Truth Magazine

By Bruce James

God the Son grieved at the tomb of Lazarus, over Jerusalem, and when the widow woman came out of the city with her dead child. In these instances he had compassion for those in their loss. In Genesis 6:6, God looked at the world and he was grieved, that is, his heart broke in two.

If there was ever an expression of divine love, it was in the knowing of the potential of his rebellious child and how he was moved to grief again and again and again. Most parents can understand this as they plead, reach out, long for, and weep for the wayward son or daughter. Patiently they wait as did the father of the prodigal son. All he longs for is to see in the distance the shadow of his child coming home. He runs to meet him at breakneck speed. He kills the fatted calf, welcomes him home, and there is much rejoicing. That is the heart of God.

How many parents have waited up night after night for their child to come home? What do they feel inside? A little anger, but, oh, the grief. Hearts melted by disappointment. Those that are parents can find consolation in the fact that God understands a parent’s grief. He says, “I have nourished and brought up my own children, but they have rebelled against Me” (Isa. 1:2). As grieving parents we can lay our heads on the shoulder of our grieving heavenly Father. He has been there! He understands! In fact, he is there today! Now, multi-ply your grief over one rebellious child a million times ten million and you will have just a fraction of the grief God felt when he looked on Noah’s or Lot’s generation. When God looked down, he saw the heart of man and his heart broke in two. Can you imagine how God feels today? Since Adam, Cain, Noah, and Lot, he has paid the ransom to set his children free. He bought our freedom and it cost him all he had, his only Son. The only one who never broke his heart died for all who ever had. Now we, like Adam, have it all. Paradise of the heart is ours for the asking. Paradise in eternity is ours; it is coming. Isn’t it only right that his expectation for those who have tasted the cup of redemption is greater than his expectations of Noah’s day? Nevertheless, what does he see as he looks on the world as it is today?

God sees scoffers, immorality, decadence, apostasy, violence, contempt, and business as usual. When the heart of God is broken and grieved to tears over the sinfulness of the world, how can those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb go on living as though it were business as usual? Have God’s standards changed since the cross? The church of the Lord ought to be on its knees before God, not joining in the pursuits of the world, renewing our commitment to the One who loves us so much. As God had a plan for Noah, he has a plan for us today. He wants us to build the ark according to his specifications that we can bring those seeking peace, freedom and security into the refuge of God. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord because Noah walked with God. He wants us to walk with him too.

We ought to be laying aside every weight and the sin that so easily besets us. We ought to be seeking first the kingdom of God and his righteousness at any cost. We ought to be men and women with only one goal, one purpose in life. That is to walk with God. We cannot live with a “business as usual” mentality. We have work to do! Our task, our mission, is not to sit around in little groups condemning society for its ills. God said it would be like this. His is not a call to complain, but a call to battle.

Instead of being discouraged, let us understand that these are exciting and wonderful times to be alive. We have the privilege to pioneer as Noah with the pattern for salvation, worship, and work of God’s kingdom etched in the eternal scrolls of God’s word. We have this power to enable, to lead, and to guide us, We have the example of the worlds of Noah and Lot to remind us. We have it all! All we have to do is fall down before our precious God and make ourselves totally available! All the while we must realize that we are on a mission, “to seek and to save the lost.”

Guardian of Truth XLI: 18 p. 5
September 18, 1997

By Tommy L. McClure

A Bit Of Humorous Sophistry

Humorously Exploded

In November, 1903, J. Carroll Stark and Joe S. Warlick debated, at Henderson, Tennessee, the proposition: “The word of God authorizes the use of instrumental music for praise in the church of Jesus Christ.” Stark affirmed; Warlick denied. Stark and Warlick agreed to write their speeches, trying to retain certain features of the oral debate, and the result of theft efforts was a book of 198 pages published by McQuiddy Printing Company, Nashville, Tennessee bearing the date 1910.

Characteristic of liberals, innovationists, renegades, and spiritual rebels who are galled by admonitions to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11), Stark labored to make it appear that Warlick and his brethren were the cause of the trouble and division relative to mechanical instruments of music. His general idea was: If you fellows would quit opposing what we are doing, we could be at peace, ignoring the fact that unity in error is not genuine peace in the first place, and is the only thing worse than division in the second place.

The tactic is by no means new.

1. Ahab used it when he met Elijah whom the Lord had sent to him. “And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, `Art thou he that troubleth Israel?’ And he answered, `I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou halt followed Baalim”‘ (1 Kings 18:17, 18).

2. The unbelieving Jews, by means of “certain lewd fellows of the baser sort,” set the city of Thessalonica “on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason,” but told the rulers that Paul and his company were guilty of having “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17: 1-8). They, not Paul, started the ruckus! Paul had simply preached the Lord’s death, resurrection, and Messiahship: but they, in their envy and unbelief and by the base men they mustered, created the uproar!

3. The Missionary Society advocates accused the op-position of being anti-missionary, anti-cooperation and the cause of division (see Otey-Briney Debate). But what church divided over the Missionary Society before the society was introduced? Not one! Who, then, was to blame for the division? That’s right  those who introduced the thing!

4. Human benevolent promoters and advocates accused those who would not go along with their unauthorized projects of being “antis,” “orphan haters,” “church-busters,” “hard-hearted,” and “void of love.” My! What a bunch of low-down rascals we were, according to them! But, who were really the “church busters” on this matter? Again, I ask, what church divided over human benevolent organizations before somebody set up one? That pinpoints the raisers of the ruckus!

5. Herald of Truth and sponsoring church promoters tried to make it appear that we who opposed their unscriptural projects were anti-congregational cooperation and a bunch of jealous soreheads. But there was no trouble over these matters until some congregation “assumed” (remember that word?) the oversight of a work to which all congregations were equally related and tried to get their hands into the treasuries of all churches possible, using pressure tactics which would make the most unscrupulous politician blush with shame! They were the ruckus raisers!

Following is a sample of liberal sophistry, a bit humorous, and the humorous answer given by a valiant and gifted old “war horse” of days gone by. Since the Stark-Warlick Debate is now out of print, I think younger preachers should be given a chance to learn about the matter here quoted, and I gladly share with them the information.

Stark’s First Speech

When one worships God, the worship is between himself and God. When Daniel bowed himself in Babylon with his windows open and his face toward Jerusalem and offered prayer and supplication to Jehovah, was he responsible for the beating of the tom-tom by the Babylonians in or around his house, or for any of the excesses of the city? If I enter my closet to pray in secret to Him who heareth in secret, if a hen cackles, must I leave my devotions and go and club her off because the Scriptures say nothing about hens cackling? Surely our worship is not what it should be if we cannot worship with surroundings we have not chosen. If I am hymning my devotion to God and inside or outside some one is playing an instrument in praise to His name, must I stop my praise and go over and raise a fuss to stop his devotions? Am I responsible for his unlawful praise, if it is unlawful, or is he responsible for mine? Our worship is between us and our God; and what others may do in praise to God’s name is not a concern of ours, except to teach them what God has said, unless God has said nothing. Will God be more likely to accept my praise of song if I go over and raise a row with my brother because he does not praise God as I command him? If I stop my hymning out of pure dogmatism, will God vouchsafe acceptance to me, even though his praise is rejected? Who said: ‘Thou shalt not judge another’s conscience?’ Does he not stand or fall to his own Master? What am I, that I shall judge another man’s conscience? If I do not play, is it any of my business if another does? Can I not hymn my praise, though another acts unlawfully? If I stand there and am singing and one here is playing a harp, does that interfere with my worship of God? Not if I am worshiping as I should (15-16).

Warlick’s Reply

Brother Stark wants to know if, when praying in his closet, an old hen cackles outside, whether he should cease praying and go outside and compel the hen to quit cackling until he has finished his prayer. Of course not in that case. Neither does any one object to the organ playing on the outside when not in the worship. I now ask my brother whether he would continue his prayer if some one should go outside, get that old hen, bring her into his closet, and compel her to cackle while he worshiped, and thus compel him to cackle with her or else cease cackling entirely. He would, no doubt, leave his own closet in the possession to the two intruders. Does he say that he would object? But what could he do? Would not the man reply: “You will just submit or get out. You must not speak where God has not spoken; and I challenge you to show in all the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, where God has said, `Thou shalt not bring a cackling hen into the sanctuary of the saints;’ and, besides, does not David say: `Let everything that has breath praise the Lord?’ This chicken has breath; let it praise the Lord?” My brother, how do you like this argument? It is precisely like what you offer in favor of the organ. If there is any difference, it is better than you can find for your proposition (31-32).

There you have the “hen argument”  made and answered! Want to know what I think at this point? I think Stark’s old “cackling hen” became Warlick’s old “clucking settin’ hen” and flogged Stark in the face till she brought blood! But, I want to know what you think!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 17 p. 22-23
September 4, 1997

By Frank Jamerson

Some who are teaching that there is no distinction between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are teaching an absolute distinction between the kingdom and the church. When those who profess to be teachers of God’s word say “the kingdom of God is not the ekklesia, the church,” it is time to get your concordance and look at the Bible uses of these words!

Uses of Kingdom

The word “kingdom” is used several different ways in the Scripture. First, it may refer to God’s rule. The Psalmist said, “For the kingdom is the Lord’s, and He rules over the nations” (Ps. 22:28). Three times Daniel reminded Nebuchadnezzar that “the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He chooses” (Dan. 4:25, 26, 32). God’s rule includes all nations, therefore, in this sense, all are in his kingdom.

Second, it may refer to the rule of Satan. Jesus said, “if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?” (Matt. 12:26). Satan offered to give Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world” if he would bow down and worship him (Matt. 4:8, 9).

Third, it may refer to heathen nations, or people over whom men rule. Moses wrote about “the beginning of his (Nimrod’s) kingdom” (Gen. 10:9, 10). He gave to Gad, Reuben, and the half tribe of Manasseh “the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites and the kingdom of Og king of Bashan…. (Num. 32:33). Isaiah called Babylon “the glory of kingdoms” (Isa. 13:19). Many other passages could be quoted to show that the word “kingdom” often refers to the nations ruled by men.

Fourth, it may refer to God’s special people under the Old Covenant, the nation of Israel. Three months after Israel came out of Egypt, God said that if they would keep his covenant, “then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. . . (Exod. 19:1-6). This was a temporary relationship, for Jesus said, “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it” (Matt. 21:43). Christ’s death abolished “the law of commandments contained in ordinances” that was given to the nation of Israel, and made Jews and Gentiles one in Christ (Eph. 2:13-22).

Fifth, it refers to the Messiah’s rule over the saved, the church. Daniel said when “one like the Son of Man . . . came to the Ancient of Days” he would “be given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him…. (Dan. 7:13, 14). Paul said when God “raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places . . . He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:20, 22). Note that he was made king when he ascended to the Ancient of Days and he was made head when he was seated at God’s right hand! This is a different kingdom from the kingdom of Israel. Jesus said, “Among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he” (Luke 7:28). John was in God’s Old Covenant kingdom, but he was not in this kingdom. He preached “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2).

Jesus said we must be “born again” in order to see, or enter this kingdom (John 3:3-5). Paul said those who are in Christ are new creatures (2 Cor. 5:17) and that we are baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3, 4). “Repentance and remission of sins” was “preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). It was on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) that people were baptized into Christ, thus becoming “new creatures” and added to the kingdom of Christ. When those people were forgiven of their sins (Acts 2:38), they were delivered “from the power of darkness (Satan’s kingdom) and translated into the kingdom of the Son of His love” (Col. 1:13).

Uses of Church

The word “church” (ekklesia) is used in at least three senses in the New Testament. First, Stephen referred to those who had been called out of Egypt as “the congregation (church) in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38). This was not the kingdom that was to be established in the “last days” (Dan. 2:44). Second, it may refer to a mob or a judicial court. When Paul was in Ephesus there was a great tumult over his teaching. “Some therefore cried one thing and some another, for the assembly (church) was confused, and most of them did not know why they had come together” (Acts 19:32). The city clerk quieted the mob and said, “If you have any other inquiry to make, it shall be determined in the lawful assembly (church) . . . And when he had said these things, he dismissed the assembly (church)” (vv. 39, 41). Obviously, this was not the Jewish nation, which had been called out of Egypt, nor was it the church of the Lord, who had been called out of the kingdom of Satan. Third, it may refer to the saved, the kingdom of Christ. Paul said, “Just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:25, 26). Those who are washed, baptized into Christ, are in the kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13). He is the head of the church (Eph. 1:22, 23) or the king of the kingdom (Dan. 7:14; Acts 17:7). Both refer to those over whom Christ reigns. No Bible believer should think of the kingdom as an earthly organization, nor of the church as a political institution. The church, or kingdom, is simply those who are saved and who submit to their head or king!

No, the word “church” does not always mean the same as “kingdom.” In fact, church does not always refer to “the church,” nor does kingdom always refer to “the kingdom”! Jesus told the apostles he would not “eat … or drink until the kingdom of God comes . . . And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:16-18, 29, 30). In Acts 2:42 we read that the believers in Jerusalem “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” If the kingdom was not established on Pentecost, why were they “breaking bread”? Later we read about disciples in Troas meeting on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7), and the church in Corinth observing the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. 11). Obviously, the church and the kingdom refers to the same people in these passages.

Those who are purchased by the blood or Christ are his church (Acts 20:28), or his kingdom (Rev. 5:9, 10), and look forward to being presented “into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” when “He delivers the kingdom to God the Father” (2 Pet. 1:11; 1 Cor. 15:24).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 17 p. 20-21
September 4, 1997

By Daniel H. King Sr.

Holy Scripture proclaims that God created the heavens and the earth. Everything which we see about us is the product of the divine hand:

By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made, And all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as a heap: He layeth up the deeps in store-houses. Let all the earth fear Jehovah: Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast (Ps. 33:6-9).

In our time there are many, however, who dispute this and allege that through a naturalistic process of evolution the world and all its inhabit-ants developed to the state in which we currently find them. In order to maintain this theory, from time to time the proponents of this system speak of those specimens found in the fossil record which they describe as “transitional forms.” These are forms of animals, plants, fish or birds, which are often said to be presently extinct, but which once were “transitional” or “developmental” forms between lower and higher types of living things.

For example, it is theorized that in the myths of ancient time, fish developed highly versatile propulsion methods which first permitted them to walk on the sea bed, then to crawl ashore to feed on land for short periods, and finally such fish remained ashore and their fins be-came legs and feet and they became the predecessors of many creatures which skillfully transport themselves about on land in our own day.

One such form, Latimeria chalumnae, or coelacanth, is said to be represented in fossils from 400 million to 60 million years old. For many years it was claimed that this fossil fish demonstrated how the fin of the fish eventually became the foot of the amphibian. The coelacanth, a crossopterygian fish, was supposed to have certain limb-like characters on its fins indicating initial advances toward amphibianhood. It was believed that it eventually developed into a primitive amphibian known as labyrinthodont. Since no fossils of the coelacanth were found in levels of rock said to be less than 60 million years old, it was speculated that it finished this transition in the Mesozoic era, and the coelacanth itself then became extinct.

However, two most embarrassing things have happened over the years. First, no fossil remains of this “fishibian,” with fins partly converted into feet has ever been found. Second, and most humiliating of all, in 1938 one of these “extinct” fish was caught by a fisherman off the coast of Africa (Madagascar). A second was captured in 1952 off Great Comoro in the Indian Ocean. Since that time over one hundred specimens of the “living fossil” Coelacanth have been taken. It has been widely studied by scientists since that first discovery.

In 1987 a group from National Geographic traveled to the Indian Ocean off the Comoro Islands, made numerous dives and found several specimens at a depth of about 550 feet. The fish was observed in its natural habitat, and found to be highly coordinated and specifically capable of function at great ocean depths. “Old Fourlegs” as Professor J.L.B. Smith, a noted ichthyologist at Rhodes University in South Africa, had called him, was not able to “walk upon the sea floor like a seal on its flippers.” Evolutionary theorists were forced to revise their fanciful theory when confronted with the facts!

This brings up some very intriguing questions for our friends who believe the theory of evolution. Here are just a few of them:

1. Why did the Coelacanth stop evolving? According to their own reading of the rocks and the fossils they find in them, Coelacanth is first observed in rock strata of the Devonian Era, some 410 million years ago. The mod-em Coelacanth is exactly the same fish that is found in the fossils. It has not changed in any perceptible way! Why did this fish stop evolving? In 410 million years it should certainly look very different, and be much more highly “advanced” than it did so long ago, assuming for argument’s sake that the evolutionary process did take place. Jacques Millot admits that this is a great mystery: “Throughout the hundreds of millions of years the coelacanths have kept the same form and structure. Here is one of the great mysteries of evolution” (Scientific American, Vol. 193, Dec., 1955, 37). Actually, it is only a mystery if we assume the theory of evolution to be true!

2. How did the Coelacanth disappear from the fossil record? For a period of 60 million years, according to evolutionary geology, the Coelacanth vanished from the fossil record. Yet, we now know that Coelacanth has been around all the time, since it is here now. Would this not say something to us about their way of reading the fossil record? Perhaps their reading of the fossil record is flawed from the beginning, and this is why Coelacanth seems to vanish for 60 million years!

3. Where is the evidence for “transitional forms”? Each time a “missing link” has been suggested in the chain of proof to establish the accuracy of the theory of evolution, it has somehow lost credibility with further study. Such has certainly been the case with coelacanth! What does this tell us about the theory itself?

Even Charles Darwin himself said that the lack of inter-mediate and finely graduated fossils to form an organic chain from the simple to the complex, was one of the most obvious and serious objections against his theory of evolution. It is still the thorn in the side of modem theorists.

4. How could such highly educated and brilliant men be wrong about Coelacanth’s form and function? Scientists with Ph.D. degrees had theorized that Coelacanth could walk on the ocean floor, and may even have walked some on land, with the strangely configured fins which the fish possessed. When confronted with living specimens, however, it was discovered that the fish lived in the ocean depths and used its appendages as all other fish do  as fins for swimming! How could they have been so wrong for so long?

That question is rather easy to answer. These men and women, though both intelligent and educated, are busy about looking for evidence to prove their cherished theory of origins, and sometimes they may tend to force the proof to fit the theory, rather than to configure the hypothesis to fit the facts. Where they are primarily wrong is at the starting point. The whole theory is composed of humanistic speculations, whose inspiration is a godless philosophy of naturalism. Fear not its intimidations, and beware of its atheistic influences!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 18 p. 3-4
September 18, 1997