Truth Magazine

By James W. Rury

To one who is curious about the miracle of nature each spring and who wonders about the perpetual wagging of a dog’s tail, it is natural that he also be intrigued by the mysteries of history. The pyramids of Egypt, the knowledge the Babylonians had of astronomy, the mathematic accomplishments of the Incas, Stonehenge, the stone figures of Easter Island, mysterious mounds in various locations just to name a few – for one to gaze at and wonder!

There is popular speculation that beings from outer space accomplished some of these feats – or perhaps they taught our forefathers how to count well and how to stack rocks so neatly. Thousands of copies of books expounding such theories have been sold to the public that seeks the fanciful spectacular. The titles of some of the books hardly indicate serious science – “Gods from Outer Space, ” “We Are Not the First” and “Chariot of the Gods.”

The question is often asked: “What do those theories about life in outer space do to the Bible?” The inquiry deserves a forthright reply. Some unexplained events of the past and speculation of the present should in no way undermine one’s confidence in the Bible account of creation, Adam and Eve or any other scriptural story. For one thing, Genesis 1:1 introduces the heavens (the universe) and the earth and from then on deals primarily with just the earth and man’s existence. References are further made to the universe as a demonstration of God’s majesty and creative power. It would not affect God’s statements about the earth if there were life somewhere else in the universe.

Also keep in mind that fanciful speculations, “sightings” and “guesstimations” do not prove anything.1 Observation of boasting and guessing in the realm of government or by proponents of the theory of evolution – or just a perusal of the sports page should indicate the fallacy of such declarations. It is easy to assert, to predict and to claim – it is quite another, thing to produce conclusive evidence! Folklore, legend and imagination can spin some good tales that fall upon open ears of those who seek heroes in the past or in the future. Greatness to them is only in history or in prophecy. The fact that men in the past have done and said some things that are hard to explain is not at all surprising to me.2 To be unexplained does not mean that something is unexplainable.

Bible belief is not founded upon boastful assertions or spectacular theories. The Bible demonstrates that its writers were inspired and accurate by its fulfilled prophecies, pre-scientific statements,3 historical accuracy, documented miracles and by the life and teachings of Christ. Our question is, “Can the theories of men who would belittle the Bible in their intellectual games of guessing offer any equal basis for belief??”

Then again the ingenuity of man himself is one of the most fascinating facts to wonder about. Man’s nature and capabilities evidence intelligent creation – not just oversight by prehistoric, extraterrestrial astronauts! The adaptive and ingenious abilities of American soldiers in World War II are legendary, It is said that they, given a few hours in battle, had a fox hole dug and soon had it fixed up with most of the “comforts of home.” The marvels of science are numerous and obvious. Can you imagine explaining to your great-grandfather that one day doctors could take out his heart and give it to someone else to use?

There is no indication that the intelligence of men of the past was any less than ours. Perhaps they were greater! Considering the fact that they did not eat cold cereal for breakfast, they never heard of cholesterol or pollution and they took no time out for TV – maybe they could build pyramids easier than we can. Likely they could figure out some other things also!

Intelligent life in outer space? I do not know – nor does anyone! With freeway traffic, executive ulcers, wars, the comedy of politics – and a few other modern marvels – I am still wondering about intelligent life on earth!!

Footnotes

1. We had some U.F.O.’s for lunch at my house the other day C UNIDENTIFIED FRIED OBJECTS.

2. My wife often says and does things that are of equal mysterious import to me!

3. Bible writers made many statements of fact concerning life and nature that science has “discovered” only recently. Those writers had to have been inspired to know those facts.

Truth Magazine, XVIII, 23, p. 2
April 11, 1974

By Mike Willis

The first time that I heard a review of situation ethics, was amused at the apparent self-contradiction which lay in its premises. The first universal law of situation ethics is that there are no universal laws! Being self-contradictory, the system falls.

Similarly, I cannot help being a little amused when I read Carl Ketcherside’s Mission Messenger. Regardless of what he titles his articles, and some titles are eye-catchers, I know that he is writing on the same subject-unity-in-diversity. His main doctrine is that one must not have conformity in doctrine in order to have unity. Ketcherside goes to and extreme to get “conformity in doctrinal belief” to his doctrine which says “doctrinal conformity is not essential to unity. “Like the situation ethicist, he has a system based on self-contradictory premises.

While I might be amused at its self-contradiction, I am amazed that our brethren are believing the false doctrine. Men who have never even heard of Carl Ketcherside believe the very doctrine which he is promulgating. Brethren, let us wake up and study the issues that we might be prepared to prevent another major apostasy. Preach on the doctrines being attacked. The best defense is a strong offense!

Truth Magazine, XVIII:22, p. 14
April 4, 1974

By Joe Neil Clayton

Chosen But Stiffnecked

When Stephen told the Jews of his day that they were “stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears” (Acts 7:51), he was not saying anything new! God had perceived early that this was the perennial condition of His “chosen” people. Only a few days after God had spoken in thunderous tones from the top of Sinai, and had warned His people, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me . . . Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image” (Exod. 20:3-4), they had made a golden calf to worship. God said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people” (Exod. 32:9). He wanted to destroy them right there, but Moses interceded. God placed conditions, however, on the staying of His wrath. They were to put away their ornaments as an act of submission to God (Exod. 33:1-6).

When Moses returned to the mountain with the second set of stone tables, God demonstrated and proclaimed His character before Moses. He declared himself to be both merciful and just, forgiving and condemning. But, Moses worshiped Him and boldly asked that He go “in the midst” of them, even though they were stiffnecked, and in need of constant forgiveness (Exod. 34:1-9). God consented and made a covenant with Israel, requiring them to reject and destroy idolatry in their midst (Exod. 34:10-17).

God once more was roused to such wrath that he threatened to destroy Israel, when they refused to go into Canaan (Num. 13:1-14:35). He forgave them generously, again, but when they came to the point of entering Canaan after 40 punishing years of God’s wrath, that purged multitude was warned against thinking they deserved to have the land. God said, “Hear, O Israel, thou art to pass over the Jordan this day, to . . . disposess nations greater and mightier than thyself . . . Speak not thou in thy heart . . . saying, For my righteousness Jehovah has brought me in to possess this land . . . Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thy heart, dost thou go in to possess their land; but for the wickedness of these nations Jehovah thy God doth drive them out . . . for thou art a stiffnecked people . . .” (Deut. 9:1-7). So, God would not tell the remnant that they were blessed, even though they were certainly purged of hundreds of thousands of the wicked rebels of the past. The prophet Moses warned them that God would choose another nation and people to repay them for their provocations (Deut. 32:21).

Throughout the remainder of the history of God’s relations with the children of Israel, He published clues to His policy of the future. He urged them to look for a day, called “Today,” an opportunity to hear his voice again, and warned them to resist the hardening of their hearts, such as characterized their fathers (Psalm 95:7-11, Heb. 3:7-4:13). He also predicted the change of the covenant, so as to include in it only those who would keep His law in their hearts (Jer. 31:31-34). He would even identify the Gentiles as the “people” to whom he would turn when he could no longer bear the rebellion of the Jews (Isa. 65:1-7). In fact, the work of the longed-for Messiah would be to also save the Gentiles (Isa. 42:1-4, 49:5-6).

When God came to the day that He no longer followed a policy of being a national God to Israel, He accepted into His kingdom only the cream of the crop. In His “nation” there would no longer be only a minority of “heart circumcised” people. Rather, He would win them first to this standard of character before He included them in His fold. It would be learned first by Peter that “in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to Him” (Acts 10:35). God sought men who were “ordained to eternal life” (Acts 13:48). They would be those who were susceptible to the “election of grace,” whether Jew or Gentile (Rom. 11:1-7). Finally, they would be those who believed and confessed and called upon God (Rom. 10:913).

Now, does God say He will retain in His favor those who are faithless or disloyal? No. He rejected the nation of Israel because of their unfaithfulness, but he warns those Gentiles who have taken their place that they must retain it by faith (Rom. 11:11-24). So, God now deals with individuals, instead of nations. His standard is such as will include every soul that submits faithfully to His will. He will no longer bear the stiffnecked in His chosen people. The opportunity for salvation is universal, but the standard is high. The glory of being included in the Kingdom of God cannot be comprehended, until God takes the redeemed of all nations into His eternal home. Yet, the enticement of the inadequate descriptions of that glory are enough for those who “by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption.”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:22, p. 10
April 4, 1974

By Weldon E. Warnock

My article, “A Few ‘Licks’ for Florida College,” was far more powerful than I realized. I thought it was mediocre, to say the most, but evidently I was wrong about its impact. Brother Jeffery Kingry has been provoked by it to write two responses, the second of which appears in this issue. Apparently, he was not satisfied with his first one. I ignored brother Kingry’s first reply, believing that no worthwhile purpose could be served by responding. However, his second article leaves me no choice but to say a few things.

I have re-read my article that has given Brother Kingry such a tizzy and I fail to see where I misrepresented anybody. Jeff said that I misrepresented Brother Royce Chandler. This is news to me! Since when is Royce Chandler spelled, “some brethren,” or “these brethren?” I am sorry that Jeff does not like the way I write, but I write as I see fit and will continue to do so.

It is to my chagrin that brother Royce Chandler’s name has been brought into this matter. Royce is a most dedicated, sincere Christian as well as a capable and competent preacher. I imagine that I know Royce better than Jeff does. He needs no unsolicited defense of himself. He is most able to take up for himself. But Brother Chandler was misunderstood by brethren in the May, 1973 issue of Torch. Brother Chandler wrote, “Secular courses taught by Christians are desirable and almost universally admitted. Why not concentrate on teaching these secular subjects in an atmosphere of belief, and just disband the organized Bible departments? What would it hurt? If the main function of a school is to provide a secular education taught by believers, then what harm would be done to that function by disbanding the Bible department? When we each do our own work, such things as Bible departments or any other questionable organization will have no need to exist.” You can readily see why brethren would get wrong impressions from these excerpts, except brother Kingry, of course.

Granted that Brother Chandler’s article prompted me to write mine, I certainly made it general enough to catch every brother who is opposed to Bible colleges and broad enough to miss Royce if he were misunderstood (which he was). Is not Jeff aware of some preachers who are opposed to the Bible being taught at Florida College, even some young preachers who attended F.C.? Where has he been the past few years? There is nothing wrong with my article and those who defend the Bible college must do so on the same basis that I did. It would be interesting to see Brother Kingry write an article in defense of the Bible department of Florida College and refute those who argue the unscripturalness of such an arrangement. What about doing this for us, Jeff?

One of the board members of Florida College wrote me and said, “Appreciate very much your article, ‘A Few ‘Licks’ for Florida College.’ Those of us on the Board of Directors appreciate your backing of the school in all matters when we are right.” (Jeff, you can guess who the board member was, and if you ask me point blank as you did about Royce, I will tell you who it was, also.) I appreciate the commendable words above and I am happy to be able to commend Florida College to the youth of our day. I am glad that it exists and value all the good it does. We need more to personally get behind the school and lend their moral and financial support. Actually, if Brother Kingry’s approach is indicative of being a staunch friend of Florida College, the school needs no enemies.

A fellow-preacher wrote Jeff a letter, a copy of which was sent to me, “I have just finished reading your article, `Let’s Put It In The Light’ and also recall reading Weldon’s article on Florida College. In my opinion, Weldon’s brief article was both fair and honest. It had several good points; apparently in Weldon’s judgment, the matter was best dealt with generally, and I whole-heartedly concur. I believe you overlooked this important point.” Is it not strange that this brother thought my article was fair and honest, but Jeff thought it was divisive and misrepresentative?

Interesting enough, the article that Brother Kingry is trying to defend (Brother Chandler’s article) is a general article. Brother Chandler wrote, “If that is true and we believe it (that is, the church is perfectly equipped to build itself up, W.E.W.), why do some of us hold so vehemently to the absolute necessity of maintaining a college Bible department for the training of young men to become preachers and elders?” Who did Royce mean by “some of us?” Jeff, did you chastise Royce for his ambiguity? If not, you had better get at it or you show partiality toward brethren. Really, I do not know of any among us who believes in the “absolute necessity” of a college Bible department. I believe the church can get along without such a department, but this is not the reason brethren established a Bible department at Florida College. It exists because of the benefits it affords young men and women. We could get along without Torch and Truth Magazine, as well as all the others, but we must agree that they can be a valuable asset to edification. The same thing is true with college Bible departments.

In conclusion, may I say that “it has come to a sad state of affairs when a supporter and former alumnus of the school” cannot write a general article about the merits and right of the Bible department in the school without being branded as guilty of misrepresentation.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:22, p. 8-9
April 4, 1974