Truth Magazine

By Wallace H. Little

That’s right. I found a live, scared puppy in our trash can. It was about three months old, possibly younger. The can had been emptied the previous day. Someone who obviously did not want it, was trying to get rid of the animal “the easy way.” When I lowered the mouth of the can, the puppy skipped around me and ran off. I hope he found a home.

Sometimes I think we all have our “puppy in the trash can.” We have responsibilities, but do not want to fulfill them. Perhaps they are visiting the delinquent members of the congregation, going to see one who had sinned, or giving up an evening in front of the TV to teach a lost soul the gospel of Christ. Or, how about handing out Bible literature door-to-door? Or whatever. Perhaps it is not so apparent as the four-legged puppy I found, but are we not also guilty of rejecting our responsibilities sometimes? Have we not turned away when we had opportunity and ability?

The parable of the talents (Mt. 25:14-30) points out the two characteristics of responsibility: (1) ability, and (2) opportunity. Whoever put that puppy in my trash can had both, but rejected them. Thus he rejected his responsibility. What of our abilities and opportunities?

What is my “puppy in the trash can”? What is yours?

Truth Magazine XXII: 29, p. 472
July 27, 1978

By Casey A. Carlisle

Everyone has their own ideas about how to deal with children. This is fine unless of course our ideas conflict with the precepts established in God’s word. From time to time I am asked, due to being in constant association with children as a school teacher, how I deal with children. Here I present my experiences, perceptions and ideas on dealing with children.

Establish Boundaries

In dealing with children freedom is a must, but freedom must be accompanied with boundaries. Boundaries should be established with children so that the children and you know exactly what will and what will not be tolerated. Of course the boundaries being spoken of consist of the precepts and commandments found in God’s word and also the matters of judgment you must decide, e.g. how much noise do I tolerate, when does my daughter begin dating, etc.

Be Consistent

Once these boundaries are established, consistency must be practiced, if we do not want to “provoke the child to wrath.” Nothing disturbs and distresses children more than never knowing where they stand. Nothing undermines children’s security more than an adult with wide inconsistency-anything goes today, nothing is right tomorrow. Inconsistency leads to insecurity and distrust of you as a person. Establish your boundaries and, once established, enforce your border patrol. The scripture comes to mind, “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Mt. 5:37).

Be Fair

Children have a keen sense of fair-play. There is no room for favoritism when dealing with children, unless of course you want another Jacob and Esau (Gen. 25:281

Don’t threaten or promise unless you can and intend to fulfill the threat or promise. It will take only one unfulfilled threat or promise to sow the seeds of doubt and insecurity in the children. Don’t break a rule or boundary you have set with the children unless everyone concerned can see that it is an emergency or “have to” situation.

Always tell the child the truth. It is better to say that you don’t think they need to know than to risk being caught in even the most innocent and generous lie (Rev. 21:8) and you will be amazed at how much the children can accept and understand. If the children know you are trying to be fair they will accept your decisions without anger or resentment.

Finally, don’t be afraid to apologize if you’ve treated children unjustly. You’ll gain, not lose, the respect of the children for admitting your error, not to mention overcoming some of that “pride of life” (I John 2:15-17).

Don’t Be Afraid to Punish

Solomon, the wise man said (Proverbs 23:13-14), “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.” Solomon here sets the purpose for punishment-the ultimate saving of the child’s soul. Is not this the same purpose as the teaching of Christ in Mt. 5:2930? It is truly better to suffer some things in this life than to suffer an eternity in hell. We have the responsibility of guiding the children. Those of us who want to hide behind the facade of “love” Solomon again answers, (Proverbs 13:24) “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.” And for those of us who feign “tenderheartedness” Solomon answers (Proverbs 10:18) “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.”

It seems that it is better to warp a child’s behind rather than to warp his mind. Physical punishment, once completed, allows the child to “close out the case” on that particular infraction and it serves as a very effective deterrent on repeating the infraction. There are of course many other effective forms of punishment but none so well documented and recommended by God’s word. A chinese philosopher once said “Parents who are afraid to put their foot down usually have children who step on toes.”

Be An Example

Of all the people in the world that we influence by example, perhaps the children we deal with are the most influenced. Our example must be natural or real, for children can spot phonies as far as they can see them. We must be followers of Christ and his teachings if we expect to lead children in the paths of righteousness (Phil. 3:17).

We must give attention to dealing rightly and justly with children. Children can be compared to a garden, if no attention is paid to it nothing but weeds and trouble arise. If it is dealt with properly, cultivated, watered and cared for, much fruit will abound. Let’s deal as Christians with our children.

Truth Magazine XXII: 29, pp. 470-471
July 27, 1978

By Mike Willis

The Scriptures are filled with statements demonstrating that one cannot be acceptable to God without faith. Here is but a brief sampling of them:

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him (Heb. 11:6).

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned (Mk. 16:15-16).

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life . . . . He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn. 3:16, 18).

These Scriptures are sufficient to demonstrate that one cannot be acceptable to God without saving faith. The unbeliever is condemned as a sinner before God; in order to be saved, his heart must be cleansed by faith (Acts 15:7).

Inasmuch as faith is so indispensable to one’s salvation, we raise the question, “How does one obtain faith?” A more important question cannot be imagined. It is tantamount to asking, “What must I do to be saved?” Though there are other things which a man must do to be saved in addition to having faith, no one can be saved from his sins without faith. Hence, we raise the question, “How does one obtain faith?”

The Calvinist Answer

The Calvinist answers the question somewhat differently than the Scriptures answer it. According to Calvinist theology, God has predetermined who will and who will not be saved. The former are known as the elect and the latter are known as the reprobate. This number, according to the Calvinist, is so fixed that it can neither be added to nor diminished. Furthermore, the choice as to whether one became a part of the elect or the reprobate was not made on the basis of anything which God saw in the man such as whether the elect were trying to live righteously and the reprobate wickedly. Rather, the choice was made arbitrarily on the basis of God’s sovereign will.

To the elect, God illumined the heart to give them faith. Hence, Calvin wrote as follows:

Here Paul calls faith “the work of God,” and instead of distinguishing it by an adjective, appropriately calls it “good pleasure.” Thus he denies that man himself initiates faith, and not satisfied with this, he adds that it is a manifestation of God’s power . . . . And God, to show forth his liberality more fully in such a glorious gift, does not bestow it upon all indiscriminately, but by a singular privilege gives it to those to whom he will (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter II, Section 36).

Notice that Calvin makes faith the work of God. Man does not have the ability to believe the word which is preached unto him until the Holy Spirit illumines his heart. According to the Calvinist, man is born totally depraved, unable to do anything good, being corrupted in all of his nature. Hence, he cannot even believe the gospel of Jesus Christ until the Holy Spirit illumines him. The preaching of the word of God by itself cannot produce faith, according to Calvin.

And this bare and external proof of the Word of God should have been amply sufficient to engender faith, did not our blindness and perversity prevent it. But our mind has such an inclination to vanity that it can never cleave fast to the truth of God; and it has such a dullness that it is always blind to the light of God’s truth. Accordingly, without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the word can do nothing (Ibid., Book III, Chapter II, Section 33).

Indeed, the Word of God is like the sun, shining upon all those to whom it is proclaimed, but with no effect among the blind. Now, all of us are blind by nature in this respect. Accordingly, it cannot penetrate into our minds unless the Spirit, as the inner teacher, through his illumination makes entry for it (Ibid., Book III, Chapter II, Section 34).

The consequences of this pernicious doctrine should be evident. If a man cannot exercise faith until the Holy Spirit illumines him to make him receptive to the word of God, man can do nothing in response to the gospel. Consequently, if a man has no faith, he has no faith because the Holy Spirit did not come to illumine his heart to give him faith. If the Holy Spirit did not come to illumine his heart to give him faith, He did not come because the Father had not selected that man as one of the elect. Hence, the man who is lost is lost because the Father willed that he be lost.

The Scriptures never taught such a damnable doctrine. The doctrine destroys any initiative in man to do the works of righteousness, to take the gospel into all the world, to pray, etc. This doctrine states that man can do nothing unless God has predetermined that he be among the elect. He cannot have faith unless God personally gives it to him. Hence, he cannot be saved because God does not want him to be saved. (Contrast this doctrine with the following verses: 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4; Jn. 3:16; Ezek. 18:21-23; 33:11.)

The mourner’s bench method of salvation stems from the Calvinist doctrine of salvation. The man is expected to go to the mourner’s bench and pray for God to send the Holy Spirit to illumine the mind that it might have faith. Hence, you find a man who already believes in God and the deity of Jesus Christ, has already repented of his sins, and is willingly submitting his life to God, praying for faith! The man cannot be saved, according to this doctrine, until he experiences some better felt than told sensation. If he does not experience it, he is not one of God’s elect.

What Saith The Scriptures?

Having explained the Calvinist answer regarding how one obtains faith, let us now contrast that with what the Scriptures teach us regarding how one obtains faith. Let us begin with Romans 10. In verse 13, Paul wrote, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Then, he explained how one is able to call upon the name of the Lord.

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? (v. 14).

The implications of this verse are as follows: (1) a man must hear the gospel preached in order to believe; (2) a man must believe in the Lord in order to call upon Him; (3) a man must call upon the Lord in order to be saved. Notice the implications of this verse for our question, “How does one obtain faith?” Faith comes through hearing the message preached. Hence, Paul concluded, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (v. 17).

That the presentation of the word of God is what produces faith is presented explicitly elsewhere in the Scriptures. It is also evident from a study of John 20:30-31. John wrote,

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.

The presentation of the evidence in the gospels was understood by John to be sufficient to produce faith in the one that read them or heard them read. The faith which would be produced was saving faith.

The implications of the Great Commission also lead us to the same conclusion. Jesus said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15-16). The preaching of the gospel was able to produce faith in the man who wanted to follow the Lord.

The book of Acts confirms the conclusion which I have reached. When Peter preached the first gospel message, his preaching pricked the hearts of the three thousand who obeyed the gospel (2:37). The Samaritans “believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ” (8:12); hence, his preaching produced faith in them. When Paul was in Iconium with Barnabas, “they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed” (14:1). Their speaking the word of God produced faith. As Peter discussed his preaching to the house of Cornelius, he said, “Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe” (15:7). Indeed, men were led to faith in Christ through the preaching of the word (cf. John 17:20).

Conclusion

Faith, my dear friend, comes through the presentation of the word of God. The man is not a man of faith who merely has a warm feeling toward God; faith is not warm sentiment toward God. Faith is the result of the presentation of the facts of the gospel. A man’s faith is proportionately as strong as his knowledge of the word of God. A man of faith is a man who believes the word of God and spends his time trying to do what it says.

You can be a man of faith. You will not have to live your life in doubt as to whether or not God wants you to be saved. He does want you to be saved; He proved that He loves you and wants you to be saved by sending His Son Jesus to die for your sins. The question is not whether or not God wants you to be saved but whether or not you want to be saved. Do you want to go to heaven when you die? Do you want to live forever with God and escape the fires of Hell? If so, turn to God, believing His word. Make up your mind to repent of your sins and live obedient to the word of God. Be baptized to have your sins washed away through the precious blood of Christ. God wants you to be saved; do you want to be saved?

Truth Magazine XXII: 29, pp. 467-469
July 27, 1978

By Dale Smelser

There is some good usable material in this book, and some that probably was included principally because it was part of a paper on a theme Dr. Arthur Custance wanted to include in this volume. His information comparing the argument from teleology to the inadequacy of chance is strong. There is argument compatible with the quoted statement of Nobel Laureate A. V. Hill concerning “innumerable examples” in nature of superb engineering, which invites acknowledgment of an Engineer. Custance also examines statements of evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson and, under the scrutiny of a fellow scientist, leaves evolution’s postulates looking bare indeed.

His chapter on “Growing Evidence of Creative Activity” is a worthy addition to material published by others, not simply a rehash of the Creation Research Society’s material. This is not to disparage that, but Custance does his own thinking. He is effective in dealing with evolutionary “dead ends,” showing that just where the evolutionist needs a bridge, he never finds it. New types always suddenly appear with 99 percent of their history missing. Custance observes and demonstrates that the evolutionist has a faith based on “things not seen.” He demonstrates the enormity of the evolutionist’s problem and shows why a few evolutionists such as R. B. Goldschmidt are moved to conclude that no intermediate forms ever existed or were required. “He (Goldschmidt) proposed for example, that on one occasion a reptile laid an egg and to mother’s enormous surprise, a bird hatched from it “

Custance deals with problems the evolutionist presents to the believer in creation also. He does not run away from problems. He sometimes speculates as to possible and plausible solutions. Scientific data is (are) presented. For instance, the extraordinary variability of the human form in history, which the evolutionists see as progression, Custance is able to explain environmentally and genetically, and as contemporaneous.

His material on convergence is provocative. Convergence involves the existence of forms with similar features because of similar need, and which look alike, but which are phylogenetically unrelated. This fact is inconsistent with evolution’s argument from comparative anatomy, which says that the similarity of a character in different species shows common ancestry. Custance argues that homologies (similarity of structure) are neither due to chance, need, nor descent, but to a built in-design factor. His range of information is impressive.

He then, upon the basis of convergence, demonstrates how human skulls may be found sharing characteristics with apes, and yet be unrelated to them. He details how habits of culture, especially when sharing a similar diet and eating habits with apes can, given the human skull’s plasticity, produce ape-like characteristics. Diagrams and pictures help make the point. He believes of course, that such skulls represent man in a degraded state, not that in which man began. He does not believe that skull shapes we consider crude are necessarily the ancestors of more “refined” shapes.

In his section on “Evolution: An Irrational Faith,” Custance’s tone changes. He has thus far been mild, challenging but restrained. Here he takes off the gloves and, mixing metaphors, drives nails in a coffin he has preassembled for evolution. Biblical critics who contend 2 Peter had a different author from Peter because of differences in vocabulary, temperament, and style, would doubt the same authorship for the previous material. But considering what he says, no one can suspect him of being irresponsible.

While he has some good material challenging the “survival of the fittest” as an explanation for the order of life, he makes, I believe, a weak argument in contending frequent survival of the unfit. Some of his examples undoubtedly would become extinct and some did. He does, though, effectively refute the concept that nature is in a struggle wherein creatures are “red in tooth and claw.” In dealing with such, some of this argument may seem to deal with aspects of evolution that the scientific layman would consider minor. But taken as a whole, he is tearing down cherished strongholds that have been dear in evolutionary rhetoric, minor or not. Such should embarrass the evolutionist, but some of this could have been omitted and a condensed version of the book, wherein is a lot of usable substantive material, would probably be sufficient for most of us. But who is to say that how he wrote it and what he included will not effectively shake some young infatuated evolutionist?

Another feature of the book is an old idea of creation Custance accepts. He believes that God performed series of creations, starting with plant life that could grow in sand and crushed rock. With its decay came soil available and ready for the creation of other plant life. With that the earth was successively ready for new forms of life that God then brought into existence. When everything was ready for man, great catastrophes occurred, destroying most of this, and God then in six days brought into existence the order he desired to have and preserve, of all that he had before made.

In this he sides with Dathe and Rotherham who render Genesis 1:2: “But the earth had become a ruin and desolation,” instead of “And the earth was waste and void.” Thus in some instances the text says, “God created.” But in others where there was a remnant of life left. “The earth brought forth.” He contends this is not a concession to geology, and indeed attacks principles of the geological column imagined by the evolutionist. His is an idea that had gained some acceptance in the nineteenth century only to be eclipsed by Darwin’s Origin of Species.

Custance supposes that a tilt in the earth’s axis would have brought to pass such a catastrophe as he proposes, freezing animals in zones no longer temperate, and wrenching the earth’s crust, burying entire populations. Compare the frozen mammoths and gigantic animal graveyards. However, his scheme presupposes the existence of the sun during the earlier ordering of life, and in the Genesis scheme, the sun did not appear until the fourth day of that creation. Genesis is not just an ordering of life on the earth in an existent universe, it is the creation of the universe. There are many other arguments, I believe, against the position, but I am content merely to present the position here. For many it will detract from the book, but if one allows each set of information to stand on its own, he will find some value in the book.

My personal reaction to these four volumes? I like Noah’s Three Sons best. I liked Man in Adam and in Christ least, for reasons heretofore chronicled.

Truth Magazine XXII: 29, pp. 472-473
July 27, 1978