Truth Magazine

By Harry R. Osborne

If you were down to your last dollar, would you make an investment that had one chance in a thousand of making a profit? Suppose that you were starving for food, would you go to a place for food that only had meals once every three years or would you go someplace sure to have it’? If your life was on the line, would you be willing to take a course of action which would give you less than a 1% chance of survival?

If you are like most people, those kind of odds would not be acceptable in a critical situation. However, those who support the general theory of evolution as the explanation for all life forms in existence depend on odds much worse! Yet, in many places, this theory is presented as “fact” and the only “scientific” explanation for life. In the past few articles, we have seen that the Bible has a credible explanation which is in keeping with true, scientific fact.

As we noted previously, some believe that all present life forms originated from one case of non-living matter forming one single-celled organism. They further believe that this one, single-celled organism mutated and reproduced so that better adapted and more sustainable life forms resulted. At the point where they suppose that only one organism existed, what were its odds of mutating successfully and surviving? What were the odds when only a few survived? A famed evolutionist, Sir Julian Huxley, made the following admission about the harmful nature of the overwhelming majority of mutations:

A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thou-sand does not sound like much, but it is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organ-ism living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out of gear (Evolution in Action, 45).

More recent experiments regarding the proportion of favorable mutations as opposed to harmful ones show that Huxley’s one to one thousand ratio is not only generous, but wishful. In one researcher’s work, A.M. Winchester found that well over 99% of all mutations were harmful to life. That figure does not even consider the vast majority of the remaining 1% that, while not being harmful, would not aid the viability of a given life form. Experiments on the fruit fly and other animals involving radiation induced mutations and natural mutations show that favorable mutations are so rare as to be negligible.

Yet, let us suppose that Huxley’s extremely generous ratio were a fact. Even with this generous help, think of the chances of survival for that first organism that supposedly came into existence by spontaneous generation, a process in itself contrary to all known laws of science. That one organism had a one in one thousand chance of surviving. If it survived to reproduce, the next generation was faced with formidable odds again. Beyond that, each generation had to face those odds and overcome them without fail for generations to allow life to survive. For the evolutionary explanation of all life forms to be given a chance, one has to assume a scenario totally outside the realm of probability. Does such a theory sound like “proven fact” to you?

Assuming the general theory of evolution is allowed this enormous leap of faith to provide for the survival of these early life forms, another problem must be faced. The simple fact is that we find no evidence of the kind of mutations necessary to provide for the evolutionary explanation of life. Notice the following from Dr. Bolton Davidheisar:

When a gene mutates it produces an alternative form of the structure or condition it produced before. When a gene for a wing form mutates it produces another wing form, and not an eye color… Thus, if we evolved from protozoa (one-celled organisms), where along the way did we get genes which produce bones, blood, and teeth, for protozoa do not have these? (Evolution and Christian Faith, 213).

As more and more work is done on how the DNA in every cell works in replication, this point becomes an even larger obstacle for the evolutionary explanation of all life forms being the results of mutations from a single-celled organ-ism.

Beyond the problems already noted with mutations to account for all present varieties of life, there is a mathematical problem with the time necessary for the process. Though one or two billion years is a great deal of time, various mathematical models have shown that even the time speculated would not provide enough time for the number of mutations which had to be made to result in the present life forms if we all started from a single-celled organism. An example of this debate can be seen in The Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph (No. 5) published by the Wistar Press in 1967.

When one considers the number of changes that would have to take place in order to change a single-celled organism into every life form in existence and the length of time necessary for each change, the problem becomes a mathematical one. Several mathematical statisticians have published models showing the general theory of evolution to be statistically impossible. To date, I have seen no mathematical attempt to show that the theory is possible within the framework of time given. It is, however, interesting to note that the evolutionists have attempted to help their cause by adding a few billion years to their assumed age of the universe in order to buy more time for their theories. However, this creates other problems for them as we will see in a later article on the age of the earth.

Thus, not only does the evolutionary explanation for all life fail to show the proof that the necessary mutations could occur, it also fails to face the fact that there is not enough time for those changes to occur even if those changes were possible. Add that to the proportion of harmful mutations that do exist and the general theory of evolution faces monumental problems with its explanation for the present variety of life through mutations from a single-celled animal.

However, we have not even had time to note other problems regarding mutations as the mechanism for the evolution of all life forms. We could note that most mutations are recessive giving the change little chance of being manifested in one organism, much less an entire species. We could ask why such upward advancement through mutations is not being seen today. The questions could abound.

The fundamental problem for evolutionists is that mutations provide the only mechanism for their theory. Theodosius Dobzhansky admitted that mutations are “the only known source of new material of genetic variability, and hence of evolution” (American Scientist, 45, p. 385). Ernest Hooten, Harvard anthropologist, sounded a fitting warning when he acknowledged that he and other anthropologists are “leaning upon a broken reed when we depend upon mutations” (Apes, Men & Morons 118).

If the evolutionists want to laugh at the faith necessary to believe in the Bible account of Creation, they better take a long look at their own theory. The Bible explanation that “God created the heavens and the earth” is believable if we are not predisposed to deny the existence of an omnipotent God. If we accept that a single-celled organism suddenly came to life from non-living matter, the evolutionary explanation is still implausible.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 8 p. 14-15
April 20, 1995

By Mike Willis

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous (1 John 5:3).

Sometimes weak Christians began thinking that the Lord’s commandments are an opprobrious burden that imposes itself on them. When they dwell on this, they sometimes begin resenting the impositions that God makes on their life and speak belligerently about God. God’s requirements deprive them of their fun, they think.

But, John says just the opposite: God’s commandments are not grievous. John speaks, not only as an inspired apostle, but also as an aged man with a wide experience of life and its difficulties. He had been arrested with Peter after the healing of the man at the Beautiful Gate (Acts 3-4). The two were threatened and told to quit preaching Christ. His brother James was beheaded by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1-2). He was exiled to the isle of Patmos for the testimony of Christ (Rev. 1:9). John had enough of the adversities of life that come as a response to his faith and preaching to have reason to know the sorrows that sometimes attend faithfulness.

His Commandments Are Not Grievous

To Those Who Love Him

W. Jones wrote in The Pulpit Commentary, “`His commandments are not grievous’ to them that love him. Love is not only life, but inspiration, courage, and strength; therefore, as love to God in-creases, obedience to his commands becomes easier and more delightful. ‘I confess,’ says Watson, ‘to him that hath no love to God, religion must needs be a burden; and I wonder not to hear him say, “What a weariness is it to serve the Lord!” It is like rowing against the tide. But love oils the wheels; it makes duty a pleasure. Why are the angels so swift and winged in God’s service, but because they love him? Jacob thought seven years but little for the love he did bear to Rachel. Love is never weary; he who loves money is not weary of toiling for it; and he who loves God is not weary of serving him.’ Says Miss Austin, ‘Where love is there is no labour; and if there be labour, that labour is loved.’ Will our love to God bear this test of cheerful obedience to his commands? Then do we love him truly; and so loving him, we shall love all his children” (159).

True Love Imposes Restrictions

A mature Christian will understand the true nature of love. A loving parent will not give his children everything they wish for. Instead he will lay down some rules and commandments on his children. These will be for the benefit of the children, even though the child may resent them at the time. He may be required to make his bed, clean his room, mow the yard, and such like things. Sometimes during his days of immaturity he will resent the imposition these rules make on his life. However, after he matures, he will likely impose very similar rules on his own children because he later discovers the reason for imposing these rules.

Are we old enough and wise enough as God’s children to see the wisdom in his rules for us? If God had not loved us, he may have left us without rules and commandments for life. He may have treated us like some negligent, unloving parent treats his teenage son  allowing him to come and go when he pleases, do as he pleases, act as he pleases, etc. Such a teenager may as well not have a father. A father who truly loves his son will impose rules and commandments on his life to protect his son from the dangers of life. Far from restraining us, God’s commandments are truly liberating and beneficial. They point us toward the happiest life available to mankind.

An Easy Yoke

When Jesus extended his great invitation, he said, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30).

What a paradox Jesus speaks when he says that the way to find rest is through taking his yoke upon you. Most of us want rest by releasing ourselves from yokes. Then he added that his “burden is light.” How differently the ungodly describe the life of a Christian. The ungodly think that living for Christ is one of the heaviest yokes that could be imposed on a person. Not so, says Jesus. True rest is found by bearing his burden and submitting to his yoke.

The galling yoke is that which sin and Satan impose on us. It cuts into us and rubs us raw until it finally and completely destroys us. Look at some of the ones carrying Satan’s heavy yoke: the AIDS victim, the man injured by an auto accident caused by drunk driving, the alcoholic and drug addict. These yokes are the heavy yokes, not the one Christ calls on men to assume.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 9 p. 2
May 4, 1995

By Bob Pulliam

In combating the errors of Islam one needs ammunition. A great source of power against this rapidly growing religion is the truth behind its origins. For this reason, we offer a brief look at the founder of Islam and the god of Islam. In the next two issues of Guardian of Truth we will consider the sacred writings of Islam, and forgiveness.

The origins of Islam is a study that the ordinary Muslim will not make. To search out the origins of his religion is taboo, and I believe the material in this study will reveal why such is true. Information on this subject abounds, as well as opinions on certain aspects. There is no way to completely examine these matters here; but many books have been written to help confront this rapidly growing religion. Your local library will probably have a few of these.

Muhammad’s Humble Beginnings

The founder of the Islamic religion was Muhammad. Muhammad was born to an impoverished family in about 570 A.D. Although his family was poor, the tribe of which he was a member (Quraysh) controlled the city of Mecca and the temple there, which was called the “Kabah.” His mother was prone to visits from genies and spirits, claiming also to have visions. Although she died when Muhammad was very young, her dabbling in the occult arts cannot be ignored when considering the course of her son (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981], 6:406). Much of the religion of pre-Islamic life is found in the Islamic faith. What the Muslim claims to have been original with Muhammad (because Allah was revealing such to him), was actually in existence before Muhammad. was born. Robert Morey points out:

 As Muhammad grew up near the Kabah, the 360 idols, and the sacred magical black stone which was considered the “good luck charm” for the Quraysh tribe, he witnessed pilgrims coming to the Mecca every year. He watched them worship at the Kabah by running around it seven times, kissing the black stone, and then running down to a nearby Wadi to throw stones at the devil (Robert Morey, The Islamic Invasion [Harvest House Publishers, 1992], 74).

These elements are retained in modem Islamic pilgrimages today.

Muhammad grew up in a culture rich in legends, and filled with the stories of travelers from other countries. There was no limit to the possibilities proposed by such an opportunity. These people were very much like those described in Acts 17:21. There was always a story being told, and Muhammad’s revelations from Allah would be natural give and take with a people who believed in genies, the evil eye, and flying carpets. Several factors have been suggested for the success of Muhammad’s new religion. We will not second guess what we already know as a fact: It caught on.

We know from Muslim records that Muhammad would fall down and have seizures when his visions were received (many believe he suffered from epilepsy). His body would jerk; his eyes would roll back; and he would perspire. Most people in Muhammad’s day believed that such seizures were the work of evil spirits. At first, Muhammad naturally felt that he was being visited by evil spirits. Later, he became convinced (by others) that these were divine visions from Allah.

The Origin of “Allah”

The creed of Islam is, “There is no God but Allah; Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” Muslims are convinced that Muhammad revealed Allah to his countrymen, and they therefore had no previous knowledge of him. But long before Muhammad came along, Mecca was an important place of worship for Arabs. Then, as now, there was the temple (mosque) called the “Kabah.” But at that time it was dedicated to 360 pagan gods. Mecca was on a very important trade route that brought travelers from all over the region. The more gods they retained in the Arab pantheon, the more revenues deposited in the city coffers (Frederick M. Denny, Islam [Harper & Row, 1987], 19, 20, 27). Although some dispute this motivation, it is clear that many times “money talks” louder than most prophets. It is no wonder that the people of Mecca did not jump to receive the teachings of Muhammad. They not only had a religion into which their lives were deeply rooted; but it also sustained their great city with the constant flow of pilgrims to the Kabah.

One of the 360 gods at the Kabah was named “Allah.” Allah was the moon god, and was well known in the religion of the Arabs before Muhammad came along (Encyclopedia of Islam 1:406).

In Arabian religion, Allah was married to the sun goddess. The result of their union was three daughters (considered to be goddesses) named Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat. The Arabian tribe into which Muhammad was born was especially devoted to Allah and his three daughters. This can clearly be seen by the names of some of Muhammad’s relatives. Muhammad’s father was named Abd-Allah. Obied-Allah was the name of his uncle.

Although the Muslims pray toward Mecca every day, such did not originate with them. Mecca was a focus of such activity long before Muhammad came along. Many different nations in the Middle East worshipped Allah and his daughters, and prayed toward Mecca. Such can easily be seen as a major reason why Islam became popular so quickly in the Middle East.

What is so important about Allah’s original identity as the moon god if Muslims do not worship him as such today? First and foremost is the claim that knowledge of Allah originated with Muhammad. Most Muslims know nothing of his identity as the moon god. Secondly, many of the worship elements at the Kabah today are the same as those used in pagan worship before Muhammad’s time. Truly, Allah’s identity as the pagan moon god gives us a clear picture of Muhammad’s Allah, and the truth about alleged revelations to him. You might also note very closely the flags on mosques, and the flags of a few Islamic nations (e.g. Turkey, Maldives, Pakistan, Malaysia, Algeria, Tunisia). Consider the significance of the crescent moon you will see; and don’t fall for the line that we are all worshipping the same deity under different names!

The Satanic Verses

That the Arabians were familiar with Allah and his three daughters before Muhammad came can be seen by the infamous Satanic Verses. The writing of these came after some of the people of Mecca laid siege to the area of the city where Muhammad lived. The people were fed up with Muhammad’s revelations, and, undoubtedly, with the concept of one God to the exclusion of any others. In desperation, Muhammad received a revelation from God acknowledging that it was alright to pray to the three daughters of Allah (Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, Manat). Such appeased the people, and let him off the hook (in a way). This is what is famously known as The Satanic Verses. There is no doubt that Muhammad wrote them. Although it is claimed that such was the result of Satan’s power at a time of weakness in Muhammad; at the very least it admits to the Arabian knowledge of Allah and his daughters long before Muhammad’s revelations began.

Muhammad and the Supernatural

After Muhammad had changed his revelation to include the daughters of Allah in worship, the people of Mecca began to severely mock and persecute Muhammad and his followers. They became so hostile that he had to flee to Medina. Later, he returned to Mecca, and on his way is said by the Quran (Sura 46:29 – 35) to have converted the genies. After reaching Mecca, Muhammad had to flee again. He went to Medina where he found success with his religion.

Muhammad never claimed to work a single miracle (other than the revelation of the Quran). Many places in the Quran give us a picture of Muhammad without miracles (e.g. Sura 17:91 – 95). The miracles that have been attributed to Muhammad have all been conceived after his death. It seems clear that confrontations with Christians necessitated adequate stories to bolster the picture of Muhammad as compared to Jesus. This would explain why several of Muhammad’s alleged miracles resemble the miracles of Jesus.

This was clearly the great downfall of Muhammad in the beginning. If he had been able to work miracles, the Meccans would have flocked around him! They asked him on more than one occasion for signs, but he told them that he was only a messenger. Sura 13:8 was clearly a message from Allah regarding this. In this passage, Allah told Muhammad, “The unbelievers say, ‘Why has a sign not been sent down upon him from his Lord?’ Thou art only a warner, and a guide to every people.” The Hadith attributes miracles to Muhammad, but the Quran gives clear indication that he was not working any miracles! Such is a very stark contrast with the ministry of Jesus who called upon his miracles as signs that the Father had sent him (John 5:36).

A Closer Look at Allah

Several of the supposed revelations of Allah through Muhammad are very interesting. These give us a little clearer picture of who Allah really was. Here we will note only a few.

On the occasion of Muhammad coveting his son’s wife, he received a revelation from Allah that his daughter-in-law was to be given to him, and not withheld (Sura 33:36-38).

Allah is a god who professes the existence of genies (you know, like Aladdin and his lamp). Muhammad preached to and converted genies in Sura 46:29-35 and 72:1-28.

Allah demands a pilgrimage of all Muslims to Mecca at least once during their lifetime (no matter what the sacrifice to accomplish such). Compare this to Jesus’ teaching in John 4:21-24.

Allah commands a violence in his followers which results in `execution, crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet’ for those who are infidels (i.e. not Muslims, Sura 5:33 and 9:5 & 29).

Concerning women, Allah says: “Men are the managers of the affairs of women. . . . Those you fear may be rebelliousadmonish; banish them to their couches and beat them” (Sura 4:34).

Conclusion

Although the name of Muhammad has survived many years; it has not been for any better reason than that seen for the survival of the name Krishna, or Joseph Smith. Men can accomplish extraordinary tasks, even with error. If success is an indication of truth, look at the many conflicting tales that must be reconciled in the world of religion.

It is very clear that Allah is not the God of the Bible. Allah’s origin was the pagan Arabian who worshipped the moon. Muhammad came along and elevated Allah above all of the other gods in the Arabian pantheon. Islam is a religion of pagan origins with a god as pagan as ivlolech, Baal or the Asherah. With this information it becomes obvious that we do not worship the same God. Jehovah is the only true and living God. He is the great I A.M who alone deserves the allegiance and service of man.

Truth is a powerful force; but we must never underestimate the power of error and human weakness. When Jesus and the New Testament is compared with the above material, a bright light shining in the darkness is clearly seen. The success of Islam is extraordinary; but no more than any system that deceives and deprives of truth, physically killing and coercing those who dissent.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 8 p. 16-18
April 20, 1995

By Donnie V. Rader

Preaching is important. It helps make us what we are. If we feed upon weak preaching, we will be weak. If we feed upon strong preaching, our lives will correspond to that. If the preaching is out of balance, we can become out of balance as well.

Let’s consider a few points about the preaching that preachers must do and Christians must demand. Why do we need to take note of what Christians demand? It is just as important for Christians to desire the right preaching as it is for preachers to preach it. The kind of preaching that a person wants is what he will find (2 Tim. 4:3). The type preaching that we encourage is the type we want to hear. What we criticize, is what we do not care to hear. While the Christians within a local congregation may not determine what a particular man preaches, they do decide what is preached in their pulpit by the selection of meeting preachers as well as a local man.

Sound Preaching

Preachers must be sound in their preaching. Christians must demand that preachers proclaim sound doctrine.

1. We are commanded to preach sound doctrine. Paul instructed Timothy to “hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me” (2 Tim. 1:13). Titus was told to “speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1; cf. 1:9; 2:8).

2. What is sound preaching? The word “sound” means “whole or healthy as in being sound in health” (cf. Vine 4:55). Thus, sound preaching is that which is spiritually healthy and wholesome. Paul equates “sound doctrine” with the “gospel” (1 Tim. 1:10-11). Thus, sound preaching is according to the gospel. The book of Titus which focuses on soundness (1:9, 13; 2:1, 2, 8), begins with the basis and standard for soundness: the revelation of God (Titus 1:1-4). Thus, sound doctrine is that which is according to the revelation of God.

3. What does sound doctrine include? It includes any and all that is in the gospel or revelation of God. From the book of Titus we see that it includes such subjects as God’s nature (1:2), eternal life (1:2; 2:23; 3:7), the grace of God (1:3; 2:11-12; 3:4-7), elder’s work and qualifications (1:5-9), refutation of false teaching (1:10-16), personal godliness (2:1-10), home relationships and responsibilities (2:4-5), our speech (2:8), our example (2:7), the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (2:13-14), obedience to civil law (3:1), how to treat others (3:2-8), baptism (3:5), the work of the Holy Spirit (3:5) and dealing with a heretic (3:10).

Elements of Bible Preaching

There are a few things that will be true if a man is giving Bible preaching. This obviously is not an exhaustive list.

1. Preaches the word of God. The faithful man of God must not preach his opinions or his own thinking, but “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). Paul said his message was the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13).

It is easy for preachers to think that their words of wisdom and their own strong opinions should be received by their hearers with the same open ears that the gospel is. I have heard a few sermons that gave very little Bible reference. Bible preaching is just that: preaching the Bible!

2. Points to God. Our preaching should point to God as source of all creation (Acts 17:24) and the authority of our lives (Acts 17:30-31). We must point to God as the object of our faith and trust. Paul preached so that his hearer’s faith would not stand in the “wisdom of men but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:2-3). Gospel preaching is not designed to please men, but God (1 mess. 2:4-6).

A sound preacher will convert men to God and not to himself. If his preaching causes men to have more faith in him (the preacher) than in God, it will take very little to destroy that kind of faith.

3. Refutes error. Timothy was charged to “Preach the word. . . convince, rebuke, and exhort…” (2 Tim. 4:2). Titus was to instruct elders to stop the mouths of false teachers and rebuke them sharply (Titus 1:9-13). Bible preaching defends the gospel (Phil. 1:17), at times militantly (Act:17:6). A casual reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Lord and his apostles dealt with the errors of the day (both in and out of the church) and answered the arguments of the false teachers.

4. Reproves sin. Proclaiming the word leaves no room to tolerate sin. Thus, the preacher must reprove (2 Tim. 4:2). Worldliness must be clearly denounced (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19- 21; 1 Pet. 4:3).

5. Leads men to salvation. Preaching must tell men about God’s grace, the sacrifice of Christ and redemption available through his blood (Eph. 2:5, 8, 13, 16). Further-more, it must tell men what to do to obtain salvation by the blood of Christ (Acts 2:22, 36, 38).

6. Instructs in right living. The inspired word instructs in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). Being taught right living is a part of going “on to perfection” (Heb. 6:1) or maturing in the Lord. God’s people must learn about the home, marriage, prayer, worship, personal godliness, honesty and attitudes.

7. Distinctive. Bible preaching will distinguish truth and error. Likewise it must differentiate the Lord’s church and denominationalism.

Preaching (over a period of time, not one sermon) that could be presented in any denomination without objection isn’t Bible preaching. The sermons in Acts 2, 3 ,4, 8 were distinctive enough for men to see that they (though they were religious) needed to change!

8. Demands results. The message that gets results will first demand results. The preaching of Peter and Paul called for repentance (Acts 2:37, 38; 17:30-31). A change of heart and life was demanded.

Application must be made to the people. Peter directed his charges of killing the Son of God to the Jews present on Pentecost. He said “you” have crucified him (Acts 2:21-22). John did the same with Herod (Mark 6:14).

9. With the right attitude. Paul described his behavior among the Thessalonians saying, “But we were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children. So affectionately longing for you, we were well pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God, but also our own lives, because you had become dear to us” (1 Thess. 2:7-8).

It is possible for a man to preach the truth and yet do so with an attitude that stinks. His disposition hinders the effect of the gospel. He can take a firm stand and do so with humility. He can rebuke sharply and yet do so with kindness. He can inform and instruct without a know-it-all attitude.

A woman complained to the elders about a sermon on hell. They asked, “Don’t you believe in hell?” “Yes,” she replied. “Don’t you think the preacher should preach on hell?” “Of course,” she said, “But he doesn’t have to sound like he’s glad I’m going there.”

Balanced Preaching

1.There must be balance in our preaching. The whole counsel of God must be taught (Acts 20:27). Paul told Timothy to reprove, rebuke and exhort (2 Tim. 4:2). To fail in any one area will leave our preaching out of balance. Not only must preachers be balanced in what they teach, but churches must also be balanced in the preaching that they demand.

2.It is possible to have an imbalance in either direction. While none among us likes to think that he is not balanced, we all must recognize that it could easily hap-pen.

There are some whose preaching gives a greater emphasis to the “positive” things of the gospel. It isn’t really fair to say their preaching is “all positive,” for everyone who preaches will preach on something “negative” (at least once in a while). What these preachers teach may be true. The problem with this preaching is that it seldom deals with sin, worldliness or the errors of men. That kind of preaching is out of balance for it doesn’t preach the whole counsel of God. The results are that men are left weak and soft and are prepared for a more liberal way of thinking.

On the other hand, there are some whose preaching gives a greater emphasis to the “negative” things of the gospel or “doctrinal” matters. Again, it is unfair to say that their preaching is “all negative” for all of us preach on some things considered “positive.” But, in this preaching, most of the sermons deal with sin, error or some type of rebuke. I have been told before that if every sermon doesn’t step on someone’s toes the preacher is not doing his job. Some may feel that if the preacher is not “blistering britches” every time he mounts the pulpit, he’s getting soft.

Now, brethren, that kind of preaching fails to preach the whole counsel of God and is just as out of balance as the former! I just don’t believe that every time I’m in the pulpit that I have to be giving the brethren (or our denominational friends) a good spanking. Yes, we must deal .with sin, controversy, problems, error, false teachers, etc. The “uncertain sounds” we are hearing among some of our brethren on such subjects as divorce and remarriage, fellowship, the church and the kingdom, the role of women, and the importance of the church coupled with the worldliness that we see suggests that we must sound a warning  loud and clear. If not, we are not preaching the whole counsel.

Likewise we must exhort and encourage (2 Tim. 4:2; Heb. 10:24; 6:9; 3:13). There are some subjects that must be dealt with like the nature of God, evidence of the resurrection, qualification of elders, the need for optimism and enthusiasm (in view of the pessimism of the day), the promises of God, how to treat one another and family relationships. If we do not, we are not preaching the whole counsel of God.

Some sermons will simply instruct. They may not have one word of rebuke. Other sermons will encourage while others may contain reproof and rebuke.

When the major thrust of our preaching is what we have just described it results in: (I) people being discouraged and feeling like no one can possibly live right, (2) reproof and rebuke losing its effect. (It’s like giving children a lot of rebuke with little encouragement when they do right. After a while the rebuke loses its effect since they hear rebuke when they do wrong and they hear rebuke when they do right.) and (3) breeding “positive preaching.” How you ask? By imbalance and overdose. People soon tire of it and look for something with a little encouragement.

3. How do we maintain balance in our preaching? By preaching the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). If we try, we can maintain balance.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 8 p. 23-24
April 20, 1995