Truth Magazine

By Paul A. Jones

With the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, the question of man’s origin has been settled once and for all-man descended from the monkeys just as Darwin said, right? And in this enlightened age no intelligent person-certainly no scientist-questions the fact of evolution, right? Wrong!

For years it has been assumed (repeat, assumed) that Darwin proved the theory of evolution and, having proved it, disproved the book of Genesis in the process. But, I suggest that to draw this conclusion is to misstate the facts. For, as any reader of The Origin will learn, Darwin was not at all convinced of the finality of his thesis. In the sixth chapter of his book (Modern Library edition) he writes, “Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered” (Darwin, Op. cit., p. 124). Burroughs informs us, “Darwin was as far from being as sure of the truth of Darwinism as many of his disciples were, and still are. He said in 1860, in a letter to one of his American correspondents, ‘I have never for a moment doubted that . . . much of my book will be proved erroneous.’ Again he said, 1862, ‘I look at it as absolutely certain that very much in the Origin will be proved rubbish'” (“A Critical Glance Into Darwin,” Atlantic Monthly, Aug. 20, 1920, p. 238).

At this point, one may be thinking: But what about the fossils? And what about those experiments with the fruit flies, the gill-slits, mutations, and so on-don’t they prove evolution? Let’s look at these “proofs” one by one and see what they prove. As for the fossil record, Dr. Merson Davies, who holds two doctorates for research in geology, believes that the fossils support creation, not evolution (see L. Merson Davies, The Bible and Modern Science (1953), p. 6). Douglas Dewar, V. Z. S., a converted evolutionist, writes, “The creation. theories explain the fossil record far better than do those of evolution, and, as the latter involve impossible transformation, they ought to be abandoned” (Dewar, Transactions of the Victoria Institute (1944), p. 75). We agree.

Often cited as proof of evolution is the fruit fly (drosophila melanogaster). But; .breeding experiments with the fruit fly, far from proving evolution, have proved the very reverse (see Douglas Dewar, The Transformist Illusion (1957), p. 150). H. J. Muller. states that “most mutations are bad, . . . In fact, good ones are so rare that we can consider them as’ all bad” (Time, Nov. 11, 1946). Muller is a geneticist at Indiana University.

What about the :recapitulation theory and the argument from embryology on “gill-slits”? The recapitulation theory (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) is an unfortunate “proof” of evolution, as it. does not agree with the facts. As Dewar pointed out, we know, from mammalian history that teeth were developed before tongues, but in the embryo the reverse is the case (Dewar, The Transformist Illusion (1957), p. 208). Darwin’s old geology professor, Adam Sedgwick, said: “After fifty years of research and close examination, the recapitulation theory is still without satisfactory proof” (Sedgwick, Darwin & Modern Science, p. 176). The argument on gill-slits, so-called, is no better than the others. Dr. A. R. Short, M.D., F.R.C.S., is authority for the statement that “the ‘gill-slits’ are not slits at all in mammals; they are grooves between the arches that support the blood vessels necessary to supply blood to the forepart of the body, including the developing brain. In fish, these grooves become perforated, and gills are formed; in the mammalian embryo they are not perforated, and there are no gills” (A. R. Short, Modern Discovery and The Bible (1955), pp. 64, 106).

The theory of evolution simply bristles with difficulties. For one thing, evolutionists cannot account for the migratory instinct in birds on the basis of evolution. For another, the absence of transitional forms between the major groups of animals; for another, evolution cannot account for the origin of chlorophyl. And there are many other serious difficulties evolutionists cannot explain.

If the arguments for evolution are so weak, one might ask, why are scientists so overwhelmingly in favor of it? The truth is, there are a large number of scientists who do not believe in evolution. The Creation Research Society of Ann Arbor, Michigan, numbers among its member over 400 men who hold advanced degrees in various scientific disciplines. All of these men oppose the theory of evolution for scientific reasons. Dr. Frank Marsh, Ph. D., biologist says that “if evolutionists had not wasted a generation of hard work in trying to pick up a trail which never existed, biology would be at least a generation further along in the discovery of the laws and processes which do exist” (Marsh, Evolution, Creation and Science (1947),. p. 285).

That man was created, not evolved, is the testimony of Moses (Gen. 1:27; 2:7, 21-22), Job (Job 10:8, 11). Paul (Acts 17:29; Rom. 5:13), Solomon (Eccl. 7:29; 12:1), Christ (Matt. 19:4), and of God Himself (Gen. 1:26; 3:19). In his fine book The King of The Earth (1962), Erich Sauer writes: “Thomas Carlyle was once at a meeting of learned men in which the problem of man’s descent was being discussed, and was asked to give his opinion. ‘Gentlemen,’ he said, ‘you place man a little higher than the tadpole. I hold with the ancient singer: ‘Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels’ (Psalm 8:6).” Ruth Benedict, in Race: Science and Politics (1943), points out that “the Bible story of Adam and Eve, father and mother of the whole human race, told centuries ago the same truth that science has shown today: that all the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin” (Benedict, Op. cit., 1943, p. 171).

It is unfortunate, but true, that many who embrace evolution do so because of a bias against the supernatural. Thus, D.M.S. Watson, British biologist writes, “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved . . . to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” Another evolutionist, Sir Arthur Keith, confessed that while “evolution is unproved and unprovable” he believed it because creation was “unthinkable.” Have you been brainwashed by evolution? The case for creation is more convincing.

Truth Magazine XXI: 37, p. 588
September 22, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

No one desires unity more than the children of God! God’s people desire unity with Communists and other atheists, with pagans and occultists, with denominational people and irreligious people, with members of the Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ, with people of all nations and races and continents and climes. God’s children seek unity with rich and poor, educated and uneducated, high and low, kings and servants.

But there is a very hard question which must be faced! What is the basis of that unity which God teaches us to seek with all men? Are we simply to find the lowest common denominator which might be shared with all these peoples, and unite upon that? Or, the lowest common denominator with some one or two groups of them? Very simply, Christ prayed that His own disciples might be sanctified and unified “through thy truth: thy word is truth.” Then He added, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:17-21).

No power, premise, or philosophy in heaven or on earth is approved by God as the basis of unity . . . none except His own truth. The gospel of Christ is “the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” Men may lose confidence in that revelation, despise it, call it foolish or weak. But “the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Cor. 1:18-25). God’s truth will unite all men in God’s Son. When God’s children preach God’s truth in all its fulness, they are seeking unity with all men. Everyone who obeys that truth is united with all the family of God in Jesus Christ.

After arising from the dead, Jesus sent the Apostles into all the world. “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” (Mark 16:15-16). Shortly, the day of Pentecost came and the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostles to declare “the wonderful works of God.” Three thousand souls repented of every sin and were baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of those sins. “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved . . . . And believers were the more added to the Lord” (Acts 2:47; 5:14). Obedience to divine truth united men in Jesus Christ (Acts 2:1-47).

How can we maintain unity with God and His family once it has been established? When the church was under the guidance of inspired men, how did it maintain unity as various issues and problems arose? “All scripture is given by inspiration of God . . . that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The scriptures answer this question as they do every religious issue. A study of the New Testament reveals that the problem of disunity raised by various issues was met by a solution provided in the inspired message, with the result that unity was maintained by all who accepted that message. Issues . . . Inspired Message . . . Unity. That was the pattern. As we consider the issues that arose to threaten the unity of God’s family, we will notice that the inspired message was a sufficient basis of unity for those who walked by faith.

An issue arose regarding the Christian’s relation to the Law of Moses. Now, if a man wanted to be circumcised, embrace certain distinctives of Jewish nationality, and even devote certain days for special devotion and reverence to God, that was his own personal prerogative. But when men began to preach these things as a part of the Gospel and to therefore bind them as matters of salvation and fellowship, the sword of the Spirit was drawn. The issue was pressed by certain Jews: must Gentiles be circumcised and keep the Old Law to be saved?

The inspired men stood together and spoke in one united voice by the Holy Spirit (see Acts 15, Gal. 2). They publicly refuted the Jews who were spreading this doctrinal error which bound Gentiles under Moses’ Law. Peter argued that God necessarily implied that the Gentiles were saved without the Old Law when He gave “them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us.” In that way, God showed there was no difference between Jew and Gentile, thus all men could purify “their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:7-11). Barnabas and Paul declared “what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them,” thus showing God approved the apostolic practice of preaching the very same gospel to the Gentiles which was preached to the Jews-which gospel did not include the Old Law (Acts 15:12). James produced a direct statement of divine revelation from “the words of the prophets” which showed that God had always planned to save all men in the New Covenant of Christ (Acts 15:16-18). Finally, an inspired letter was sent out affirming that the Gentiles could be saved without the Law of Moses. The letter allowed no diversity on that subject (no “unity in diversity”) and condemned men for binding where God did not bind. The silence of inspired men in not having spoken what the Jews were teaching was held sacred-“to whom we gave no such commandment” (Acts 15:22-32). Along with the books of Romans and Galatians, inspired men sought to stop the mouths of false teachers on this subject-even to the point of charging them with preaching “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9). This inspired revelation was the basis for maintaining unity with God and His true family. Those who continued to “dissent” and appeal for “tolerance” and “brotherly diversity” were granted no concessions or compromises, neither in heaven nor on earth. They were fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4). They had broken the unity, they were out of the fellowship of God and the saints (Rom. 16:17-18).

Another issue which arose was this one: can we know exactly when the day of Christ is at hand? Paul dealt with the coming of Christ in 1 and 2 Thessalonians. He cautioned the brethren to “be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand” (2 Thess. 2:2). It is very possible that the error being taught on that subject contributed to the attitude and conduct of those who were “working not at all, but are busybodies” (3:11). At any rate, those who were not working and all others were obligated to “line themselves up” with God’s revelation rather than expecting God’s revelation to make room for their false ideas. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” Those who failed to do this did not have the Father or the Son; those who separated themselves from God were to find themselves separated from the family of God on earth: “And if any man obey not our word by this, epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:14). Unity was based on conformity to God’s revelation. It was possible to know whether a man held “the traditions” and obeyed “this epistle,” because the revelation was adapted to man’s understanding. Paul left no room for diversity based upon such skeptical expressions as, “Whose interpretation of the ‘traditions’ or ‘epistle’?”

Several factors contributed to a serious threat to the unity of God’s people at Corinth. If all the problems and issues at Corinth could be boiled down to one question, it would be, “What shall a divided, weak church do?” There were problems over preachers, several moral and ethical issues, some doctrinal questions, differences over how to conduct public worship, and questions about such mundane affairs as marriage and feasts. Early in the first letter Paul referred to the unity shared by saints in Christ “the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord”-and then immediately issued a clarion call for brethren to maintain that unity with the Lord and one another. “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:9-10).

Paul’s letters made plain that he did not mean for them to just “get together” they best way they could find. The solution to each of their problems and questions was attention to the inspired letters of Paul. He assured them that what he has taught and was still teaching them was also taught by Timothy, whom he was sending to them and “who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church” (1 Cor. 4:17). Paul commanded them to sever from fellowship one man, said they were not following Christ unless they followed Paul’s example, and announced divine “condemnation” could be expected upon those who did not receive his teaching (1 Cor. 5:3-5; 11:1; 11:34). He was not writing mere helpful “suggestions,” but “the commandments of the Lord” (14:37). Nothing was said about part of his writings being “gospel” and part being “doctrine”-with conformity required in one and diversity allowed in the other-but appealed for obedience to all of his writings without distinction: “stand fast in the faith” (16:13). In the second letter, he commanded those who had submitted to the first; they had been sorry, repented, and made correction in keeping with Paul’s instructions. Concerning those who “have sinned” without making correction, he warns that he will arrive shortly and, “I will not spare.” Therefore, all at Corinth were admonished, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.” If they were not in obedience to Paul’s instructions, they were not in obedience to Jesus Christ himself and therefore would be rejected (“reprobates”) (2 Cor. 7:8-11; 12:20-13:5). The basis of Approval, Acceptance, and Unity was the inspired message!

The brethren at Colosse, and others, were faced with a number of questions which are dealt with in Colossians. “Shall we make concessions to human philosophy, keep the Old Law, worship angels, be ascetics?” Before dealing with these and other matters, Paul reminded the Colossians of their hope and where they learned it “the hope which is laid up for you in heard before in the word of the They must “continue in the faith and be not moved away from the exalted Christ, then spoke of “Christ in you, the hope of glory; whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom” (1:5, 23, 27-29). Notice that Paul used terms like the word, the truth, the gospel, the faith, warning, teaching without distinction-whenever he was teaching and whatever he was teaching, he was preaching Christ.

In Christ as revealed in Paul’s letter was “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” They must continue in Paul’s teaching, all of it. “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith, as ye have been taught …. And ye are complete in him” (2:3-10). This would exclude human philosophy, the Old Law, along with all “the commandments and doctrines of men” (2:8-23). Also, the brethren must live pure and holy lives, setting their mind “on things above, not on things on the earth” (chapts. 3-4). In other words, they were to hold fast the Divine Revelation. They were not to compromise or concede anything to the forces of error. Maintaining unity in God’s family depended upon strict adherence to the Inspired Message. That was the only way they could abide in Christ, maintain their hope, and be “complete in him.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 37, pp. 585-587
September 22, 1977

By Bill Cavender

Last November it was my good pleasure and privilege to spend two to three hours a day for five days with about thirty different young men who are preaching and/or who. plan to give their lives in preaching the gospel of Christ. This was a refreshing experience for this.: preacher of fifty years in age and thirty years in preaching. It caused me to look again into my own heart, to examine myself as to my own love for God, for Christ, for the scriptures, and for the souls of lost people. Vicariously, and to a small degree, I caught Again . a glimpse of myself thirty years ago, beginning to preach, with all :the dedication, sincerity, determination, zeal and anticipation .of a useful life in God’s service and kingdom which I observed for five days in most of those young men who met and talked with me

My task with those men was to talk with them, teach, and discuss with them the “Work of a Gospel Preacher.”: We tried to include in these discussions, and in the material presented, such topics as the preacher’s attitude and disposition, habits, marriage, family, wife, children, child-rearing, relationships with brethren (elders, deacons, women, other preachers, etc.), preaching, condemnation of error and false teachers, study habits, prayer life, visiting, etc., and not just confine our .remarks and material specifically to the preacher’s work.

In the beginning of our classes together, I asked each of these young preachers to write a paragraph or two, stating to me their reasons for desiring to preach and what they hoped to accomplish by preaching the gospel of Christ. Some of these statements touched me deeply, and caused me to re-examine my own motives and purposes these many years later. These young preachers helped me, I believe, more than I helped them. I desire now to share with you some of their statements, convictions and ideals.

One preacher, age 21, married one year, wrote: “I want to preach the gospel for several reasons. First, because I don’t think I would be happy doing anything else. Preaching the gospel is the greatest work that any man could undertake, and I feel that it’s the most needed work that could be done on this earth. I think that I have a certain amount of ability, and that I should use what I have in service to the Lord. I’ve learned a lot in the past year and yet I feel as though I know very little. I engaged in things and believed things less than a year ago that I wouldn’t think of doing or believing now, because I have studied the truth and seen that I was wrong. I want to study and know God’s will and to live to the best of my ability the life which He intends for a Christian to live. I’m concerned with the destiny of my own soul and the souls of others, and my highest accomplishment as a gospel preacher would be to live in such a way as to be granted mercy in the day of judgment and to be saved. In striving for this goal I hope that I might teach others the truth that they might have a hope of salvation also.”

One brother, age 31, married, with children, wrote: “Why am I preaching the gospel — I don’t have any other choice. There is nothing else that I can do and be satisfied in life. I feel that God has given me certain talents and abilities and I must do all that I can to use them faithfully in His service. What do I hope to accomplish by preaching the gospel? To be able to stand before my God and Maker in the day of Judgment and return, with an increase, the talents that He has given me. With God as my Helper, I hope that during whatever time He grants me, I may be able to point some to ‘the way,’ bring some back to ‘the way,’ and help others grow in Christ.”

Two brethren, both age 20, unmarried, wrote: “Two reasons seem to come into my mind when I think about why I’ve decided to make it my life’s work to preach. One is because in being raised as a preacher’s son I feel that I have a certain natural inclination to preach. A second and more mature reason is that my high regard for the work of preaching Christ is such that I would not be satisfied doing anything less. Again I can identify two goals which I hope to attain through preaching. One is to satisfy my own desire to do the most profitable, worthwhile work possible and secondly to save others. I think in both of these goals not only would I be blessed personally, and others also, but God would be glorified through my life …. Why do I want to preach? It was in the second year of grade school when I decided what my life’s work would be. Since that time there has never been a serious second thought as to do something else in my life. I want to preach the gospel and do it as best I can. Why? Simply because I personally feel that my soul would be lost if I didn’t. Also having grown up in the home of a preacher, I’ve seen all the trials and heartaches; having to move to a new town, having to change schools and make new friends, hearing the phone ring in the middle of the night, seeing Dad have to go to the hospital or funeral home in the early hours of the morning, being with sickness and death, and seeing all the problems preachers must go through and that brethren put upon them. Living with all this all my life and seeing what a preacher must face, all I can say is I wouldn’t want .it any other way in my life for years to come. What do I hope to accomplish? There are basically two things that I feel are important goals in my life as a preacher. First of all I want to save myself and go to heaven, and, second, to take as many people with me as possible. This is the crux of my ambition and all I hope to accomplish centers around this.”

A brother, age 19, single, a preacher’s son, wrote: “My father, brother, uncle and cousin are all preachers. I have been preaching for a year now, so you might say that by now I should know why I want to preach. However, I can’t really put my finger on the one, predominant reason I want to preach. My dad told me, if you can keep from preaching, then don’t do it. Of course he wasn’t telling me that preaching was such a lousy job that if at all possible I should avoid it. What he was saying was that if preaching wasn’t something that I felt that I just had to do, then I had no business doing it. Why do I want to preach? Because after preaching for one year I really can’t imagine not doing it. I feel I have the ability and for me not to use that ability in service to God would seem wrong to me.”

A preacher, 23 years old, married, father of one child, wrote: “I plan to preach because I believe that I can fill a need for someone to spread the Gospel of our Lord. I believe that I was put on this earth to serve God and man (in that order). I feel that through preaching I can discharge these two responsibilities. I plan to move to Canada next summer and work in either the Sundridge or Bancroft area, helping men there for maybe one or two years until I learn the area and its needs. When I move to the place where I see the most need, I will try to stay there no less than five years and will plan to stay a lifetime. I think a lot of money and time is wasted by constantly moving from one place to another. I will either go to a small congregation and help it grow, or I will begin one and help it grow. My short and long range goal is to teach men and women the truth about God, and to lead a good Christian life as an example to all.”

What is my purpose in reproducing these statements and thoughts here? To cause our readers and brethren to consider the thoughts and purposes of some young preachers. To help us all to appreciate and respect those young, dedicated men who will serve God, serve their brethren, and use their lives in the greatest work in the world. And to, hopefully, cause all of us who preach to pause and think, to re-examine our own hearts and motives, to be sure that we have not lost that sincerity and dedication to God and our fellows which are so necessary to the accomplishment of our work and the salvation of our own soul. Perhaps, in some later articles, I can share with you the thoughts of other young men as they expressed them from their hearts to mine.

Truth Magazine XXI: 37, pp. 584-585
September 22, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

Dr. Albert Garner is a Missionary Baptist preacher, author, and debater. He is one of the most capable Baptist debaters. He has written numerous tracts, booklets, and books defending Baptist doctrine. He is well educated. He has served as the head and director of Missionary Baptist schools and organizations. He is editor of The Baptist Anchor, a monthly magazine. When Mr. Garner speaks, he speaks as an eminently qualified representative of Missionary Baptist doctrine.

Mr. Garner has a brother, Eugene. Though his brother is not as well known, he is an able student and exponent of Baptist doctrine. Eugene Garner is an excellent writer. Eugene has assisted his brother, Albert, in debate. This shows the confidence that the esteemed Dr. has in his brother’s ability.

Gatherings and Gleanings of the Garner’s on Apostasy

On the subject of apostasy, the doctrine of perseverance, better known as “once saved, always saved” or “once in grace, always in grace,” the Garner brothers are apparently poles apart. As witness thereto, note:

Albert Garner’s views on the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy are a matter of public record. See the Kelley-Garner Debate and the Garner-Smith Debate. J. T. Smith and asked Dr. Garner, “Is the eternal salvation of the child of God, saved by the blood, absolutely unconditional in that he is not required to do anything to go to heaven? Dr. Garner’s Answer: ‘YES.’ ” Smith inquired further, “Is it possible for a child of God, saved by the blood, to commit all the sins listed in Rom. 1:28-32 and Gal. 5:19-21 and die without repenting of any of them and still go to heaven? Dr. Garner’s Answer: ‘Yes.'” Along with Hoyt Chastain, Wayne Camp, and other Baptist preachers, Garner believes that a child of God may die drunk, guilty of adultery and murder and still go to heaven!

Eugene Garner’s views are not as widely known as his brother’s are. Eugene sat as the side of his brother when he took the positions above on the doctrine of apostasy. However, he has made statements which are diametrically opposed to those of his more famous brother. But let Eugene speak for himself:

“On the other hand, this faith may be: denied (1 Tim. 5:8; Rev. 2:13); departed or erred from (1 Tim. 4:1; 6:101; cast off (1 Tim. 5:12!; and overthrown (2 Tim. 2:181. . . “Whatever these verses may infer, they certainly do not teach an inevitable perseverance of all the saved in a walk that be acceptable to God. They do not teach the principle of ‘once-in-the-faith, always-in-the-faith.’ They do not hold forth the promise of a glorious inheritance in the kingdom of God for any who fall to: continue, abide, or walk in the divinely appointed paths of faith-obedience.

“It is dangerous to be presumptuous; it is wise, even for saved men, to heed the warnings of the Scriptures (1 Cor. 10:12). Such as are truly wise will give earnest, diligent heed to the things they have heard-lest the stream of eternal blessings pass them by.

“. . . But to assume that such a one-point-in-time exercise of faith guarantees the experience of ‘every spiritual blessing’ in perpetuity is to go beyond the promise of the Scriptures and to deceive one’s self. The experience of ‘all spiritual blessings’ is contingent upon one’s continuance in faith-whatever trusted preacher, prophet, angel, missionary or grandmother may teach to the contrary (1 Tim. 2:15; Col. 1:23; comp. Heb. 3:12-14)” (Eugene Garner, “The Real Danger!!,” The Clarion Herald, October 9, 1974, pp. 3, 4).

. . “Any doctrine of ‘perseverance’ that tends to confuse or compromise the doctrine of responsible Christian behavior needs more careful consideration in the light of the Scriptures” (Eugene Garner, The Clarion Hearald, May 18, 1977. p. 21).

“Absolutely Unconditional” Vs.”Is Contingent”

Albert Garner says the salvation of the child of God is “absolutely unconditional.” Eugene Garner says, “The experience of ‘all spiritual blessings’ is contingent upon one’s continuance in faith. ” There can be no harmony or reconciliation of these two positions. It is Albert versus Eugene, or Garner versus Garner. One or the other is wrong; both cannot be right. If Eugene is correct, he had better straighten out his brother. If Albert has the truth, it does not matter. Eugene can be wrong, teach false doctrine, contradict his brother and Baptist doctrine and be saved in heaven regardless of how much harm he does. After all, Albert Garner believes that all the sins a child of God may commit “from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger.” So, even if Eugene is wrong, even if he perverts the truth, he has nothing to worry about!

Now, either the salvation of the child of God is “absolutely unconditional,” or it “is contingent upon one’s continuance in faith?” Which is it? Will either one of the Garner brothers explain?

“Confuse Or Compromise”

Was Albert Garner guilty of confusing or compromising the doctrine of “Responsible Christian Behavior” when he said that a child of God may die guilty of the works of the flesh and still be saved? Was he, Eugene? Oh, well, if Albert is right, it will not matter anyway. According to him, a child of God may die guilty of the most hideous, heinous sins and still enter eternal glory. Surely, then, a little confusing or compromising of “Responsible Christian Behavior” will not condemn!

Conclusion: No, we are not making light of the seriousness of these issues. I believe Eugene Garner has stated the truth in the quotations cited above. If he has indeed stated the truth, all his Baptist brethren are wrong. If I have somehow misinterpreted these men, I would appreciate a clarification. If there is a reply, we will be happy to consider it and to make correction if necessary.

Truth Magazine XXI: 37, p. 583
September 22, 1977