Truth Magazine

By Daniel H. King, Sr.

One is seldom surprised anymore at the ludicrous assertions of the godless of our age. I suppose that the “animal rights” coalition is the most brazen and offensive in their pronouncements, of-ten contending that animals ought to be given consideration over the health and safety of human beings. They argue that animals are our evolutionary cousins and that the welfare of a dog or cat ought to be deemed as equal to that of a human child. Therefore, animals should not be eaten by human beings as food, nor should they be used for laboratory testing of drugs or other medical devices and products which will later be used to cure human diseases and save human lives. As a matter of fact, many of us today are alive because scientists have been able to test drugs and procedures on animals like rats and mice before they came to market. But animal testing is particularly distressing for many “animal rights” activists, since monkeys and chimpanzees are also frequently utilized in testing procedures. And, according to the theory of evolution, primates are man’s nearest evolutionary kin.

Now, there is a move afoot to give to certain animals, under the law, the same protections which are afforded to human children. In case you think I have imagined all this, let me quote from The Humanist (July/August 1994), from the pen of Edd Doerr, under the heading “Church and State: Ape and Essence”:

Nearly twenty years ago in this column . . . I concluded that, if chimps can function as humans even if only on the level of human children  we would need to include them in our legal and social definitions of “persons” and accord them some-thing like the legal rights that we enjoy … Two decades later, we know a great deal more about our nearest evolutionary cousins, the great apes … Genetically we and the great apes are quite closely related …The bottom line is that the great apes are so much like us that there is no logical reason not to treat them as “persons”  at least to the same degree as children and mentally impaired human adults …Great apes function men-tally at the level of children or impaired adults and thus should be as much a part of our moral community as our children …Large brained cetaceans (whales, dolphins) certainly appear to have high intelligence, but they are sufficiently different from primates that it may be some time before we know enough to ascribe personhood to them (43-44).

Doerr makes special reference to a recent work written by 34 scientists, The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity (St. Martin’s Press, 1994), edited by P. Cavalieri and P. Singer, which demands “the extension of the community of equals to include all great apes: human beings, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.” The purpose of the book is to protect the lives and liberties of these species and prohibit their torture and mistreatment. “Medical experiments without the consent of both humans and apes would be banned” writes Doerr approvingly. I wonder how you would get permission from a monkey?

This leads us to make a few comments:

1. All of Nature Is Based Upon The Principle of Kill or Be Killed, Eat or Be Eaten. Scientists frequently speak of the “food chain,” i.e., the natural order of plants and animals which feed upon one another. At the top of the food chain are the predators: the meat-eating carnivores. On the land there are such swift and powerful animals as the lion, tiger, cheetah, cougar, etc. They feed on the smaller, slower, and less powerful animals. Tigers, in particular, have been known not only as carnivorous, but even as man-eaters when they live in close proximity with humans. The shark is the great terror of the deep, eating smaller fish and even humans if they venture into his domain when he is hungry and motivated to attack.

The point is, that man is at the top of the food chain, even by their own admission and reasoning. Why is he the only carnivorous predator in nature who is not permitted to use lesser animals for food? By what twist of logic must he permit his fellow humans and his children to suffer in order to save lesser animals from harm? If man is merely an animal, for what reason should he exempt himself from the whole natural order and place himself in a servile and obsequious position with respect to the rest? If he possesses the highest intelligence, why would he wish to place himself at the mercy of bacteria and virus, sickness and disease? Even common sense militates against their approach. This is the epitome of elitist intellectual stupidity!

2. The Theory Of Evolution Is The Culprit In All This Nonsense. In the background of much of this nonsensical environmentalism and “animal rights” activism lies the assumption that man is merely the product of millions of years of naturalistic evolutionary development. Since man is the highest achievement of that process, he is the only god there is. So, in the place of the theism of the past, there is only human-ism. And this is the kind of thinking that humanism produces! As the Bible says of the intellectual elite of another but similar age, “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image make like to corruptible man . . .” (Rom. 1:22-23).

3. What Does The Bible Say? For those of us who believe the Bible to be the Word of God, there is a very different perspective. The Bible says that man is the unique creation of Al-mighty God: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). He is not the chance amalgamation of atoms and molecules that evolutionary theory says he is. A human being is unique also in that man was made in the di-vine image: “And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:27). Moreover, the entire creation is here for man’s use, including all the various types of animals: “Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; Thou crownedst him with glory and honor, And didst set him over the works of thy hands. Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet…” (Hebrews 2:7, 8; cf. Gen. 1:26, 28).

4. Watch Out For Their Hidden Agenda! Man is not “a monkey’s uncle” nor is he his “nearest evolutionary cousin.”

Such talk is not calculated to exalt the lower animals to a higher station. In reality, it’s purpose is to bring man down to the level of the “creatures without reason” (2 Pet. 2:12). Doerr’s article, interestingly enough, makes an argument for “freedom of choice,” which, as most of you know, is the vernacular way of describing the “right” to murder human children in the womb. He is no doubt also a proponent of euthanasia, the kill ing of those whose “quality of life” does not meet his criteria of happiness. These go hand in hand with those who follow this line of thinking. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx and Nikolay Lenin used such twisted reason to slaughter millions of human beings. Humanistic thinking is not compassionate at its essence, but insidious and dangerous. This is especially so when it controls government. Don’t buy it!

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 22, p. 12-13
November 16, 1995

By Al Sandlin

“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death” (Rev. 21:8). This adjective comes from a Greek word deilos which means “cowardly; timid.” Lack of faith is the basis for this transgression as it is cited in Revelation 21:8.

In Matthew 8:26 this word also appears. The disciples along with Jesus had entered a ship to cross the Sea of Galilee. During that journey a tremendous storm arose and the waves were so severe as to cover the ship. This caused no small degree of anxiety among the disciples but Jesus was asleep during it all. They aroused him with a message of doom: “Lord, save us: we perish.” Jesus’ response included our word under consideration. “Why are ye fearful, 0 ye of little faith?”

  Just why, do you suppose, will the fearful not be allowed in heaven? Why would a loving Heavenly Father refuse the timid and the cowardly person an eternal home in heaven? For the precise reason that Jesus berated his beloved apostles’ lack of faith. “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). With Jesus, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Saviour of mankind, in the ship with his disciples, they doubted their own safety and security. But on the other hand, Jesus was sound asleep, not concerned for he knew that the Father would care for him. Jesus set the example for our faith. Our faith in God must be so thorough and so grounded that it raises our confidence and trust in the Father above the level of the cowardly and timid. Whether physical or spiritual storms, our faith must be such that total and complete trust in God clothes our character. God demands that kind of faith. If we are Christians and abide in Christ, we must indeed follow in the footprints of Jesus. 1 John 2:6 says it this way, “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.” We must aspire to have the faith of Jesus. That’s why Jesus said in Matthew 11:29, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me … ” Paul wrote in Philippians 2:5, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” 1 Peter 2:21 says, “For hereunto were ye called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps.”

The fearful, the timid, the cowardly, put their faith only in that which they can see. Paul says to young Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:7, “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” We must not, we cannot, be fainthearted and mousy with the gospel he has given us. It is powerful, it is reasonable, it is the only way to save souls. Paul intended to encourage the young preacher Timothy to be bold in the gospel. Not only has God given us a gospel filled with power, but his love is ours. We are the objects of his love. Just as husbands and wives reassure each other of their love regularly, God does so with us daily. First of all, he gave us his Son as a propitiation for our sins. Then, daily he gives us sustenance. Daily he blesses us with sunshine, rain, food, clothing, shelter, brethren, and on and on the list goes. We have no basis for being wimpish in our faith. We have every reason to put our complete trust in him to the extent that we are confident that he will not leave us or forsake us.

Deiliao (to be fearful) appears in John 14:27. Just prior to his trial and crucifixion, Jesus said to his closest friends upon the earth, “Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives, do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.” In the tenderest of moments, if it were possible, Jesus would have wrapped his loving arms around this dozen men to let them know that there was nothing to fear. In spite of what they were about to see their Master undergo, there was still no reason to be shy, timid, or fainthearted. Jesus is telling them these things in advance so that they might believe (John 14:29). May our prayer be according to the apostles in Luke 17:5, “Lord, Increase our faith.” The Psalmist spoke words of comfort concerning fearfulness in Psalm 27:1-3, “The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the defense of my life; whom shall I dread? When evildoers came upon me to devour my flesh, my adversaries and my enemies, they stumbled and fell. Though a host encamp against me, my heart will not fear; though war arise against me, in spite of this I shall be confident.”

Confidence is the perfect antidote for timidity and shyness. God has always intended that his messengers go forth with confidence. Luke says of Paul in Acts 28:31, “Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.”

May God increase our faith and give us the confidence and conviction to meet Satan head on with the gospel. “Lord, increase our faith.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 21, p. 24-25
November 2, 1995

By Paul C. Keller

There is continuing need for a study of Christianity as it was in the first century. What Christianity was in the first century it needs to be in the twentieth century  and in the twenty-first. The religion of Christ has been so long perverted that many have no true conception of genuine Christianity. Men are prone to use the wrong standards for judging the correctness of our faith and practice. As individuals we tend to measure our responsibilities as Christians, not by what the Bible teaches, but by the conduct of other church members. Congregations overlook the Bible as a standard for its activities and allow the practices of other congregations to be their guide. Unconsciously, many allow the denominations to set the standard for them and adopt sectarian patterns for their religious practices. In other instances the church is influenced by the pattern established by former generations. We are prone to accept the teachings and practices that have developed through the years without questioning their scriptural authority. We almost assume that our brethren have never erred and that we can safely adopt all that has been handed down to us. Nevertheless, a failure to follow the Bible as our only guide in matters of religious faith and practice will ultimately lead to apostasies! History gives abundant testimony to the truthfulness of this statement. The apostasy of the New Testament church did not arise overnight. Instead, it came gradually, over a period of centuries. The gradual departures introduced in one generation paved the way for further departures in succeeding generations. This continued until the pattern of the New Testament church was lost and was replaced by the traditions and doctrines of men. The apostasy came because men failed to follow the Scriptures as their guide.

Today, the “Christian Church” (or “Disciples”) stands as a monument to the folly of substituting human judgment in the place of divine authority. While leaders in the “Restoration Movement” were united in their plea for a complete return to New Testament Christianity, the denominational world was put to flight. So long as these men were willing to abide by the slogan, “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; and where the Bible is silent, we are silent” (a principle which is taught in I Peter 4:11), the sectarian world was powerless to resist the onslaught of truth. It was when some of them abandoned this ground of safety that the devilgained an advantage. When some sought to “improve” on the Lord’s arrangement by introducing practices not authorized in the Scriptures, division resulted. These first departures were but introductions of the many that were to follow. The wide scale apostasy of the “Christian Church” in less than a century of time was so rapid as to be almost unbelievable. It could not have developed without a “beginning.” Its “beginning” was the substitution of human wisdom for Bible authority. Thereafter, men in this sect judged their teaching and practice in the light of what had been handed down to them rather than in the light of Bible teaching. And it is with deep concern that, during these recent years, we have observed the spectacle of many churches of Christ pursuing the same sad, inevitable course. When we adopt the wrong standard of measurement for Christianity we will “miss the mark” every time.

With people who want the truth the question is not “What are others doing?” nor “What do preachers think about this?” nor should it be “What do I want?” These are not questions to be raised by the honest truth-seeker. His question is: “What does the Bible teach?” In 2 Timothy 3:16,17 Paul teaches that the Scriptures are an all-sufficient guide. This being true, we need nothing more. Opinions expressed orally are as useless as the written creeds of men. Each generation needs to reexamine its teaching and practice in the light of the Scriptures rather than accepting that which has been handed down by former generations. Likewise, in the light of Bible teaching it should examine the proposals of con-temporaries.

If we would know what Christianity should be in the twentieth century, we must learn what it was in the first century. Let us first observe what it was:

Undenominational In Its Nature

This is evident from a number of considerations. First, the church of Christ is not a denomination. A denomination is a sect. It professes to be merely a “part” or a “section.” This does not describe the church of God. It is, itself, the whole of God’s people. All who are saved are added by the Lord to the church (Acts 2:41,47). Hence, the church contains all the saved. Furthermore, the Lord’s people in the first century believe the same, taught the same, practiced the same, and all wore the same name. There was nothing to distinguish them one from another. All were members of the “one body,” the church (Eph.1:22,23; 4:4).

Second, a denomination is not the church of Christ. The church is referred to in the New Testament in two senses: (1) Universally, with reference to all the saved  all the church, everywhere. Jesus spoke of it in this sense in Mat-thew 16:18. (2) The church is referred to in its congregational or local sense  speaking of the church in a given locality. Paul used it in this sense in 1 Corinthians 1:2. But, what is a denomination? It has been defined as “a religious organization smaller than the whole church and larger than the local church.” One Methodist Church is not the Methodist denomination. It is made up of local Methodist churches tied into the General Conference. Likewise the Baptist de-nomination is composed of all such churches of like faith and order having affiliation with the Association. Thus a denomination is larger than the local church and smaller than the whole church; and since the New Testament presents the church only in the whole sense or the local sense, and a denomination is not the church in either sense, it necessarily follows that a denomination is not the church in any sense. The church is a divine organization founded by Christ. Denominations are human organizations founded by men.

Next, let us note that the gospel does not create de-nominations. The gospel is God’s power to save (Rom. 1:16). It is the mission of the church to preach the gospel (Mark 16:15; 2 Tim. 2:2; 1 Tim. 3:15). The gospel was preached in the first century  and thousands obeyed it. But while thousands obeyed the gospel then, such obedience did not make a Roman Catholic, Mormon, Methodist, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, or Presbyterian of a single one of them! It follows that if obedience to the gospel in the first century did not make denominationalists then it will not do so now. When the gospel is preached today as it was preached then and people obey it today just as they did then, it will make of people now what it did then  Christians. Only when something other than the gospel of Christ is preached and obeyed do men become denominationalists. Baptist doctrine must be preached and obeyed to make Baptists. Methodists are made by the preaching of Methodist doctrine and obedience thereto. The same is true for all denominations. But the gospel of Christ will not make a Baptist, Methodist, or any other denominationalist. It did not do it in the first century! It will not do it in the twentieth century! The gospel does not create denominations.

Furthermore, the gospel requirements in the first century were undenominational. The same conditions of salvation required of the Gentile were required of the Jew. Rich and poor, strong and weak, were called upon to do the same things in order to have the remission of sins. Alien sinners in the first century were taught to believe, to repent of sins, and to be baptized for the remission of sins (Matt. 28:19, 20; Luke 24:46, 47; Mark 16:15, 16; Acts 2:38). None was exempt from these conditions. All were required to meet all of these conditions. No exceptions were made.

Finally, the results of gospel obedience were undenominational. This has already been noted. Let us notice further, however, that all penitent believers who were baptized obtained salvation (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38), entered Christ (Gal. 3:26,27), and became members of the body of Christ, the church (1 Cor. 12:13 Acts 2:41, 47). Since the Lord has “but one body” (1 Cor. 12:20; Eph. 4:4), which is the church they were all members of the same church. Being “in Christ” they were “new creatures” (2 Cor. 5:17) and hence they had all been “born again” (John 3:3-7). Gospel obedience obtained the same results for all.

These facts show conclusively that Christianity in the first century was undenominational. This being true, it follows that genuine Christianity in the twentieth century and every century, must be undenominational. Let us put forth every effort to keep it undenominational. To this end may God bless us.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 21, p. 18-19
November 2, 1995

By Luke Chandler

One of the popular concepts gouging its way through society today is the notion of “tolerance.” While our nation was founded upon such principles as religious and political tolerance, it is moving rapidly toward labeling many formerly taboo subjects as “tolerable.”

We needn’t look far to find examples of this. If we read a newspaper or watch television, we are constantly deluged with evil ideas. We are told that fornication (a word we don’t hear much any more) is okay. We’re also told that abortion is a proper and necessary thing in family planning and population control. Many people are also informing us that homosexuality is a natural thing and should be labeled as merely an alternate lifestyle. If anyone stands up and opposes these things, that person is labeled as intolerant, close-minded, and a hate-monger. Add to this the ever-growing diet of profanity, nudity, violence, and immorality in our entertainment, and we see ourselves nearly overwhelmed by worldly concepts. Even our own government has allied itself with these forces, so that high-ranking officials tell us we must learn to tolerate and accept these.

What is the danger for us? Will we suddenly decide that we really have been close minded and immediately accept these behaviors and practices? Most likely not. The vast majority of Christians will not turn away from godliness overnight. There is a very real and present danger for us, though. Our principles can begin to erode from the constant, steady pressure of society. We run a high risk of becoming desensitized to evil things, to the point that we are not bothered by them as much as we should be.

Are we already desensitized to worldly things? Have the sharp edges of our conscience been blunted by the flood of godlessness we are exposed to? Do we find ourselves increasingly tolerant of worldly things in our movies, TV, or music? Does profanity set us on edge, or does it flow through our ears with no resistance on our part? Do we try to avoid scenes of fornication and nudity, or do we calmly sit and allow them to fill our mind? Have our views on divorce, abortion, or other “social issues” been diluted with elements of modern thought? Most importantly, if we see ourselves as slowly drifting one way or the other, which way would it be?

God has given us some principles on how to fight the erosion of our conscience, as well as how to sharpen its worn edges.

First, we can guard our minds against the flood of worldly thoughts, ideas, and images that swirl around us. In Proverbs 4:23, Solomon writes “Guard your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life.” We can protect ourselves against much of the evil flood by simply refusing to watch and listen to things which would fill our minds with worldly ideas. If we do not give sin a chance to enter our heart, it will not be able to dull our conscience. There are many movies and TV programs that Christians simply shouldn’t see. Proverbs 14:16 warns us about letting our guard down when it says, “A wise man fears and departs from evil, but a fool rages and is self-confident.” It is foolish to feel confident in our own strength and allow evil its place in us, but we are wise if we realize its power and stay away from it.

Second, we can learn to have the same mind as Christ did. This basic principle, given in Philippians 2:5, tells us to think in the same way as our Lord did. We have no better role model than he, so we must study his attitude toward worldliness and imitate it. We can see the principles he lived by in passages such as Matthew 15:18-20. Jesus says there that our deeds originate from the heart. Evil things are done because the ideas were in the heart to begin with. We must choose which master we shall serve (Matt. 6:24) and keep out the other. Which movies would Jesus watch? Which movies would he avoid watching? Would the Lord allow society to influence his convictions in any possible way? If he lived in our time, would there be any differences in what he would tolerate? We must have the same mind as he.

Finally, we must fill our minds with things that will sharpen our conscience. Philippians 4:8 describes the kinds of things we should fill our minds with (things that are true, noble, just, pure, praiseworthy, etc.). If we fill our minds with godly things, we will develop a conscience that can discriminate properly toward what is tolerable and intolerable. Unfortunately, conscience-honing thoughts and images are increasingly rare. Nevertheless, they exist and can be found if we make any real effort. The richest source is obviously God’s Word. But if we do not actively fill our minds with it, we shall fail against the erosive storms.

By following these principles, we can fight the moral rot that exists in our society. We can remain sensitive toward that which is evil, and avoid the noxious cloud of the “new tolerance” which threatens our souls.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 21, p. 9
November 2, 1995