• What are some Bible incidents which illustrate the principle of conditional grace?
• Explain how Paul uses the word “works” when he says we are not justified by works.
• What condition is necessary for salvation (Rom. 5:1-2)?
• Some false teachers ay that faith is not a condition required of men, but is a miraculous gift of God. Disprove that theory.
• What is the purpose of gospel preaching, according to Paul?
• What conditions of grace must be met by those who have never obeyed the gospel? By erring Christians?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 3, pp. 55-57
January 18, 1979